A star of the TV show Shameless put out Facebook pleas for free legal help after being summoned to the High Court, apparently in relation to an image of the killer Jon Venables that circulated on social media. An injunction makes it a serious crime to publish images of Venables, who killed toddler Jamie Bulger when he was ten years old. See the Liverpool Echo story 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.
A ban on flying drones over parks in Coventry was being considered in Coventry in January 2019, the BBC reported. A report to councillors said there were issues of public safety, noise and – because of camera drones – privacy. The issue was topical after Gatwick Airport was shut down for 24 hours by a drone. It adds a new dimension to laws over shooting pictures and filming in public places (see briefing on this website).
A teenage vlogger used social media to complain of being “grabbed by the scruff of my neck” by a match steward for trying to film a piece to camera outside Chelsea Football Club’s ground, reported guardian.co.uk. See this website’s briefing on taking pictures and filming – what were the rules that applied 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, meaning consent must be sought for “processing” images: a problem for photographers whose work involves snapping 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