an ethical question or two
Dear AoIRists, I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private. I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question. At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond. Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included? Many thanks in advance, - charles ess Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no
Charles - I have only an inadequate and partial response: What does the publishing journal have to say on this? Ken ===== Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D. Director of Teaching Research Ethics Programs, Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions Editor, Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT): Ethical Challenges, Opportunities and Safeguards (Springer) http://www.springer.com/computer/general+issues/book/978-94-007-6832-1 Indiana University 618 East Third Street Bloomington IN 47405-3602 (812) 856-4986 FAX 855-3315 pimple@indiana.edu http://poynter.indiana.edu/pait/ Blog: http://ethicalpait.blogspot.com/ Twitter: @Ethical_PICT - https://twitter.com/Ethical_PICT -----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 1:17 PM To: Air list Subject: [Air-L] an ethical question or two Dear AoIRists, I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private. I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question. At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond. Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included? Many thanks in advance, - charles ess Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Dear Charles, I'm an e-Politics researcher and have been working with these materials for more than a few years now. As long as you're citing / screen shooting public posts (meaning you don't have to friend these personas to follow their activity. It is a different thing if it is a personal FB account or a Twitter account which requires permission from its holder in order to follow its activity) there is no ethical issue. Regarding copyrights - as long as the screenshots are for teaching and research, to the best of my knowledge, there is no copyrights violation. Only my 2 cents. Sharon Best Wishes, Sharon Haleva Amir, School of Governance and Social Policy, Beit Berl College, HCLT Fellow, (PhD Candidate) Faculty of Law, University of Haifa, ISRAEL. -------------------------------------------------- http://haifa.academia.edu/SharonHalevaAmir http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/en/research/resstudents/pages/sharonha.aspx SSRN Author Page: http://ssrn.com/author=1227022 -----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: 04 August 2014 20:17 To: Air list Subject: [Air-L] an ethical question or two Dear AoIRists, I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private. I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question. At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond. Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included? Many thanks in advance, - charles ess Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hi Charles, Your email prompted me to turn to the US copyright page. My feeling is that using these materials would fall under "fair use." I'm sure you are well area of Section 107, but here is a quote from the Copyright webpage http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html : Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work Since you are using materials that are available in the public sphere and the journal is most likely for research and educational purposes, I think using them without obtaining copyright is allowed. Kris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kristene Unsworth, PhD. Assistant Professor The College of Computing & Informatics Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tel: 215.895.6016 | Fax: 215.895.2494 Drexel.edu/cci -----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 1:17 PM To: Air list Subject: [Air-L] an ethical question or two Dear AoIRists, I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private. I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question. At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond. Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included? Many thanks in advance, - charles ess Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
The last 2 of those 4 bullets are particularly germane: You aren't impeding any pecuniary interests such as through either re-appropriation of the work or market confusion about the producer. I'm with Kristene - you're likely fine! -eg -----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Unsworth,Kristene Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:53 AM To: Charles Ess Cc: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] an ethical question or two Hi Charles, Your email prompted me to turn to the US copyright page. My feeling is that using these materials would fall under "fair use." I'm sure you are well area of Section 107, but here is a quote from the Copyright webpage http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html : Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work Since you are using materials that are available in the public sphere and the journal is most likely for research and educational purposes, I think using them without obtaining copyright is allowed. Kris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kristene Unsworth, PhD. Assistant Professor The College of Computing & Informatics Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tel: 215.895.6016 | Fax: 215.895.2494 Drexel.edu/cci -----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 1:17 PM To: Air list Subject: [Air-L] an ethical question or two Dear AoIRists, I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private. I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question. At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond. Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included? Many thanks in advance, - charles ess Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Charles there is a new decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Spencer that states that Internet users have an expectation of privacy. While I am not answering directly because I am not a lawyer you may find this interesting to consider. Here is the case and it is not long to read. The court I think decides that the child porn distributor is committing a serious crime so his privacy can be invaded.. There are in the decision statements about an Internet user's privacy expectations that are quite clear and I welcome the courts statements. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/index.do?r=AAAAAQAjSW... On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Charles Ess <charles.ess@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear AoIRists,
I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private.
I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question.
At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond.
Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included?
Many thanks in advance, - charles ess
Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Dear Charles: You are asking two (at least two) different questions. The first is about the right of publicity and/or privacy of the politicians. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, they have very little: as you have pointed out, they are public figures, acting in the public sphere, and in a democratic society there is a much stronger interest in robust discussion and examination of their actions than there is in maintaining a personal right to control their images. Stated differently, they chose to place themselves in elected office, so autonomously chose to place themselves under public scrutiny. That will tend to negate their personal interest in controlling the images. I would hope that this analysis would play out similarly in most democratic jurisdictions, but YMMV. The second question, regarding copyright, is much trickier. Copyright does not lie with the subject of the photo, but with the photographer (unless of course it is a selfie). You indicated that the photos were drawn from Facebook and Twitter, which suggests that there may be some implied permission for public use, but this is only a supposition and to know you would need to check. Several people have now suggested that the use would be fair. First, fair use exists only in a handful of jurisdictions (the U.S., and more recently Israel, and to some extent Korea and Taiwan). Some other jurisdictions will have exemptions (such as "fair dealing" which is NOT fair use, although in Canada it is creeping closer) that might allow the use. The EU is a patchwork, with exemptions varying from country to country. However you should not assume that non-commercial use of a photo of a politician is necessarily fair, even in jurisdictions that recognize the defense (witness, for example, the famous and protracted litigation between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey for unauthorized use of a photo of Barak Obama that formed the basis for Fairey's "Hope" poster -- summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster . Admittedly, Fairey did not help his case any by committing perjury/spoliation). Best, DLB
Dear AoIRists,
I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private.
I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question.
At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond.
Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included?
Many thanks in advance, - charles ess
Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- School of Law University of California, Irvine 4500 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-8000 Voice: (949) 824-9325 Fax: (949)824-7336 bits: dburk@uci.edu
Is publication in an academic journal "non-commercial"? Charles Balch PhD Faculty, Department of Business & Administration Northern Arizona University - Yuma Office/cell: (928) 317-6455 / 287-3906 Skype: NAUCharlie Google+: cvb23@nau.edu -----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dan L. Burk Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:32 PM To: Charles Ess Cc: Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] an ethical question or two Dear Charles: You are asking two (at least two) different questions. The first is about the right of publicity and/or privacy of the politicians. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, they have very little: as you have pointed out, they are public figures, acting in the public sphere, and in a democratic society there is a much stronger interest in robust discussion and examination of their actions than there is in maintaining a personal right to control their images. Stated differently, they chose to place themselves in elected office, so autonomously chose to place themselves under public scrutiny. That will tend to negate their personal interest in controlling the images. I would hope that this analysis would play out similarly in most democratic jurisdictions, but YMMV. The second question, regarding copyright, is much trickier. Copyright does not lie with the subject of the photo, but with the photographer (unless of course it is a selfie). You indicated that the photos were drawn from Facebook and Twitter, which suggests that there may be some implied permission for public use, but this is only a supposition and to know you would need to check. Several people have now suggested that the use would be fair. First, fair use exists only in a handful of jurisdictions (the U.S., and more recently Israel, and to some extent Korea and Taiwan). Some other jurisdictions will have exemptions (such as "fair dealing" which is NOT fair use, although in Canada it is creeping closer) that might allow the use. The EU is a patchwork, with exemptions varying from country to country. However you should not assume that non-commercial use of a photo of a politician is necessarily fair, even in jurisdictions that recognize the defense (witness, for example, the famous and protracted litigation between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey for unauthorized use of a photo of Barak Obama that formed the basis for Fairey's "Hope" poster -- summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster . Admittedly, Fairey did not help his case any by committing perjury/spoliation). Best, DLB
Dear AoIRists,
I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private.
I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question.
At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond.
Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included?
Many thanks in advance, - charles ess
Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- School of Law University of California, Irvine 4500 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-8000 Voice: (949) 824-9325 Fax: (949)824-7336 bits: dburk@uci.edu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Maybe. For some purposes, not necessarily for others. It is probably non-profit. Which is not necessarily the same as non-commercial (as my accountant friends like to say, non-profit doesn't mean you can't run a surplus). If it is like most journals, it may be running a deficit and/or requiring support from other sources of revenue. So money is changing hands, but there may not be any left over. There are at least a couple of places where this is relevant in the fair use analysis: first, the purpose for which you are using the work. You are better off there if your purpose is something other than profit, so a showing of production at or below cost is useful. The factor is more likely to favor you if the purpose seems to be scholarship rather than revenue. The second is in factor four, the extent to which you are displacing the rights holder's market. There it doesn't really matter if you are making money or losing money, or giving the work away for free. The question is whether the owner is losing, or potentially losing money. DLB
Is publication in an academic journal "non-commercial"?
Charles Balch PhD Faculty, Department of Business & Administration Northern Arizona University - Yuma
Office/cell: (928) 317-6455 / 287-3906 Skype: NAUCharlie Google+: cvb23@nau.edu
-----Original Message----- From: Air-L [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dan L. Burk Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:32 PM To: Charles Ess Cc: Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] an ethical question or two
Dear Charles:
You are asking two (at least two) different questions.
The first is about the right of publicity and/or privacy of the politicians. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, they have very little: as you have pointed out, they are public figures, acting in the public sphere, and in a democratic society there is a much stronger interest in robust discussion and examination of their actions than there is in maintaining a personal right to control their images.
Stated differently, they chose to place themselves in elected office, so autonomously chose to place themselves under public scrutiny. That will tend to negate their personal interest in controlling the images.
I would hope that this analysis would play out similarly in most democratic jurisdictions, but YMMV.
The second question, regarding copyright, is much trickier. Copyright does not lie with the subject of the photo, but with the photographer (unless of course it is a selfie). You indicated that the photos were drawn from Facebook and Twitter, which suggests that there may be some implied permission for public use, but this is only a supposition and to know you would need to check.
Several people have now suggested that the use would be fair. First, fair use exists only in a handful of jurisdictions (the U.S., and more recently Israel, and to some extent Korea and Taiwan). Some other jurisdictions will have exemptions (such as "fair dealing" which is NOT fair use, although in Canada it is creeping closer) that might allow the use. The EU is a patchwork, with exemptions varying from country to country.
However you should not assume that non-commercial use of a photo of a politician is necessarily fair, even in jurisdictions that recognize the defense (witness, for example, the famous and protracted litigation between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey for unauthorized use of a photo of Barak Obama that formed the basis for Fairey's "Hope" poster -- summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster . Admittedly, Fairey did not help his case any by committing perjury/spoliation).
Best, DLB
Dear AoIRists,
I am editing a piece for a forthcoming journal issue; it includes two screenshots of tweets from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a screenshot of the Facebook page of a politician running for office in 2014, including their pictures and names. These are public figures very intentionally engaged in a public activity in a medium that functions as a de facto public sphere (or at least an approximation thereof). There is nothing in the screenshots that could be construed as potentially embarrassing, much less libelous, much less potentially warranting protection as private.
I have gained the impression over the past few years that both in practice and in emerging guidelines codes, and law (specifically, based on what [little] I know of law surrounding freedom of speech and privacy issues in journalism in the U.S., the E.U., and Scandinavia), it is permissible to publish these without permission from the politicians in question.
At most, if these were tweets and FB pages posted by U.S. politicians aimed at U.S. voters, we would have to note that the tweets and pictures were de facto copyright by their authors; to my knowledge, however, there is no parallel requirement on this side of the pond.
Of course, it's usually when I think I know a good response to an ethical dilemma that I turn out to be missing something crucial - so: am I missing something crucial, or are we indeed on reasonably safe ground to publish the screenshots as is, no permissions required, no copyright notices included?
Many thanks in advance, - charles ess
Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- School of Law University of California, Irvine 4500 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-8000 Voice: (949) 824-9325 Fax: (949)824-7336 bits: dburk@uci.edu
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- School of Law University of California, Irvine 4500 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-8000 Voice: (949) 824-9325 Fax: (949)824-7336 bits: dburk@uci.edu
participants (8)
-
Charles Ess -
Charlie Balch -
Dan L. Burk -
Ellis Godard -
Peter Timusk -
Pimple, Kenneth -
Sharon Haleva Amir -
Unsworth,Kristene