The press watchdog has rejected a complaint against two Scottish daily newspapers after they used a photograph of a child originally posted on Facebook.

A father complained to the Press Complaints Commission about a photograph of his young son at a football match which was published by The Scotsman and the Edinburgh Evening News.

The picture, which had been pixellated, showed the boy holding up a hand-written sign at the ground of a rival team which read:  “”Dad this place is a s***hole!! 5-1″

It was originally posted on Facebook but was picked up by the two newspapers after being widely ciculated on social media.

The complainant said that the photograph was published without his consent in breach of Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

He said he had posted the photograph on Facebook in the mistaken belief that his privacy settings would prevent its circulation beyond his Facebook friends, and had been “shocked” to see it in the press two days later.

The newspapers said that the photograph, which had been taken in a public place, had been widely viewed and discussed before publication; on one Facebook page for football fans it had been “liked” by 890 people and “shared” by more than 160.

Both titles maintained they had simply republished an image that the complainant had already placed in the public domain in the context of coverage highlighting the behaviour of football fans, and noted that they had made efforts to obscure the child’s identity.

The newspapers accepted they had not obtained the complainant’s consent to publish the photo, but the Commission said the papers’ coverage of the story had focused on the potential risks for children of the free circulation of material through social networks rather than seeking to embarrass or ridicule him.

The publication of the photograph “contributed directly to the public interest in this issue as a vivid example of the possible consequences, which could serve to inform other parents”.

Charlotte Dewar, Director of Complaints and Pre-publication Services, said: “The terms of the Code provide strong protection for children, but the Commission recognizes that there is an important public interest in airing issues relating to children’s welfare.

In some instances, this means discussing individual cases. This case raised potentially sensitive issues, but the Commission decided that the newspapers’ approach had been responsible and appropriate, and showed due concern for the welfare of the child at the centre of the story.”