David Mascord, media law lecturer at Bournemouth University, shares tips on protecting your copyright – including putting a watermark on your social media images – on the journalism.co.uk website, here.
Days after the New Zealand mosque shootings, copies of the killer’s live web footage were circulating online, despite attempts to remove it. Wired magazine said detecting such footage using artificial intelligence was “a lot harder than it sounds”, hence the use of human moderators trained to look for warning signs in Live videos, like “crying, pleading, begging” and the “display or sound of guns”. Facebook was tagging all footage removed to prevent it being reposted but Google said it would not take down extracts deemed to have news value, putting it, said Wired, “in the tricky position of having to decide which videos are, in fact, newsworthy”. The piece goes on to look at the ethics of YouTube and Facebook policies that mean offensive footage may be removed, unless posted by a news organisation. YouTube has been criticised for removing videos of atrocities that were valued by researchers. The article points to the lack of regulation, or “big stick” incentives for social media companies to solve the problem. Read the piece here.
“A video of a terrorist attack may be informative news reporting if broadcast by the BBC, or glorification of violence if uploaded in a different context by a different user.” – Google lawyer Kent Walker, writing in 2017. Read his op-ed here.
A former MP complained of breach of privacy after The Sun published photographs of him allegedly “nuzzling” his face in a friend’s breasts. The Independent Press Standards Organisation found in favour of the MP on privacy grounds, saying there was no public interest justification. A further complaint on grounds of accuracy was not upheld. Press Gazette’s account of the saga shows the reasoning behind the ruling. Read it here.
Scraping pictures and other information from Facebook and other social media could be unethical, the former editor Chris Frost argues in a book chapter (2018). He cites a publisher saying one woman’s picture was “publicly accessible”, but the account privacy was set to “family and friends”. Another picture of a possible Manchester bombing victim was taken from a hoax account. Both resulted in IPSO rulings. Read the full chapter here.
Publishing candid street photography may fall foul of the General Data Protection Regulation introduced in May 2018, a number of writers have speculated. Facial features and even the fact that someone was in a particular location are now classed as personal data. Consent may be needed for “processing data” in the form of images, and people should know their “data” is being collected: a problem for photographers whose work involves snapping unsuspecting people. The impact of the law will become clear over time. Read more
The GDPR briefing on this website includes advice that photographers should carry privacy notices saying how images will be used, and giving contact details. It suggests that “legitimate purpose” is the best legal justification to cite for their work. It also links to a blog that urges a pragmatic approach: is it realistic to get written consent to use images from everyone at a particular event? Would there be an expectation that a photographer would be at a particular kind of event – which would reduce the need to seek consent from those present?
A certain former national newspaper did not want to pay for pictures it found on social media, so it “embedded” them in its website as a link. The freelance who took them found a way to get revenge, as Private Eye gleefully reported – and Twitter noted.
The police have an extensive set of guidelines on what to release to the media, and when. They’re here