If one is “of the web” rather than just “on it”, taking a photograph of almost anything that catches your interest at any given moment feels as natural as breathing.
A sunset, a chance meeting of friends, an incident in the street, all get recorded and often uploaded to social media. There is a hunger for images not just as a personal record but to share with family, friends and often strangers. My colleagues in rights and syndication tell me that in the past few weeks the Guardian has published about 1,000 images a day, overwhelmingly online.
In the past few weeks the Guardian has published about 1,000 images a day, overwhelmingly online
However, there are also more complaints than ever before about the use of images, and requests for their deletion from the Guardian’s website. Between 25 May and 2 June we received eight such requests involving allegations of copyright infringement and intrusion into privacy.
For instance, on 25 May a reader complained that in a gallery of 20 photographs of the week one showed Chinese girl gymnasts with rucked T-shirts and visible underwear but it was decided that there was no breach of Guardian guidelines because they were dressed appropriately for the activity.
However, on 1 June the Guardian deleted a photograph accompanying an article about the effects of the benefits cap drop that showed the faces of children who were identifiable. A Guardian photographer had sought permission to take the photograph and received it but the parents did not realise that it would be used with an article that dealt with issues of poverty.
As soon as the photographer was made aware of the parents’ objection we removed the picture and apologised. It is a seeming paradox that while the proliferation of images on social media suggests we care less about privacy, at the same time many people are more aware of where they think the line should be drawn. All journalists need to be more aware of their responsibilities in this regard.
Gill Phillips, the Guardian’s head of legal services, and Roger Tooth, head of photography, agree that the public is more aware of privacy rights, especially when it comes to children.
Phillips said: “Using non-‘modelled’ photos that are on the database outside the context in which they were originally taken is increasingly problematic.” Tooth thinks we should consider putting a warning mark on all pictures in the Guardian’s archive of people taken in a natural context, ie not modelled, to prevent their accidental misuse.
However, that presupposes that the photographer – video or still – will talk to everyone in shot to ensure they are both aware that it is being taken and what it may be used for in the future. Tooth said: “There are two problems here: a) it’s really difficult to work as a documentary photographer if you’re having to ask or talk to every subject and b) I really like the warning note idea, but photographers and desk staff would have to spend much more time writing more meaningful and nuanced captions. Also, very often context of the way the photograph is used and the headline and caption is everything.”
Another problem is that whatever permission the subjects may have given at the time, circumstances change. Three years ago a man was pictured with his child on his shoulders walking happily with his wife along a London street. The picture was used again earlier this year in an innocent enough context but by then the marriage had broken up and the man objected to the photograph.
Consent isn’t the key here, as the law is that those who go out in public may be photographed without their consent, unless they are in a private place. Under the editors’ code “private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy”. If a picture is truly worth a thousand words you can add few more when it comes to the intrusive effect it may have, as the Daily Mirror found out when it snapped Naomi Campbell coming out of a treatment session for narcotic addiction. The House of Lords ruled by a narrow margin that while it would have been in the public interest to publish the information that she was a drug addict who was receiving treatment, Mirror Group Newspapers was nonetheless liable for invasion of privacy publication of the details of her treatment and for using the pictures.