Family Vlogging and Sharenting: What GDPR Says About Your Own Child's Content

Short answer: no Danish sharenting law, but GDPR still applies

Denmark has no dedicated law on "sharenting" — a parent's practice of sharing photos and videos of their children on social media. But the absence of a specific statute doesn't mean the absence of rules: when a parent-influencer publishes monetized content featuring their own child, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies in full, the same as for any other personal data. Two legal researchers at Aalborg University, Anne Mørk and Tanja Kammersgaard Christensen, concluded in research covered by DR (Danmarks Radio) on 7 March 2025 that in the vast majority of cases there is no valid legal basis for that kind of sharing — because a child cannot give the free, informed consent GDPR requires, to their own parent.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. The rules in this area are still evolving and partly unsettled — get a specific legal assessment if this is decisive for you.

Two different questions that are easy to mix up

This article covers something different from work permits for child influencers, which is about whether the child's own participation requires a labour-law permit from Arbejdstilsynet. This article covers a separate thing: data protection law — whether a valid legal basis exists at all for publishing images and videos of a child in monetized content, regardless of whether the child appears "fixed" or "regular" enough to trigger a work-permit requirement. The two questions apply at the same time and independently of each other — a post can sit comfortably under the work-permit threshold and still raise a data protection problem. It's also distinct from marketing to children and teenagers through influencers, which is about children as the audience of an ad, not as the person being depicted.

The starting point: GDPR's exemption for personal or household activity

GDPR Article 2(2)(c) exempts "processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity" from the regulation's general rules — the so-called household exemption. A parent sharing photos of their own children in a closed family group chat is a textbook example of something the exemption covers.

When does a public post already fall outside the exemption? The CJEU's Lindqvist ruling

The household exemption isn't unlimited, even with zero commercial dimension. The EU Court of Justice held as far back as 2003, in the foundational Lindqvist case (Case C-101/01, judgment of 6 November 2003, paragraph 47), that the exemption covers only activities carried out in the course of private or family life — and that publishing personal data on the internet so it becomes accessible to an indefinite number of people clearly falls outside it. The case wasn't about children or influencers at all — it concerned a church volunteer who posted colleagues' names and details on a website — but the principle is stated generally and applies to any public internet publication. A public Instagram or TikTok post featuring a child is, by definition, accessible to an indefinite number of people. That means such a post can, in practice, fall outside the household exemption purely by virtue of being public — entirely independent of whether the account makes any money from it.

Why a parent can't simply consent on the child's behalf

Once content is commercial — used for ads, affiliate links or sponsored posts — it's no longer private use, per mlaw.dk's and the Aalborg researchers' analysis, and GDPR's ordinary rules on a lawful basis for processing, in Article 6(1), come into play. Here are the three bases that typically come up, and why the Aalborg University research concludes that none of them hold up for a child's image in this context:

The Aalborg research's conclusion is therefore blunt: once the use is commercial, the researchers can't point to any of the three ordinary bases that validly makes it lawful for a parent-influencer to share images of their own child.

The honest gap: nobody actively enforces this in Denmark today

Here's the most practically relevant point for a parent-influencer or a brand considering a collaboration: per DR's 7 March 2025 coverage of the same research, Datatilsynet does not currently appear to have specific focus on this area, and there's no authority in Denmark actively enforcing children's rights specifically in this context. The two researchers themselves recommend that an expert group or commission be established to ensure children's rights are respected. That doesn't change the fact that the rules formally apply — only that nobody is currently enforcing them actively in this specific area. That's an honest, documented gap in the current Danish legal landscape, not something this article can fill with a guess about when it might change.

France goes further — two different French laws, two different situations

The Academy's article on child influencers in Denmark covers France's Law No. 2020-1266 (the "loi Studer") in depth — the law regulating paid child influencers, where the child is genuinely the main subject of a commercial product. That law isn't the most relevant French comparator for ordinary sharenting, where a child appears as part of a parent's own content without being the paid main subject themselves.

The more relevant comparator is a newer, separate French law: Law No. 2024-120 of 19 February 2024, aimed specifically at guaranteeing respect for children's right to their own image. The law inserts a new Article 372-1 into the French Civil Code, establishing that parents jointly protect their minor child's right to their own image, with respect for the child's privacy, and must involve the child in exercising that right according to their age and maturity. The law makes the use of a child's image a "non-ordinary" exercise of parental authority requiring both parents' agreement — and a family court judge (juge aux affaires familiales) can intervene to restrict or prohibit publication of a child's image if the parents disagree, or if the sharing risks harming the child's dignity or privacy.

Note: this article reports the main principles of Law No. 2024-120 as described in French legal sources at the time of this research — confirm the current text directly via Légifrance if this is decisive for a specific case, since French civil law isn't this article's primary domain of expertise.

Comparison: what applies where

Hypothetical example

The example below is a made-up, illustrative scenario — not a real case — and it's only meant to show how the household exemption and the legal basis question interact in practice.

A parent runs a public Instagram account with 40,000 followers where their children regularly appear. The account carries no ads or sponsorships, but it's publicly accessible to anyone. Because the account is public and accessible to an indefinite number of people, under the Lindqvist ruling's principle it likely already falls outside the household exemption — regardless of whether it currently makes any money. The day the parent enters into their first paid brand collaboration featuring the children in the sponsored post, the question changes character: now a specific legal basis is needed for that commercial use under Article 6(1) — and per the AAU research, that basis is typically not there.

Decision framework for a parent-influencer or a brand

IF the account is closed, non-public, and the content is never used commercially → likely within the household exemption, and GDPR's general rules don't apply.

IF the account is publicly accessible, even without current monetization → consider that the Lindqvist ruling's "indefinite number of people" principle may mean you're already outside the exemption — document your own assessment of this, rather than assuming the absence of ads is enough on its own.

IF the content is sponsored, includes affiliate links, or is otherwise part of an income stream → assume GDPR's general rules apply in full, and that, per the current research, there's no obvious valid legal basis for the child's image simply because it's your own child.

IF a brand is considering a collaboration with a family vlogger whose children appear in the sponsored content → ask the same question you should already be asking about a work permit: has the legal basis for using the child's image been considered, and is it documented somewhere rather than assumed.

What this means for a contract or a collaboration

A brand working with a parent-influencer whose children appear in the sponsored content shouldn't leave the data protection question to a verbal assumption. See what to put in an influencer contract for how this kind of consideration should generally be written into an agreement. Also keep in mind that the question of a child's own right to have content of themselves deleted later in life raises similar considerations to those that already apply to a former brand ambassador — see GDPR's right to erasure and a former brand ambassador's likeness — even though Denmark, unlike France, has no specific statutory erasure right for the child in this context.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the question of children's images in family content is rarely treated as a data protection question — it reads as a private, self-evident part of a parent's own content, not as the commercial use of a third party's personal data. But the moment the content becomes part of a business, however small, that's exactly what it legally becomes. Our recommendation to a brand considering a collaboration with a family vlogger: ask specifically how the question of the children's images has been considered, the same way you should already be asking about a work permit if the children appear regularly. This is an area where the public debate in Denmark is already underway, even though enforcement isn't yet.

FAQ

Is it illegal for a Danish influencer to share pictures of their own children?

Not necessarily illegal in a formal sense, but per research from Aalborg University, a valid legal basis is typically missing once the sharing is commercial. No Danish authority currently actively enforces this specifically, which is an honest gap in the legal landscape — not the same thing as it being lawful.

Does the household exemption not apply at all to a public, non-monetized account?

It's unclear, and probably often no. Under the CJEU's Lindqvist ruling, publication accessible to an indefinite number of people can already fall outside the exemption on its own — regardless of whether money is being made from it. That's a cautious but well-grounded reading, not a guaranteed ruling on every specific account.

Can my child ask me to delete a video of them once they're older?

As far as this article could verify, Denmark has no specific statutory erasure right for the child in this context, unlike France. GDPR's general purpose-limitation principles could still be relevant if the original purpose for using the image lapses — see GDPR's right to erasure and a former brand ambassador's likeness for the related logic in a different context.

Do France's laws apply directly to Danish family vloggers?

No, neither Law No. 2020-1266 nor Law No. 2024-120 applies automatically to a purely Danish collaboration. They're included here as comparison points to show how much further legislation in this area can go, and because they could become relevant if a collaboration involves a French creator or French distribution.

Will Datatilsynet actually fine someone for this today?

Per DR's March 2025 coverage, Datatilsynet currently has no specific focus on this area, so a fine in practice looks unlikely right now. That's not a guarantee, though — Datatilsynet's focus areas can shift, and the public debate on this topic is already underway.

How is this different from the work-permit question?

The work permit is a labour-law question: whether the child's own participation requires Arbejdstilsynet's approval, if it's fixed or regular — see child influencers in Denmark. This article is a data protection law question: whether a valid legal basis exists at all for publishing the image, regardless of how often the child appears. A given post can raise one question, both, or neither, depending on the specific circumstances.