When pictures pose problems for an image-conscious public
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.
Ipso considers arbitration scheme covering defamation and privacy
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) is considering whether to launch an arbitration scheme to settle legal complaints involving defamation or privacy, among other issues.
On Monday, the press regulator is expected to launch a three-month consultation into whether, and how, such a scheme should be run amid increasing criticism of the costs and complexities of seeking redress.
Although waiting to hear from all interested parties, including members of the public, Ipso indicated that the aim of its arbitration scheme would be to make the resolution of complaints “quicker and cheaper”.
Ipso chairman Sir Alan Moses said: “At the core of Ipso’s work is that we will support complainants who feel wronged by the press, and this consultation asks for views on how an arbitration scheme could be part of that provision. I look forward to receiving responses from the public as well as the industry and commentators.”
However, the scheme was instantly condemned by press campaigners as Ipso is not recognised by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), which was set up in the wake of the Leveson inquiry into press behaviour. Ipso, which is backed by most of the main British newspaper publishers with the exception of the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent, is not seeking recognition from the PRP.
Evan Harris, director of Hacked Off, a group formed after the phone hacking scandal, which believes Ipso is not effectively independent, said: “No complainant with any sense, or a competent lawyer, would have any reason to accept an unrecognised arbitration scheme, especially one set up by a non-independent sham regulator.”
Under the Criminal and Courts Act enacted following the Leveson report, an arbitration scheme backed by a regulator that is sanctioned by the newly formed Press Recognition Panel would be seen as a genuine attempt at settlement and therefore a way of avoiding costly legal battles.
Among the issues covered by the consultation are whether the scheme should be mandatory, which would avoid publishers being able to choose which cases went to arbitration. Respondents are also to be asked how long such arbitrated claims should take and whether a cap should be set on the level of award by the arbitrator.
“Arbitration is not just about reducing costs and delays associated with litigation,” said Moses, “it is about widening access to justice for members of the public and is something I feel very strongly about.”
Ipso indicated it would run a pilot scheme if an arbitration scheme found backing. The system would not replace its regulatory complaints-handling process and “would therefore keep regulatory duties separate from legal claims against the press”.
Consultation ends on 7 September.
Pay up Rupert Murdoch for an innocent member of your staff
I know it isn’t fashionable to champion former staff members of the News of the World. It was the newspaper where phone hacking took place and the resulting scandal was the reason that Rupert Murdoch closed it down.
But not everyone on the paper was guilty of hacking. And, despite my loathing for many of the stories it published and its journalstic agenda, I have always been careful not to tar every NoW journalist with the same brush.
So spare a thought for one of their number, the former crime editor Lucy Panton, who was arrested under the operation [Elveden] launched by the Metropolitan police into payments to public officials.
She was arrested in December 2011 - some six months after the NoW’s closure - and spent 19 months on police bail before being charged and subsequently undergoing an Old Bailey trial in which she was found guilty of conspiracy to commit misconduct by paying a prison officer. She appealed, and the appeal court quashed her conviction in March 2015.
Before 17 April this year, when the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the idea of subjecting her to a second trial, she spent three months wearing an electronic tag and being subject to a curfew.
And then? And then, as she has revealed in a lengthy intervew with the Press Gazette editor, Dominic Ponsford, she received a letter on 28 May from the Legal Aid Agency demanding nearly £35,000 and warning of enforcement action and fines if she did not pay.
In fact, Panton was owed more than £20,000 by the agency, which she had paid in legal aid contributions. That has since been repaid, but Panton is keen to repay some £11,000 raised to cover her defence costs, which was collected by the Crime Reporters Association and other Fleet Street colleagues.
Where in all this is Murdoch’s organisation? Given that Panton’s arrest stemmed from information his former British outfit, News International, passed to the police after her first arrest, did the company not feel responsible for her plight?
Ponsford reports that she made numerous pleas for help with her defence costs which were ignored by News International (now News UK) because she was no longer an employee.
When Press Gazette asked News UK why it refused to pay Panton’s legal fees, the magazine received a statement saying:
“We are pleased that court proceedings are now over for Lucy but due to other ongoing legal issues it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time”.
Really Rupert? Is that oh-so-carefully worded corporate/legalistic response the best you can offer to a woman who served you well? Do you not feel even a smidgeon of embarrassment that your company was responsible for her being charged?
Man up Rupert, cover her legal costs. You know you should.
Source: Press Gazette
The Guardian to set up innovation lab for mobile news
The Guardian is to set up a team to focus on developing innovative approaches to deliver mobile news, after receiving a grant of almost $3m from a US foundation dedicated to promoting journalism.
Guardian US will create a new editorial and production team tasked with exploring new ways for readers to consume news on mobile devices, after being awarded $2.6m (£1.7m) from the Knight Foundation.
The Knight Foundation, which gave $130m in grants last year, has previously supported initiatives including a joint project by Mozilla, the New York Times and the Washington Post to build a user-generated content and comment platform.
The new team will form an innovation lab that will operate autonomously from the main US operation, but will also have access to stories and resources from the larger Guardian newsroom.
“The innovation lab will sit at the heart of our US newsroom and will draw on the collective expertise of our team in order to do things differently in the mobile space,” said Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of Guardian News & Media. “We’re also really excited to be sharing our results in an open environment, so others can learn from our experiments and get involved in the conversation about mobile journalism.”
Any new tools, story forms or ways to source stories that come out of the lab’s work will be shared with other organisations.
Jennifer Preston, vice-president of journalism at the Knight Foundation, said that the grant was born from the need for media organisations to keep up the shift to mobile news consumption.
“With 50% of news now accessed on smartphones, news organisations need to quickly figure out how to present news on a smaller screen,” said Preston. “We hope to develop a deeper understanding of how people use and consume mobile news, while also learning how best to engage audiences as participants in spreading and creating content.”
Apple News app to rely on editors rather than algorithms for curation
That news story you just read on your iPhone: did Apple pay the editor responsible? Actually, from this autumn, it’s possible that the company did.
Related: News outlets face losing control to Apple, Facebook and Google
Apple is hiring a team of editors to work on the Apple News app unveiled during the company’s recent WWDC event, before the app’s launch as part of its iOS 9 software later in the year.
“The Apple News team is looking for passionate, knowledgeable editors to help identify and deliver the best in breaking national, global, and local news,” explains a recruitment advertisement on Apple’s website, spotted early by 9 to 5 Mac.
“These editors will help News users find the best and most timely coverage of major news events, while also managing select categories based on their areas of professional expertise.”
Requirements include a bachelors degree in journalism, communication or a related field (“Masters preferred”) and at least five years of newsroom experience, including knowledge of “mobile news delivery”, content analytics and social tools.
“Successful editors will be ambitious, detail-oriented journalists with an obsession for great content and mobile news delivery. They will have great instincts for breaking news, but be equally able to recognise original, compelling stories unlikely to be identified by algorithms.”
By hiring editors, Apple appears to be taking a different path to direct competitors like Flipboard, as well as Facebook – which recently announced plans to start hosting news articles by publisher partners – which focus more on algorithms to decide what stories people see in their feeds.
However, Apple’s emphasis on human curation is likely to spark questions about what will happen when the company – or competing platforms like Android – become the news.
Tax affairs, human rights issues in Chinese factories, iPhone antenna issues, misfiring mapping software, leaked device prototypes, free U2 albums, games censorship controversies, child labour, surveillance issues are all examples of Apple making the headlines in recent years in ways the company would not have enjoyed.
How will editors employed by Apple treat these kinds of stories? And, indeed, how will they treat positive stories about the company’s rivals, from the launch of a new flagship Samsung handset or Android Wear smartwatch to updates on the growth of streaming music services like Spotify and Deezer?
Related: Strictly algorithm: how news finds people in the Facebook and Twitter age
If Apple News was staffed entirely by algorithms rather than human editors, we’d still be raising these kinds of questions – as we would when any big technology company becomes a gatekeeper for news. Facebook and Google News are subject to similar speculation, for example.
The simple answer might be that Apple can include or exclude whatever stories it likes in its own news app, with other apps (and websites) available on its devices to provide different perspectives.
Still, regardless of who or what is choosing the stories in Apple News, if the app becomes a powerful driver of traffic and advertising revenues for publishers, expect more scrutiny of the editorial choices being made – and of whether there is a knock-on “chilling effect” on publishers deciding whether to run a story criticising Apple.
Will that scrutiny make its way into Apple News? That might be an interesting interview question for the editors applying for the new vacancies.
• The Guardian is a partner for Apple News and for Facebook’s Instant Articles initiative.
Sunday Times' legal threat to Glenn Greenwald is no way to stop criticism
When one of its articles has been criticised in the land of the free for failing to live up to the standards of robust journalism, what should a newspaper do? Well, the first thing obviously is to send the lawyers in.
The Sunday Times has demanded that journalist Glenn Greenwald remove an image of its front page from a highly critical blog on The Intercept. Not because it was libellous or indeed wrong, but because it infringes copyright. As Greenwald’s blog article alleged that the paper lied – it subsequently removed an erroneous reference to his partner David Miranda meeting Edward Snowden in Moscow – and showed the worst kind of behaviour in British journalism, it seemed a weak sort of response.
In contrast, Greenwald’s response was not only to refuse but to link to the letter from News UK’s general counsel.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2015No, @TheSundayTimes, we are not going to remove the image of your humiliating headline from our story about it https://t.co/55sCL5irnT
I asked News UK why they had sent the letter amid growing criticism of the article – which alleged that Russia and China had access to files leaked by Snowden. A spokesperson for News UK said: “We are happy for our editorial content to be subject to robust and healthy political debate. However, as a matter of general principle, we need to protect our intellectual property and make no apologies for expecting others to pay for the professional journalism we invest in.”
Now, while it is the case that showing the whole of a front page could be said to constitute substantial use and therefore to contravene copyright (which is why newspapers show so many ragouts of pages) it is at the most generous a technical argument.
Even non-lawyers would recognise that showing the front page of a newspaper when writing about one of its stories would surely constitute “fair use and fair dealing”.
But then I suppose nobody said that all’s fair in love and leaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)