We are used to seeing in the media, both on paper and digital and on television, to faceless children. Are the famous children to those we see throughout his childhood, alone or with his parents, with the pixelated face, so that they cannot be recognized.
But one good day, the eighteenth birthday, with the coming of age also comes the demyelination, and his face is finally revealed. In Spain, the Juvenile Law protects the privacy of children and prohibits publishing photos of minors without the consent of their parents. But, Does the privacy of the children of celebrities really protect their faces?
What does the law say
Organic Law 1/1996, of January 15, on the legal protection of minors, establishes in Article 4 (Right to honor, privacy and self-image):
The dissemination of information or the use of images or names of minors in the media that may involve a illegitimate interference in your privacy, honor or reputation, or that is contrary to their interests, will determine the intervention of the Fiscal Ministry, which will immediately urge the precautionary and protective measures provided for in the Law and will request the corresponding compensation for the damages caused.
Why do pixelated children's faces appear?
According to Organic Law 1/1982, the media should have the consent of the parents ratified by the Prosecutor to publish the image of the child. That is, it is not enough for the parents to authorize it, but that it must be ratified by the judicial authority. This is so to avoid that some parents can try to benefit through the use of the image of the child.
As this procedure would be very cumbersome for the media whenever the image of a minor was to be published, and the immediacy of the media would make it unfeasible, they avoid it by pixelating the child's face or placing a black stripe on the eyes, although this is almost no longer done.
Although parents are famous, children do not choose to be public figures, therefore their image must be protected as part of their right to privacy.There are numerous sentences that condemn different media for having revealed the identity of the children of celebrities, claiming that the famous character of the parents does not transform the minor into a public and notorious person, nor does it make it necessary to disseminate the image of a child who has the right to legal protection of his privacy.
The "D" day: demyelination
Children grow up and one day they come of age. As just happened, for example, with Andrea Janeiro, daughter of Belén Esteban and Jesulín de Ubrique, who turned eighteen springs and a great media revolution was put together following the diffusion of his image, even having to endure unpleasant insults.
Not only can we see his face from now on, but also a whole photographic tour in every possible situation since the girl came into the world, now showing his face. Isn't this situation more stressful for the girl?
Pixels do not protect privacy
All minors they have the right to the protection of their own image and their privacy, whether they are children of celebrities or not. There is no doubt about that. But there must be a responsible coherence on the part of famous parents so that the child's privacy is really preserved.
We may not know the factions of many famous children, but we know much deeper features even without knowing what their faces look like.
We have known all kinds of details about his life from the mouth of his own parents. If they ate, if not, how they felt about this or that situation, details about the relationship of their parents ... without thinking about the consequences of having a simple comment for children.
So, What is the point of pixelating his face to preserve his identity if he has been told all his life for eighteen years in magazines and on television sets?
Pixels can hide your face, but they don't protect children's privacy if parents take care of undressing them in magazines and TV sets.Right to privacy and social networks
Some famous parents protect the image of their offspring in their social networks, taking them off their backs or in poses where their faces are not seen, as they did David Bustamante and Paula Echevarría with his daughter Daniella until a few months ago.
We barely know the faces of the daughters of Fran riveraFor example, he has always been very jealous of protecting the image of girls in the press. Your Instagram account is private so we can't see them there either, totally or partially.
What is the point, then, for pixelated media to appear if the parents themselves post photos with their children?
With the rise of social networks, many celebrities share everyday photos with their children as do Pilar Rubio and Sergio Ramos in their Instagram accounts. There we see them with their faces uncovered although then the same photos come out in the media with pixelated faces.
So so that their faces are pixelated in the media if we can see their faces in the social networks of their own parents? There is a great debate on this matter, since Social media legislation in this regard is not yet regulated..
On the one hand, there are those who defend that by publishing them on their social networks, parents are consenting to expose the public image of their children, being responsible for it, but it does not imply that the media can do so.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that if the parents have already made this photograph public, there is no real obligation to pixelate it.
On the other end, there are celebrities like Gerard Piqué and Shakira who asked that little Milan's face not be pixelated when he was born:
"I see the children of celebrities who appear in the photos with their faces covered and I do not understand. I do not want my son taken with a pixelated face. He will be nine years old, look at the magazine and say: I have no face , I'm not nobody? That's why we decided to present it and that's it, "said the Barca player.
What do you think about the right to privacy of the children of celebrities?
