A complaint against a local weekly newspaper over its publication of an ‘intrusive’ photograph of a 13-year-old girl has been upheld by the Press Complaints Commission.
The Maidenhead Advertiser was found to be in breach of Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice for publishing the photo without consent.
Its story headlined ‘Dad dies trying to save daughter’ followed the death of the girl’s father Michael Payne after he jumped into the Thames trying to save her from drowning.
It included a photo of the child in a bathing costume hugging her father.
The girl’s mother Sharon Clark complained to the PCC that the photograph had been published without consent and had caused considerable distress.
The newspaper said that the photograph had been provided by a news agency and believed that consent had been given.
It later discovered that the photograph had been taken from Facebook and no consent had been obtained.
It accepted a breach of Clause 6 of the Editors’ Code and apologised privately to the family but was unable to agree to her request for a goodwill payment.
The complainant did not accept the newspaper’s apology.
The Commission ruled that, under the terms of the Code, the newspaper had a responsibility to check that the relevant consent had been obtained for publication of the photograph. It said this was particularly important given the nature of the story and the child’s age.
Although the Commission did welcome the steps that the newspaper had taken, it ruled that there could be no proper remedy because of the seriousness of the breach.
A complaint against The Daily Telegraph about publication of the same photograph was resolved between the parties prior to the Commission being asked to rule on the matter.
PCC Director Stephen Abell said: “The issue of consent is crucial in any story which involves the welfare of a child, and particularly so in this case where the circumstances were so sensitive.
“The responsibility lies with the newspaper or magazine to ascertain who is the competent authority to grant consent, and ensure that the correct procedures are followed.
“The image in this case was clearly intrusive, and the Commission felt that its publication raised a serious breach of the Code.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Does the “news agency” which supplied the picture step aside from this process without any responsibility?
Of course the paper published the pic and has to take the flak, but should not the PCC ruling mention the agency? Should we not be able to call them to account and ask why they provided the pic without consent? At the every least, if we knew who they were, other papers could make their own decisions when deciding about pics from them in future.
Report this comment
The picture was already on Facebook so where’s the intrusion?
It’s not like a hack nicked it off their mantlepiece.
Report this comment
Blue..
There are clear rules in most companies, there are in mine, that you do not take pictures from Facebook.
We actually had to sign an agreement stating we would not.
It is more to do with copyright than intrusion though. Companies are scared they will get billed for reproducing the image if someone hold the copyright.
I know nationals do it, but most, if not all, regional offices have strict policies
Report this comment
What a ridiculous ruling. The picture was on Facebook and so the family had already published it and it was in the public domain. People seem to think that if they put information on these websites it is private even though it can be viewed by thousands of people. There may be a copyright issue but that is a commercial matter and nothing to do with the PCC. Yet again the PCC also seems to have one set of rules for the national press and another for regional papers. Could this be because the PCC does not want to pick a fight with the highly-paid lawyers on the nationals and throws its weight about with softer targets?
Report this comment
….’Could this be because the PCC does not want to pick a fight with the highly-paid lawyers on the nationals and throws its weight about with softer targets?’ Nail on the head, oldbill, and probably the main reason illegal hacking escalated into the present crisis for the industry.
Report this comment
So it’s ok for a freelancer or a news agency to take a pic from facebook of a girl in a swim suit, without the permission of her family, and then flog it to a local paper (or a national), without saying where it had come from?
Then when the paper gets rapped for using it, the news agency skips away without any repercussions.
I don’t think so.
The “public domain” argument over facebook pics simply doesn’t stand up because the “seller” of the pic, and the buyer, does have a responsibility over copyright.
And I assume the reason the Telegraph wasn’t taken to the PCC was simple: They threw a little bit of money at the problem, which is what the complainant asked for. The PCC didn’t have a complaint against the national on which to act.
(Having said all that, I agree with the other posters that the actual PCC ruling was ridiculous! So many of them are these days….)
Report this comment
Just because a pic is on Facebook, it doesn’t mean everyone can see it. You choose who sees your stuff – if you are friends only with other family members then it certainly is not in the public domain.
Report this comment
This is a stupid move from the paper on all counts. Although practice is commonplace newspapers have no right to take a picture from Facebook for publication – the ‘public domain’ excuse is a cop out and holds up to nothing.
The bottom line is that regardless of how ‘public’ this image is someone owns the copyright, and therefore that person has to be asked for permission to print. The problem with facebook pictures is that they come from all over making it virtually impossible for the paper to find out who is holder of the copyright. It happens in nationals all the time because they have the funds to pay out a nice friendly sum if and when someone complains – regional press are risking a lot to even attempt this.
A good point has been made about this ‘news agency’. The whole thing seems very odd, I’m not entirely convinced they exist although obviously this is purely speculation. Either way it’s the paper who should be making sure they are paying for the right permissions etc.
Well done to the Maidenhead Advertiser though, flying the flag of decency by digging around on facebook for the most inappropriate picture possible to push a few more copies.
A 13-year-old in a swimsuit with the dad who just drowned trying to save her life. Jesus….
Report this comment
If an agency could see and obtain a copy of this picture it must have been available to a fairly wide audience, one way or another. People should be aware that when they use Facebook the material is no longer private and it seems that they have no power to restrict where it ends up. Arguments about copyright are irrelevant to this ruling. The owner of a picture may think they are entitled to a fee but the PCC is not there to act as debt collectors.
The picture was placed in a public or semi-public arena so I cannot see why a newspaper should not use it. This PCC ruling, like a lot of their other judgments, is daft. Seems to be staffed by idiots trying to justify their roles.
Report this comment
If people post material on Facebook it is in a public or semi-public arena and they have no control over where it might end up. If an agency could see this picture then it was hardly supposed to have a restricted audience. By posting a picture the owner has effectively given permission for it to be published or seen by others. If you don’t want people to see something keep it off the internet.
The issue of copyright is irrelevant. Someone may consider him- or herself entitled to a fee but that is nothing to do with the PCC. They are not debt collectors.
This is another daft ruling by an organisation run by people trying to justify their own existence.
Report this comment
Is this ruling made on the basis of clause 6 alone?
Or is its reach wider, affecting the nicking of facebook pix in general?
If that’s the case then, boy, am I in trouble.
Report this comment
The issue of copyright is completely relevant. Oldbill you make a reasoned argument but legally speaking it has absolutely no legs whatsoever.
If I’m a photographer and put one of my copyrighted images on my website to promote myself your argument concludes that in doing that I’m allowing you to do what you want with my image. Obviously, that is absurd.
The fact that it’s commonplace for people to break those rules on facebook makes them no less relevant. If someone chooses to put an image on facebook, they still own it. Letting other people view it doesn’t mean you give permission for them to publish it as and when they please. If you ask any news publishers lawyers their advice on this it will be that papers have no rights to use any images from facebook. This ‘public domain’ argument is nonsense.
Essentially this was a bad call by the paper, in bad taste, and they should have expected a backlash from the family – which they got. Fair cop on this one guv’.
Report this comment
I would make the point to Zuckerbore that to hold the Maidenhead paper in such contempt is rather unfair. Remember they were sold this picture by a third party who had nicked it off facebook without permission from the family. My guess is the “seller” didn’t tell the paper where it has come from and the paper assumed, wrongly, that it was all kosher.
I would also say that if a paper sees a pic ion facebook it wants to use it is perfectly possible to send a message to whoever posted it asking for the ok to use it in print. I’ve done it myself.
Report this comment
Policing the copyright laws is not the job of the PCC. If they try to get involved they should be told to mind their own business. Copyright is not their function.
At some point the family was happy for the girl’s picture to appear on the internet. When it appears in print, somebody gets grumpy and there seems to be a suggestion that money was requested. The girl’s image was there for people to see on the internet so don’t be surprised if it gets picked up by a newspaper.
I can’t see anything wrong with lifting the picture from Facebook, using it and if someone demands money, offer them a standard repro fee. To put the picture on the internet and then claim newspaper publication is some form of intrusion is nonsense. Whover put the picture on Facebook published the picture first and put it out there for the public to see.
I don’t see that reporting the case was in poor taste. A man lost his life in tragic circumstances and this should be a matter of great public concern. It is not a private family issue and newspapers have a public duty to publish details of the circumstances. The true cause of distress to the family is the accident itself, not the publicity. And the PCC is becoming an instrument of the PC brigade seeking to tell newspapers how to do their job.
I repeat, this a daft ruling.
Report this comment
”Letting other people view it doesn’t mean you give permission for them to publish it as and when they please”
Actually on Facebook it does, but only to Facebook. By uploading an image to FB you are agreeing to FB’s terms and conditions, one of which is 2.1
2.1 ”For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”
Report this comment
Just to clarify – I never meant that the story itself was in poor taste, it’s just journalism plain and simple.
My argument was that of all the pictures possible, perhaps choosing a picture of a child in a swimming costume, on a story where she presumably nearly died and her father did die from drowning whilst attempting to save her life, was in poor taste.
It’s my view that perhaps that was what caused the most offence to the family, rather than that the paper used an image from facebook. Surely I can’t be the only one to have thought that? Maybe I give too much heed to my conscience. Personally, as a reporter I would never have chosen that image in a thousand years – I think it’s hugely inappropriate.
Report this comment