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, meaning consent must be sought for “processing” images: a problem for photographers who traditional snap unsuspecting people. The impact of the law will become clear over time. Read more
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
The Sun reports that producers of Coronation Street got things badly wrong when they showed an artist sketching an alleged rape victim as she gave evidence. It couldn’t happen in real life. Why would it be illegal – on two counts? Check your answers here
Pictures and information may be considered private even if posted on sites such as Facebook, says new guidance from the Independent Press Standards Organisation on sourcing material from social media. It highlights issues of accuracy, privacy, children and grief under the Editors’ Code. Read the full guidance, with case studies and examples of rulings, here.
The Mail Online agreed to take down a video showing a bullying attack on a schoolgirl after the mother of one of the alleged bullies said it breached her daughter’s right to privacy. The Editor’s Code section on photographing children was also considered. The decision avoided the need for an IPSO ruling. Read more.
Media organisations had to make difficult ethical decisions about whether to publish potentially distressing images from the March 2017 attack on Parliament. Social media has changed the debate, with some members of the public not exercising restraint, says Press Gazette. Read more