zlacker

I am concerned that the effect of this legislation on the private individual is the opposite of the stated intention.

People are being forced to sign agreements which jeopardise the natural rights to their data which they would otherwise have.

One example: a friend who has a very pretty daughter was asked by her school to give them the right to film her and to use any and all such recordings as they see fit for 50 years even after she leaves the school.

This feels very wrong on just about all the conceivable levels.

>>Sagely+(OP)
What ? It's the opposite, it allow you to access and delete the data, even if you gave consent one time. And your image concern a lot of other old laws, even if you sell it you can get it back later.

>>Sagely+(OP)
Is that a GDPR issue, or a copyright/"release" issue?

(note that privacy and GDPR issues apply differently for children)

> natural rights to their data which they would otherwise have

This is not a thing. Data has traditionally "belonged" to the entity doing the recording of the data.

>>Jubok+n
I have difficulty in understanding your language and in following your logic. Surely, signing away the rights to your records for over 50 years can not be better for you than not signing them?

>>Sagely+(OP)
I am not sure where you are, but this is usually standard. You can’t film someone at a place where there’s some expected form of privacy and use that footage publicly.

Talking about GDPR, the fact they had to ask is proof it works. It’s an opt in. Your friend now has the option to say yes if they want to share it, but the default is no.

There are also provisions for withdrawing consent after giving it. The agreement can’t go above that law.

>>pjc50+q1
Well, I don't know. I am asking. She is a minor under orders of the school, so she is in no position to refuse being filmed, anywhere in the school, showers, toilets, anything.

Suppose she in later life becomes a Hollywood star and her school starts selling these recordings of her on the internet because, after all, her father has given them a permission to do this for fifty years ahead?

>>Sagely+U1
English may not be my mother tongue but I can logically follow an argument. Your friend' daughter was not obligated to sign such contract and GDPR reinforce previous laws protecting her image ;)

>>Sagely+U1
This law has nothing to do with signing away the rights of your image to be used for publicity, though. GDPR does not come into play at all in the scenario with your friend’s daughter; the school is likely abusing laws in their request and should be investigated, but those laws aren’t related to GDPR and the existence of GDPR does not somehow cause the daughter’s position to be weaker here.

>>Sagely+U1
GDPR states, that even if you give consent now you can withdraw this consent anytime. So even if OP consents now and in one year decides he/she doesn't want the daughter's videos being used anymore he/she can do this and the school needs to honor that (or else: big fines).

So GDPR helps you in maintaining control over your data as you see fit.

>>Sagely+U1
I'm skeptical this is genuinely because of GDPR.

Consent could be withdrawn before or after GDPR. My guess is that the school have realised they're at risk of having to reprint all their promotional materials if consent is withdrawn.

So they need a contract, a model release. They needed that before GDPR. If you don't like the terms, don't sign it.

>>Sagely+(OP)
The only thing which would make that outrageous would be an element of force (which would make it not consent anyway, but I digress). Instead, you're giving an example that explicitly allows for a denial. That's exactly as it always should have been, so I really don't understand what the point is that you're trying to make here.

>>Sagely+x2
"she is in no position to refuse being filmed, anywhere in the school, showers, toilets, anything."

This actually made me chuckle a little. I genuinely have no idea if you're joking here because this sentence is ridiculous.

>>Sagely+x2
You could just ... not sign the permission form?

(Which EU country is this btw?)

>>Sagely+U1
.. but not having the opportunity to say no to the form and the data being taken anyway is worse?

>>Sagely+U1
How is this relevant to GDPR?

>>Sagely+(OP)
Art.7(3): "The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time."

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

>>Sagely+(OP)
Under the GDPR, consent must be revokable, at any time, and as easy to withdraw consent as to give it. So you could sign that. Then 5 minutes later withdraw consent.

Additionally consent must be "freely given". If you would be punished (e.g. expelled from school) then you haven't given consent, so they can't use it.

>>Sagely+U1
Under the GPDR, you can't "sign away" your rights. You always have the right to cancel any "contract"/"agreement" like that.

>>rmc+5c
"freely given" is not a very clear concept in these circumstances. Parents do not want to antagonise the school and/or put their child at some kind of disadvantage, so they sign. Is that still "freely given"? It looks like GDPR is being used (as an excuse?) to make parents sign things which otherwise they might not. I hear you say that that is not the problem of GDPR and you can withdraw your consent later but how many will know that or remember to do so?

From the above "school might have to reprint all its publicity materials if consent is withdrawn" it is clear that this would be viewed as being antagonistic towards the school and its interests.

>>krageo+R3
The point is simply that the school is now at risk of huge fines, so in turn it puts pressure on parents to sign as strong as possible waivers. Not many people here seem to understand it but that is what is happening.

The force is of purely psychological nature, of course: "surely, you don't want to cause problems to your school?"

>>Sagely+7j
What richmarr said. If a contract is in place, then the terms of contract would take precedence over GDPR as "legitimate interest". In other words, zero change before or after GDPR. If the school is trying to get free modelling out of the kids with tick boxes, they risk the consequences, GDPR or otherwise.

>>pjc50+q1
That's a US-ism. Somewhere between many and most countries have a "natural rights" concept that considers certain creator/subject rights to be inalienable and neither belonging to recorders or permanently assignable to them.

>>Sagely+He
> Parents do not want to antagonise the school and/or put their child at some kind of disadvantage, so they sign. Is that still "freely given"?

That's a good point, and there might be a court case about that. I agree that the parent probably doesn't have enough free choice. If the law was to say "That isn't freely given", then the school doesn't have consent, so they can't use the images!. That's the beauty of it. It's a different legal viewpoint than "signed contract uber alles". DPA should look at if you had real consent.

> it is clear that this would be viewed as being antagonistic towards the school and its interests.

Good? The whole point of the GDPR & EU data protection law is to push the pendulum the other way, because it's gone too far. If someone can come up and force them to reprint everything, and then someone else force them to reprint everything, well maybe they should collect less personal data? If they didn't collect personal data, they wouldn't have this risk. EU law is trying to discourage massive data collection.