Publishing photos of your children on social media may seem like a familiar gesture, but it affects the minor's image, privacy, and digital identity. The doubt becomes concrete when the other parent disagrees, the profile is public, the images show intimate moments, or the child, now old enough, asks for the content to be deleted.
In this guide, I want to clarify who decides on publication, what weight the minor's will carries, and what changes between a private share and a post accessible to many people. We will also look at what steps to consider if the photograph is already online, avoiding two opposite mistakes: thinking that every image is always forbidden or that being parents allows you to freely dispose of your child's image.
The image belongs to the child, not the parents
The right holder is the minor. Parents exercise parental responsibility and represent them, but they must make decisions in their best interest. A photograph is not just a souvenir: it can make a person recognizable, show where they live or study, and reveal habits, health conditions, family relationships, and moments that the child might not want to expose in the future.
Articles 96 and 97 of Law no. 633 of 1941 regulate the exhibition, reproduction, and dissemination of a portrait. The starting point is consent, while exceptions concern specific situations, such as events or ceremonies of public interest, and still do not allow uses that are prejudicial to honor, reputation, or decorum. The regulatory framework can be consulted in the testo della legge sul diritto d’autore.
Being in a public place does not eliminate all protection. A panoramic photo of an event in which the minor appears incidentally is different from a close-up used to tell the story of their private life. What matters are the purpose of the publication, the centrality of the child, the information associated with the image, and the potential prejudice. Even seemingly harmless content can become invasive if accompanied by a name, school, location, or health details.
When the agreement of both parents is required
Parental responsibility is exercised by mutual agreement. If both parents hold it, the online dissemination of recognizable images of the child—especially when public, repeated, commercial, or contested—should not be decided unilaterally. Articles 316 and 337-ter of the Civil Code place agreement and the child's best interest at the center; the relative text is referenced in the quadro normativo sulla responsabilità genitoriale.
Separation does not grant the freedom to publish alone
Joint custody and time spent together are different issues. The fact that the child is with one parent at the time of the shot does not grant that parent exclusive power over the image. Not even exclusive custody automatically allows any publication: one must read the judge's ruling and verify how the exercise of parental responsibility is regulated, especially for decisions of major interest.
Disagreement is not overcome by publishing first
If the other parent objects, the post must be suspended. Publishing anyway and discussing it later exposes the child to dissemination that can become difficult to reverse. Parents can define a precise agreement on types of content, recipients, and sharing methods. If the conflict concerns an important choice and cannot be resolved, either party can turn to the competent judge to decide according to the minor's interest.
Consent should not be understood as unlimited authorization. An agreement regarding a photograph of a school play does not automatically authorize public albums, daily videos, or promotional content. Purpose and breadth of dissemination matter: if the audience, context, or information combined with the photo changes, the decision must be reconsidered.
The child's will must be taken seriously
The minor is not a passive subject. Their opinion must be considered based on age and maturity. Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognizes the right of minors to express their views freely in matters that concern them and requires their best interests to be a primary consideration. You can consult the testo dell’articolo 24 della Carta.
A young child may not understand the scope of a publication, but this requires greater caution from adults, not less protection. As they grow older, a clear dissent acquires particular significance. If a teenager asks not to publish or to delete an embarrassing photograph, the parents' agreement alone is not enough to make the choice compliant with their interest.
The threshold of fourteen years provided by Article 2-quinquies of the Privacy Code concerns the minor's consent to information society services offered directly to them. The testo della disciplina sul consenso digitale del minore does not grant parents a general permission to publish and does not turn fourteen into an automatic threshold for disposing of the child's image.
Public profiles, private profiles, and chats are not the same thing
The audience reached changes the concrete risk. A public profile, a video open to sharing, or content accompanied by hashtags can circulate well beyond the parent's contacts. A private account reduces the initial recipients, but does not prevent screenshots, downloads, forwarding, or subsequent changes to settings. The word "private" on the platform does not guarantee future control of the image.
A photograph sent to a few family members in a closed chat has a different scope than a public post, but still requires respect for the child. The problem is not only the number of recipients: content, recognizability, the intimacy of the moment, and the possibility of further forwarding all matter. Photos of nudity, medical treatments, emotional crises, or punishments do not become appropriate simply because they are shared in a restricted group.
Obscuring the face can reduce identifiability, but does not always eliminate it. School uniforms, locations, captions, voices, tattoos, family names, or links to the parent's profile can make the minor indirectly recognizable. The content as a whole must be considered, not just the presence of the face. The same caution applies to temporary stories: the short visible duration does not prevent someone from saving them.
What to do if the photo is already online
The first useful request is documented removal. If the publication comes from the other parent, a relative, or an acquaintance, it is advisable to clearly indicate which content must be deleted and why it harms the minor's image or privacy. Before deletion, screenshots, links, dates, visibility settings, and traces of any resharing can be preserved.
Reporting to the platform and requests to the profile manager
Internal social media tools can be used to report content involving a minor, a fake account, or unauthorized use of an image. Reporting does not always replace legal protection, and its outcome depends on the platform's rules and the content. The GDPR recognizes rights regarding personal data, including erasure in certain cases; the text is available in the Regolamento europeo 2016/679.
Recourse to the judge when dissemination continues
If the person responsible does not remove the content, continues to publish, or creates a current risk for the minor, a court order for cessation and removal can be requested. When procedural prerequisites are met, urgent protection can also be requested. Urgency depends on concrete prejudice, ongoing dissemination, and the risk that the image will continue to circulate, not merely on the existence of family conflict.
Article 10 of the Civil Code and Articles 96 and 97 of Law no. 633 of 1941 protect the right to one's image. The Constitutional Court has recognized the compatibility of precautionary protection with freedom of expression when it is necessary to protect privacy, reputation, and personality rights: you can consult the sentenza n. 38 del 1973 della Corte costituzionale. Any compensation is not automatic: it requires the verification of the unlawful act, the damage, and the link between conduct and consequences.
How to prevent unwanted re-exposure
A concrete agreement is more useful than generic consent. Parents can establish whether the face will be visible, which profiles may publish, whether names and locations are permitted, how long the content will remain online, and what happens when the child asks for removal. They can also agree that relatives, schools, associations, or other persons shall not publish without prior authorization.
Caution increases when the photo shows nudity, illness, disability, moments of fragility, school results, daily habits, or data that allow the minor to be located. Reducing associated information, limiting recipients, and listening to the child do not eliminate every risk, but they help distinguish family sharing from the construction of a digital identity decided entirely by adults.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I post a photo if the other parent does not reply?
Silence does not always equal consent. If the photograph makes the child recognizable and dissemination is public, repeated, or potentially prejudicial, it is prudent to obtain express agreement. Prior consent for other images does not automatically authorize any new content, especially when the audience, purpose, or associated information changes.
Is both parents' consent enough even if my child says no?
Not necessarily. The right to image belongs to the child, and their opinion must be considered according to age and maturity. Conscious dissent, particularly from a teenager, can make publication contrary to their interest even when both parents initially authorized it.
Does a private profile allow me to publish freely?
No, profile privacy reduces but does not eliminate the problem. Contacts can save and forward the photograph, and settings can change. Consent, the minor's will, the image's content, and information allowing identification or localization remain decisive.
Can I obtain the immediate deletion of photographs?
You can immediately ask for their removal from the profile manager and use the platform's reporting tools. If the request is ignored and the prejudice is current, a court appeal can be evaluated, including urgently when prerequisites are met. However, the actual elimination of already disseminated copies may be more difficult.
Can I also ask for compensation?
Compensation does not automatically follow publication. It must be proven that dissemination was unlawful, produced concrete damage, and that such damage stems from the contested conduct. Content, breadth of circulation, duration, any comments, and consequences for the minor affect the assessment.
Protecting the child before conflict escalates
The central question is what interest the minor holds, not which parent controls the social media profile. Before publishing, it is wise to consider recognizability, audience, duration, linked information, and the child's will. If images are already online and confrontation does not lead to removal, you can contact me to frame the dissent, identify the relevant protection, and evaluate whether judicial intervention is necessary.