Jump to content

Advice regards photo of legal notice


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Again if the individual has not been embarassed enough to get the notice taken down in a year how embarassed are they?  Different individuals have different levels of social discomfort.  There are endless editorial photos on stock that would embarrass some people if it were of them - and other people do not see the problem.  If the notice was a couple of days old I would not have used it - but after a year the date itself is a piece of social commentary.  Yes it will cause discomfort in some - but sometimes in editorial work that is the object.  I also do a small amount of freelance journalism involving the emergency services.  The old right to privacy in the public sphere is a familar ethical issue for me.

Without even addressing the legal appropriateness vs the general appropriateness of posting negative information to make money (albeit in all likelihood pennies), I'm just shocked it didn't get rejected based on this guideline - 

Sensitive Information

  • Content showing sensitive information, which includes, but is not limited to: email addresses, bar codes, credit card information, phone numbers, identifiable full names, signatures, street addresses, website addresses, or X-Rays, is restricted in order to protect individuals’ privacy and to prevent fraudulent activity

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rudy Umans said:

So you are an expert in privacy and global internet laws. Good to know.  Couldn't tell from reading you first post.

No I am fully up on UK laws about what I can and cannot photograph and what I can and cannot do with the photos.  My questions on this were never about the legal side but about the rules of SS.

The discomfort/embarrasment/privacy in a public space thing that people are raising are ethical.   It is legal to take photos of someone being arrested (I have done).  It is legal to take photos of grieving relatives.  It is legal to take photos of people who have had too much to drink and are throwing up half clothed while being supported by emergency services personel.  Or their equally drunk mates.  I could go on.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kirk Fisher said:

Without even addressing the legal appropriateness vs the general appropriateness of posting negative information to make money (albeit in all likelihood pennies), I'm just shocked it didn't get rejected based on this guideline - 

Sensitive Information

  • Content showing sensitive information, which includes, but is not limited to: email addresses, bar codes, credit card information, phone numbers, identifiable full names, signatures, street addresses, website addresses, or X-Rays, is restricted in order to protect individuals’ privacy and to prevent fraudulent activity

Yep that was one of the guidelines that caused me to start this thread seeking advice on the SS position rather than the legal side.  Then I found

Stock photo of Wanted criminal posters, London, UK - 18 Mar 2019

 

And figured if SS allowed the name, age, and photo, of an individual and the crime they are wanted for then just the name may not be considered sensitive depending on the situation.

Edit - this is not a one off image - search SS editorial for "wanted poster" you will get loads of names faces and crimes

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Yep that was one of the guidelines that caused me to start this thread seeking advice on the SS position rather than the legal side.  Then I found

Stock photo of Wanted criminal posters, London, UK - 18 Mar 2019

 

And figured if SS allowed the name, age, and photo, of an individual and the crime they are wanted for then just the name may not be considered sensitive depending on the situation.

Edit - this is not a one off image - search SS editorial for "wanted poster" you will get loads of names faces and crimes

 

 

Without dropping even deeper into the rabbit hole, I do see a difference between a criminal who has broken the law and whose information is purposefully displayed on a public street, and what you posted. This photo is newsworthy and at least in theory is in the public interest. Yours is personally identifiable information on the front of a private building. But whatever - we all don't have to agree on everything. I just wouldn't be comfortable legally or ethically with this in my port.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kirk Fisher said:

Without dropping even deeper into the rabbit hole, I do see a difference between a criminal who has broken the law and whose information is purposefully displayed on a public street, and what you posted. This photo is newsworthy and at least in theory is in the public interest. Yours is personally identifiable information on the front of a private building. But whatever - we all don't have to agree on everything. I just wouldn't be comfortable legally or ethically with this in my port.

But the personal identifable information was displayed and intended for public viewing the same way this information is.  If the wanted poster is not personally identifiable information i do not know what is. 

As for public interest and newsworthy - presumably the public are interested to know why the shop has been closed, maybe other prospective landlords are interested to know the prospective tenant has been in public breach of previous tenancy terms (remember for that notice to go up as it did required due legal process - the publication of such notices is part of the legal process).  Newsworthy - if such cases are happening all over the country it might be news - whether the discussion is on bad landlords pushing innocent traders into bankruptcy through greedy rents or sly cheating tenants causing distress and financial hardship to honest hardworking landlords who depend on their reasonable rents for their retirement income and are being left thousands of pounds out of pocket by drop and run defaulters.

My job is to document what is - others will decide how relevant that documentation and the meaning it portrays.  If the image is not newsworthy or of public interest it will not sell - it will not even be searched for.  It will sink without a trace.  Maybe 20 to 30 individuals outside of the town and its visitors where the notice was displayed will now be aware of the name of the person and that will only be because I updated this thread to provide information to others about its acceptance.  If I had not bothered the number of people outside the town and its visitors aware of the name would be maybe 2 or 3.  Knowing where it is there will be considerably more visitors from out of town seen it in the flesh than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again - not worth arguing over since we will certainly not change each other's minds on this. I wouldn't upload an image with someone's address and name related to a negative document, public or not, and apparently SS doesn't want images like this either despite the fact it was approved. But your "job is to document" - ok. You also have images of soiled tissues in a garbage can -- we're really not "journalists" here when it boils down to it.

"Content showing sensitive information, which includes, but is not limited to: email addresses, bar codes, credit card information, phone numbers, identifiable full names, signatures, street addresses, website addresses, or X-Rays, is restricted in order to protect individuals’ privacy and to prevent fraudulent activity"

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said I also do a small amount of freelance photo journalism.  The work involves the emergency services and the ethical questions that come up are far above those of year old public notices.  No I am not a journalist - my ability to screw up taking down essential facts proves that.  I do do the odd bit of journlism.   All of us have different areas of interest and work.  If we all took the same photos this place would be even more over saturated than it is now but with much more with limited subjects.    I am far from the first contributor to submit stuff involving contradiction of the above "rule" - there are full ID cards shown readable on here.  I would have no issue with following the rule - if the rule was actually applied, which searches show it is not, it is not by a long long way.  I have not shown close to the amount of information other photos do about other people, and what I have shown was legally placed in full public display.  If the law is happy for the public to see it, and SS accept it then that is that.  I was expecting them to reject it - and if they had of done I would have posted its rejection without including the image.  I posted the acceptance and would have posted the refusal so that if someone else comes along with a similar situation (in my case there are already notices similar to the left hand page - it was the right hand page that I was unsure about) looking for information they can find it.  Sometime in the future someone else may photograph a public notice and wonder if it is allowed - I just wanted to provide my experience  for them to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

As I said I also do a small amount of freelance photo journalism.  The work involves the emergency services and the ethical questions that come up are far above those of year old public notices.  No I am not a journalist - my ability to screw up taking down essential facts proves that.  I do do the odd bit of journlism.   All of us have different areas of interest and work.  If we all took the same photos this place would be even more over saturated than it is now but with much more with limited subjects.    I am far from the first contributor to submit stuff involving contradiction of the above "rule" - there are full ID cards shown readable on here.  I would have no issue with following the rule - if the rule was actually applied, which searches show it is not, it is not by a long long way.  I have not shown close to the amount of information other photos do about other people, and what I have shown was legally placed in full public display.  If the law is happy for the public to see it, and SS accept it then that is that.  I was expecting them to reject it - and if they had of done I would have posted its rejection without including the image.  I posted the acceptance and would have posted the refusal so that if someone else comes along with a similar situation (in my case there are already notices similar to the left hand page - it was the right hand page that I was unsure about) looking for information they can find it.  Sometime in the future someone else may photograph a public notice and wonder if it is allowed - I just wanted to provide my experience  for them to consider.

It will be my last post on the subject - of course you're free to respond as much as you'd like.

Legality aside, SS guidelines aside, I just think it's rotten. Taking a very bad situation in this person's life which could have been caused by who knows what (death of spouse, illness, etc.), and then posting that image as a reminder in perpetuity so you can possibly make a few pennies isn't something I'd do. The remote possibility that this individual or a family member or even an acquaintance might one day see the photo makes me cringe. But, I realize I am very sensitive to some issues and we all make different ethical choices every day. I'm sure there are others who would post the image too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...