AddThis SmartLayers

'Public event' photo did not break the rules

A photo taken at a party and then published in a local newspaper did not break privacy guidelines – as photographers had been invited to the event.

The Press Complaints Commission received a complaint from the man in the picture, which was published in connection with a separate item about him.

He claimed his privacy had been invaded because he had not given permission for his picture to be taken or published – and had always refused when asked on previous occasions.

But the Brighouse Echo was cleared of breaking privacy and harrassment rules laid down in the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The photograph in question had been taken at the 10th anniversary celebration of the opening of a school, and was later published in the Echo in an article unconnected to the event.

The Echo said its reporters and photographers had been invited and that the event had been “very well publicised” and was “very much public”.

The reader – a high-profile local businessman – complained about the picture, which appeared on December 12 to accompany an article ‘Another spanner thrown into the Sugden’s works’, claiming it breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code of Practice.

The complaint was rejected on both counts.

The Commission said that while the event may have taken place on private property, it was clear that the event itself was not private. A senior member of the Royal Family was there in an official capacity, and their visit would have been recorded as a public engagement.

It added that because the photographer had been invited to the event, and there was no suggestion that he was taking photographs surreptitiously, he did not have to ask the permission of individuals before taking their photograph and the editor did not have to get permission before publishing, regardless of the context.

The Commission accepted that the complainant may not have known journalists would be present but said the event was not one where he should have expected privacy, and so there was no breach of the Code.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index