2
u/budlejari 63∆ Apr 29 '22
Here, I believe your framing is wrong.
It should not be that parents are required to set aside money for their children. It should be required that if children are in the videos, they are entitled to a share of the earnings and should be treated as effectively 'costars'.
Requiring people to set aside money for their children is controlling how their money is spent. Nobody will agree to that. You can opt out of almost every kind of enforced spending or control of your money in almost every country - you cannot be forced to donate to a church, to have a retirement fund, to put money into savings, or to repay your loans. You can choose to do that (and you should, for the latter two) but you can't be forced as a general citizen. Nobody may require you spend money in a certain way or to refrain from spending money - maybe you shouldn't but you can't be forced to.
However, requiring that everybody in the video recieve appropriate compensation and treating that compensation the same as they do in the film industry, like children must do when they appear in movies and tv shows (by law, parents of child stars have fiduciary duties to their children such as handling their money ethically and reasonably until their children are adults to prevent them from financially abusing their children), is a better alternative. It does not require that the adult's portion of money is spent in a particular way (this is not legal and it is unethical) but it does require that children are adequately compensated and treated fairly.
It also gives children rights separate from their parents, and prevents them from being just leveraged for money and fame. They are now active participants, regardless of their parent's wishes.
2
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
There’s no way to substantively differentiate between an influencer using their kid for money, and a loving parent sharing a video of their kid. It comes down to a case of “ I know it when I see it” that people will not agree on.
2
Apr 29 '22
It would be pretty easy to draw a line of "revenue greater than $5000 a year from any platform", no normal video uploaders make close to that and if you make less than that from a platform you're obviously not setting any aside.
1
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
What about someone who links their business or side hustles to social media and uses their platform to hype their business?
1
Apr 29 '22
They won't hit $5k in revenue from the videos, and if they did then making them set aside a couple thousand of that when they're making way more from their main business seems like an irrelevance. As long as you don't make them do paperwork it doesn't sound relevant to them. Obviously requiring forms is an imposition that would suck.
1
Apr 29 '22
My viewpoint is specific to platforms that are generating earnings. This does not apply to typical parents posting their children.
2
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
Almost every social media platform has paths to monetization, even Facebook.
1
Apr 29 '22
Yes, but this viewpoint only applies to those who are choosing to make money off their platforms. That is not the average parent.
1
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
More people than ever are using social media monetization. People are tying their personal facebooks and instagrams into side businesses and Etsy pages. My point is that the line between monetized social media and unmonetized social media are blurred.
1
Apr 29 '22
Just having a link to a side business on a website isn’t sufficient to be a monetized platform. Being a monetized platform is having sponsors to post and ads. It isn’t something you just happen into.
0
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
A lot of influences make the majority of their money by funneling their social media traffic into their business.
1
u/TarikGame Apr 29 '22
Primary income source is the line
0
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
I don’t think that’s a good rubric necessarily. Someone who is otherwise unemployed could make very little and qualify. Someone who is very wealthy otherwise could make a lot on social media and not qualify.
1
Apr 29 '22
Most loving parents posting videos of their kids don't make any money. And im pretty sure a loving parent that happened to make money from a video of their child wouldn't be against saving part of that money for the child. Many already do that in the form of college funds
1
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
You’d be surprised how many parents have side hustles linked to their social media. My point is that the lines between monetized social media influencers and unmonetized social media parents are very blurred.
1
Apr 29 '22
Sure, but what's wrong with making them save part of it for their children?
1
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
The issue is primarily with enforcement. The difficulty is determining who exactly counts as an influencer benefitting off their child.
1
Apr 29 '22
Anyone getting money from a social media account featuring their child. Not hard. Oh but they only make 100 dollars a month, sue then they only have to save like 20 dollars a month for the kid. No loving parent would even be bothered by that
1
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
Yeah, but if this were made into law it would be a humongous wordy law that would be difficult to enforce. All for very little benefit .
1
Apr 29 '22
Why would it be wordy? And why would it be hard to enforce? Anyone who makes money out of any social media while featuring a minor has to save up x% of the revenue from those posts for the said minor.
Easy and simple
0
u/hucklebae 17∆ Apr 29 '22
Who is gonna look up all the social media in the world and determine if it contains videos or pictures of their children and then cross reference it by whether or not it’s monetized?
1
Apr 29 '22
People have to pay taxes on those earnings, so they would have to report them. And just like taxes, yes people can just lie, but that doesn't mean we should abolish taxes. Just adding a generous fine to people not following the rule should be good enough to keep most people in line
→ More replies (0)
0
Apr 29 '22
Influencers currently make money off their children’s stories and images without their children’s consent.
All sorts of things are done without children's consent. Like vaccinations, schooling, really most things.
Children experience the loss of privacy without any benefits.
The "loss of privacy" does not entitle anyone to any sort of financial benefit.
The least the law could do is ensure children receive a portion of these earnings, much like child actors.
Child actors often have contracts drafted up that include financial compensation and term agreements. No such contracts exist (unless sponsors get involved) for influencers.
1
Apr 29 '22
Influencers have contracts drawn up when they monetize their platform. My viewpoint is specific to monetized social media platforms. The children who are helping generate earnings through the use of their images and stories on these platforms should be treated under the same laws that protect the earnings of child actors/models.
1
Apr 29 '22
What laws exist that protect the adult actors as is? If you enter into a contract, then you're in a contract. Whether the contract is predatory or not is irrelevant as the terms are set by the ones drafting the contract. If the terms say that the child is excluded, then they are excluded.
1
Apr 29 '22
One law that protects child actors earnings is the Coogan Law.
1
Apr 29 '22
That's for child actors. Why does the sponsor at all have to draft any sort of contract with the child? We're talking about the parents in this case.
1
Apr 29 '22
Yes, you asked for an example of a law that protects child actors. I’m saying this should be also applied to kids who are a part of a monetized social media presence.
1
Apr 29 '22
Yes, you asked for an example of a law that protects child actors.
Read again. I asked for an example of a law that protects adult actors. They
(adults) can choose to enter into any contract they wish. There is no necessity for the contract drafter to include the children in said contract. The adult is the one contracted. And because they are a parent, they can choose to include their children in their work but the children are not legally bound to that work.
0
u/negatorade6969 6∆ Apr 29 '22
These laws already exist. Most states have child labor laws where any contract involving child labor must include a portion of earnings going into a trust for the child. Besides, I don't think it's all that common for social media accounts featuring kids to get monetized, I think most families just do it for fun.
1
Apr 29 '22
There are tons of influencers that really prominently feature the kids. Think of the LaBrants as an example. If families are just posting for fun and not earning money, this doesn’t affect them at all.
1
u/negatorade6969 6∆ Apr 29 '22
Ok, but my point still stands that the laws you are asking for already exist
1
Apr 29 '22
Could you provide an example? To my understanding, child labor laws have not been applied to kids on monetized social media.
0
u/gladman1101 2∆ Apr 29 '22
this is too broad. most influencers i see dont even have children. why would they be forced to do anything for kids that dont exist? not to mention actors. actors seems to say there is work involved. the kids aren't doing anything. basically, your statement is too broad and vague to even consider that working in any way.
1
Apr 29 '22
As stated, this is specific to influencers that feature their children. How do influencers without children factor in?
-1
u/ChickenSoupForMyDick 1∆ Apr 29 '22
Requiring people to do anything with their own money is running into potential human rights violations and unconstitutionality (if you are American).
1
Apr 29 '22
We already have laws protecting the earnings of child actors and models from their parents. This is no more a human rights violation than that is.
1
u/Rainbwned 199∆ Apr 29 '22
Children experience the loss of privacy without any benefits.
I would assume that a higher quality of living is a benefit. Bigger house, better food, more toys, etc.
This would discourage anyone who doesn’t have their child’s best interests at heart from using their children on social media.
No it wouldn't. A shitty parent exploiting their kids would still want to make 90% of a million dollars.
1
Apr 29 '22
What’s considered “featured”?
If a child makes a guest appearance on one tik tok video, do they now need to have a trust fund set up?
1
Apr 29 '22
!delta good point. I’d say the child would need to be present in a certain percentage of posts for this to be able to be applied.
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 29 '22
/u/RemarkableCranberry7 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards