Clubs, photos and minors: managing consent properly

Scrapbooks, team photos, club websites and social media posts have long been part of modern club communication. However, especially when minors are involved, well-intentioned public relations work can quickly turn into a legal risk: the right to one’s own image requires a valid consent, and the General Data Protection Regulation sets strict standards for transparency, purpose limitation and proof. Anyone who also works with producers and trading partners – for example in sticker and album projects – bears responsibility not only for what happens on their own server, but for an entire chain of processing operations. This article shows how association work can be organized in a legally compliant and practical manner without bringing communication to a standstill.

Initial situation: public relations work with fall height

The typical scenario begins innocuously enough: a club plans a campaign with an external provider who produces an album, while a regional retailer handles the promotion. Minors appear in team photos, the images end up in print, on store shelves, on landing pages and in posts. All of this is intended to show community, retain sponsors and promote young talent. From a legal point of view, however, the question arises as to whether the required consent of the legal guardians has actually been obtained, whether the scope of the consent corresponds to the planned uses and whether this consent has been documented in a way that can be proven. At the latest when a child is recognizably depicted without effective consent, good advertising turns into a claim for injunctive relief – often accompanied by requests for information, deletion and possibly compensation.

Legal guard rails: Thinking the KUG and GDPR together

The Art Copyright Act is the classic starting point. § Section 22 KUG requires consent before images are distributed or publicly displayed. The exceptions in Section 23 KUG are narrow and only apply to club communication with minors in exceptional cases; a sticker album or a dealer POS are not historical events, and the “incidental” offense also regularly fails if the person is identifiably in focus. The GDPR applies in parallel: A photo is personal data, any publication is processing. Without a legal basis – usually Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR – the use is not permitted. Information obligations, data subject rights (Art. 15 and 17 GDPR) and data security are added. The requirements are stricter for minors; Art. 8 GDPR illustrates the level of protection and makes it clear that parental authorization and its verification are not a formality, but a real verification task.

The interaction of the regulations is essential: the KUG is based on the right to one’s own image, the GDPR on data processing. Effective consent must therefore address both levels. It must be informed, voluntary, earmarked and documented; it must remain revocable; and it must match the content of what actually happens – a website is not the same as print, a closed member area is not the same as a social media reel, and an internal seasonal magazine is not the same as a commercially distributed scrapbook.

Focus on minors: consent, scope, revocation

As soon as children are involved, the requirements for diligence and transparency increase. The practice of “tacit consent” during training or on the sidelines does not work. The explicit, comprehensibly explained consent of the legal guardians is required. This consent should be granular: Why are photos taken, in which channels are they published, whether and to what extent names are used, whether there are press releases, whether retailer campaigns, posters or albums are planned. Anyone taking team photos should therefore not just ask for “photos for the homepage”, but differentiate between seasonal and project-specific photos. This prevents misunderstandings later on and considerably reduces the effort in the event of a revocation. This is because a revocation usually takes effect ex nunc; the club must be able to manage the technical and organizational aspects of what happens afterwards – from removing a contribution to initiating deletions with service providers to blocking republications.

Responsibilities beyond the association: producer, retailer, shared responsibility

As soon as external providers are involved in the use of images, the question of roles arises. In many projects, the association, producer and retailer jointly determine the purposes and means of processing – design, selection of motifs, distribution channels, marketing – and are therefore at least in part “joint controllers” within the meaning of Art. 26 GDPR. In other constellations, the producer acts on instructions as a processor in accordance with Art. 28 GDPR. The correct classification is not a label, but controls obligations: Who informs whom, who checks consents, who complies with deletion deadlines, who responds to data subject rights, who documents technical and organizational measures. The case law of the European Court of Justice on joint responsibility has made it clear that joint responsibility can exist even if not every body holds all the data itself. For associations, this means that contracts with producers and distributors need a robust Art. 26/28 annex, and the “chain of rights” must not only be asserted, but verified – including copyrights to the photos, trademark rights and press rights.

Consent management as a process: from the signature to the chain of evidence

Legal certainty is not created by a nice form, but by a practiced process. It starts with a comprehensible, purpose-related consent that distinguishes between seasonal and project cases and names the relevant channels individually: public website, social media, club magazine, press distribution list, sponsor materials, retailer campaigns, print products. These consents belong in a system that stores versions, time stamps and revocations in a traceable manner and links them to the media archive. Ideally, each motif is given an ID; approvals are granted on a motif-related basis so that it can later be verified in a court of law what was actually permitted. Photographers, trainers and social media teams need to know which children have a publication ban; without effective communication, the best forms are useless.

If special projects are pending – such as a calendar, a poster or a sticker album – an additional project-specific release is recommended. It is concise, clear and tailored to the project: Print run, distribution channels, time period, partners involved. This approval not only helps legally, but also organizationally; it makes it clear which parents consciously say “yes” and which have reservations. If the approval is later withdrawn, it is possible to react precisely instead of frantically searching through archives and comparing screenshots.

Complaints and disputes: structured, swift, verifiable

If a complaint is received, the first step is decisive. A factual confirmation of receipt, the immediate blocking of the material concerned and a transparent presentation of the further process take the tension out of the procedure. The second step is to check whether there is reliable consent, whether it covers the specific channel and purpose, whether the person was clearly identifiable and whether the revocation relates to past or current use. In practice, it has been shown that swift deletion, clear communication and an orderly information package often avoid legal disputes. If there is actually no legal basis, a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause is often the method of choice to eliminate the risk of repetition. At the same time, the internal chain should be corrected: Activate contractual recall mechanisms, block merchandise management, instruct service providers, clear up social media calendars, inform press offices.

Finally, documentation plays a central role in the question of immaterial damages under Art. 82 GDPR. Anyone who can prove that processes exist, that responsibilities have been clarified and that complaints are responded to in a structured manner not only reduces the risk of liability, but also the justification of the claim in individual cases.

Practical implementation without bullet point orchestra

A functioning system can be established step by step. It starts with an honest inventory: which channels are used, which image pools exist, which projects are running, which children are particularly sensitive. This results in a streamlined set of rules with two pillars: ongoing seasonal communication and project-related special use. A clean basic consent with clear channels and an understandable revocation process is sufficient for seasonal communication. For special projects, an additional release is used that explicitly covers the special character – such as printing and distribution. Contracts with producers and distributors are updated in parallel: Responsibilities are assigned in accordance with Art. 26 or Art. 28 GDPR, obligations to provide evidence of consent are agreed, recall and takedown clauses are made binding, including deadlines, blocks in the merchandise management system and communication guidelines for POS and social media.

Technically, no large-scale project is required. A simple consent database with a version history, linked to an organized media archive, already creates the necessary chain of evidence. In addition, trainers, supervisors and social media teams are trained: What is allowed on which channels, how to act in the event of “no-consent”, how to respond to press inquiries. A streamlined takedown playbook describes how to proceed in the event of complaints – from the first mouse click to the final note.

Communication that creates trust – and SEO that gets found

Legal certainty depends on comprehensibility. An information sheet on the association’s website that explains how to handle photos reduces reservations and creates transparency. If you answer the most frequently asked questions there – whether consent is required, how revocation works, which partners receive images, which deadlines apply – you reduce email ping-pong and increase the willingness to give consent. Incidentally, such a page also helps findability: terms such as “GDPR in the club”, “Consent team photo children”, “Right to one’s own image in the club”, “Club scrapbook” or “Sticker album data protection” naturally belong in the texts, without keyword staccato. Search engines like a clear structure; parents and sponsors like clear words.

Conclusion: Professionalism protects – children first

Club life lives from pictures. Legal certainty arises when the right questions are asked in advance and answered properly: Does effective consent exist, does it fit the specific purpose, are roles and duties clarified with partners, does revocation work in practice, is the documentation resilient. Those who work through these points reliably avoid disputes, protect the personal rights of minors and at the same time gain certainty for public relations work, sponsoring and promoting young talent. Public relations work and the protection of children are not mutually exclusive – they only require the professionalism that is good for the day-to-day running of the association anyway.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.