The Internet has given us the ease of being able to access a , including images and videos, which were previously practically impossible to access, unless professional photographers were available or their services were paid. Now what we have the information practically in the palm of our hand, we have found ourselves with the new challenge: are the images published in the public domain? What is the line between public images and personal images on Facebook?
The Supreme Court considers that the media cannot use personal images from Facebook to illustrate news, as stated in his sentence, issued by the Civil Chamber, in which it is clarified that a Facebook account is not considered to be “place open to the public”in which the profile photograph can be freely accessed, since it does not have a “express consent” and as with all fundamental rights, that of freedom of information “it is not absolute”.
Very interesting sentence of the Supreme Court on the use by the media of photos of detainees obtained from their Facebook
– JJ Galvez (@jjimenezgalvez)
Using personal images from Facebook to illustrate news is “an illegitimate interference”
In 2016, the newspaper El Español published a report informing about the arrest of a man accused of sexual abuse of minors, with whom he had had professional contact in his capacity as a psychologist. The report was illustrated with a photograph taken from the defendant’s Facebook profile, since “it was freely accessible” because the media considered that his profile was public.
The newspaper El Español was sentenced to compensate the man in question with 10,000 euros in previous judicial instances, and the current sentence rejects the appeal filed by the newspaper.
“The existence of protection of the right to information cannot mean that the fundamental rights of those who are affected by the exercise of that right are left empty. These rights should only be sacrificed to the extent necessary to ensure free information in a democratic society.”from December 19, 2019.
The images must connect with the newsworthy events
According to the document “That a person detained and accused of a crime as serious as sexual abuse of minors acquires sudden public relevance, at least momentarily, such a circumstance does not justify any dissemination of their public image. The function of freedom of information justifies the reporting of said fact (the arrest and imprisonment of the person accused of committing such acts) and that this information includes graphic information related to said facts”highlights the sentence.
Namely, no matter the circumstance, the use of any image is not justified, specifically, in no way images that have no connection with the newsworthy events and “whose dissemination has not expressly consented”.
The fact that profile photos can be freely accessed on Facebook does not constitute consent to their use as required by law. “Organic Law 1/1982”.
The sentence maintains that an account opened in any social network on the Internet has the purpose of communication between the owner and third parties, as well as the possibility that third parties have access to the content of that account and interact with the owner, however, this does not allow the publication of this content in a media outlet.
Images: depostiphotos
Stay informed of the most relevant news on our news channel
Facebook Comments
Disqus