It highlights “the character of public figures” of the parents and that they would have disclosed the birth of the girl
MADRID, 15 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court (TS) has endorsed the public dissemination of images of minor children, even if only with the consent of a parent, in a case where both the father and the mother were “public figures” and two reports had been published in the press where the wife and daughter appeared without his consent.
In an informative note, the Civil Chamber indicates that it has rejected the appeal filed by the father of the minor, born in 2017, who had sued the media outlet that manages the website on which the two reports were published. , which included unpixelated images of the girl.
The man alleged that it was an interference with the right to privacy and the daughter’s own image for which he had not given his consent.
The first report was based on an interview with the mother during confinement about her daily routine and was illustrated with images of the girl provided by the mother herself.
The second, published on the occasion of the loss of custody by the mother, replicated the link to her social network in which photographs of the girl appeared.
The First Chamber recalls that the provincial court has already dismissed the claim because, although when it comes to publishing images of minors in the press, the consent –of the “mature minor” or their representatives– is insufficient due to “the risk of harm to the interest of the minor”, when they are “immature minors”, “as is the case”, the consent must be given by the holders of parental authority, only one valid “according to social usage and circumstances”.
In this case “the consent of the mother is accredited, who at that time also exercised parental authority over the girl”, for which reason the court considers that “the rights of the minor have not been violated”.
The Supreme Court points out “the character of public figures of the minor’s parents, derived not only from their professional activity, but also for having promoted that interest by frequently appearing in the social media and publicly disclosing their marriage , the birth of their daughter and also the fact of their separation, other photographs having been published with their consent”.
It also indicates that “there is no record that the father went to the website to show his opposition to the publication of the images, but that he directly brought legal action” against the mother, “who withdrew said images when she was notified of the lawsuit” .
The court points out that the first report must take into account “the context and circumstances in which it was carried out, during the confinement period, when these practices – recordings of moments of daily life – were widely extended and generalized. as social use”.
“For this reason, it can be understood that social use and circumstances supported the validity of the consent given by the mother and that, in the absence of opposition directed by the father to the environment, the latter could presume in good faith that the mother’s actions were not it was done against the father’s will,” he says.
To this, the Civil Chamber adds that the content disseminated in that first report “is not contrary to the interest of the minor nor does it affect her privacy, since it does not reveal any reserved or intimate information.”
Regarding the second report, the Supreme Court explains that “what the defendant medium did was replicate the link to the mother’s social network, accessible and available on the Internet, in a diffusion that, due to its specific characteristics, is a natural consequence of the character accessible from that data and images”.
“For the rest, the photos are innocuous for the identification of the girl, and in any case they add nothing to those disclosed in the previous report,” the high court concludes.
