Gemma O'Doherty sharing Images of children

positivenote

HI All,
just looking for some legal clarification regarding Gemma O'Doherty and her recent sharing of a photograph of school children on Twitter.
As far as I read it:
She shared an image that was not hers to share on Social Media (The school originally published the photograph - so own the copyright/or whoever was commissioned to take the photo probably does)

She shared it accompanied by a potentially racist opinion regarding the photographs subjects

BUT has she actually broken any laws by sharing it? If the image was already in the public domain by being published can she be pulled up on copyright infringement by retweeting it?
Any help on clarifying any legal ramifications of her tweet would be greatly appreciated to assist with research I am currently conducting re: Sharing Images of children online.

Thanks

JeffKenna

Not legal advise I know, but I've been following her on twitter for a while and I'm quite concerned for her mental health.

ohnonotgmail

positivenote wrote: »

HI All,
just looking for some legal clarification regarding Gemma O'Doherty and her recent sharing of a photograph of school children on Twitter.
As far as I read it:
She shared an image that was not hers to share on Social Media (The school originally published the photograph - so own the copyright/or whoever was commissioned to take the photo probably does)

She shared it accompanied by a potentially racist opinion regarding the photographs subjects

BUT has she actually broken any laws by sharing it? If the image was already in the public domain by being published can she be pulled up on copyright infringement by retweeting it?
Any help on clarifying any legal ramifications of her tweet would be greatly appreciated to assist with research I am currently conducting re: Sharing Images of children online.

Thanks

publishing a photo does not put in the public domain from a copyright point of view. all rights still remain with the rights holder.

Walter Bishop

I reported her to Twitter over that photo and they did suspend her briefly and remove about 5000 bots from her followers, their reason was given as 'publishing a photo of private individuals without permission in a state with a known privacy law' or words to that effect so it does seem even Twitter will do something on those grounds.

Utter Consternation

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I reported her to Twitter over that photo and they did suspend her briefly and remove about 5000 bots from her followers, their reason was given as 'publishing a photo of private individuals without permission in a state with a known privacy law' or words to that effect so it does seem even Twitter will do something on those grounds.

She was up in twitter HQ last night ranting about pedos and all that. That must have been what prompted it.

wirelessdude01

She has gone bat sh1t crazy in the past year or so.

Robbo

There's more than enough threads dedicated to the general antics of the this lady, can we keep it focused on any legal discussion of this particular stunt of hers.

coylemj

positivenote wrote: »

just looking for some legal clarification regarding Gemma O'Doherty and her recent sharing of a photograph of school children on Twitter.
As far as I read it:
She shared an image that was not hers to share on Social Media (The school originally published the photograph - so own the copyright/or whoever was commissioned to take the photo probably does)

I understand that the Longford Leader (local newspaper) has asserted IP rights to that photo and has communicated this to her. Which has provoked the expected reaction as they have now become a target for her bile.

positivenote wrote: »

She shared it accompanied by a potentially racist opinion regarding the photographs subjects

It was a particularly benign comment and could only be considered 'racist' if you considered her past activity commenting on the topic of immigration. But as this is a legal discussion, it needs to be considered in isolation. In which case it was no such thing.

IIRC it said something like: 'This is Ireland in 2019'.

Eric Cartman

I don't think there is a legal issue with it. I don't agree with posting photos of randomers children without consent , she should have had to play newspaper rules and blur the faces.

I think most people are angry at the point she was trying to make rather than for the sake of the children though, which is just an attempt at censorship taking it to legal proceedings.

elfy4eva

Channel 4 News just had a segment on this surprisingly, she was remorseless about the photo and had a go at the journalist about "degenerate" C4 and their poor journalism. And shouted illegal at them while recording back on her IPhone.

Didn't know much about her before, and I'll be glad to never give her any attention again after seeing that.

Peregrinus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't think there is a legal issue with it. I don't agree with posting photos of randomers children without consent , she should have had to play newspaper rules and blur the faces.

I think most people are angry at the point she was trying to make rather than for the sake of the children though, which is just an attempt at censorship taking it to legal proceedings.

It could be both; there's no contrast. I don't want copyright images exploited by others for their own campaigns; but also don't want children's images exploited in an abusive way for vile, bigoted, psychotic racism. If the copyright violation provides a legal avenue for attacking this behaviour, I'm all for copyright enforcement.

downthemiddle

There is a reason the pictures have been removed.
One picture was copyright of The Longford Leader and she had no permission to use it. The other pictures were taken off school websites and were in the public domain. Parents had give the school permission to publish images on their website. Normally, unless copyright applies, once images are published online they can be reproduced. However, as the pictures were of minors, permission was needed from parents to reproduce these images. Once parents complained the social media platforms were obliged to remove the images.

positivenote

downthemiddle wrote: »

However, as the pictures were of minors, permission was needed from parents to reproduce these images. Once parents complained the social media platforms were obliged to remove the images.

Is this true? Is there a legal differentiation between the entitlements of minors opposed to adults? Is there a legal framework stipulating that images of minors can not be shared without the permission of parents?
Thanks for the responses so far

alastair

downthemiddle wrote: »

There is a reason the pictures have been removed.
One picture was copyright of The Longford Leader and she had no permission to use it. The other pictures were taken off school websites and were in the public domain. Parents had give the school permission to publish images on their website. Normally, unless copyright applies, once images are published online they can be reproduced. However, as the pictures were of minors, permission was needed from parents to reproduce these images. Once parents complained the social media platforms were obliged to remove the images.

Copyright applies regardless if whether the images are in the public domain or not. Right up until the point copyright expires - 70 years after the death of the photographer.

coylemj

alastair wrote: »

Copyright applies regardless if whether the images are in the public domain or not. Right up until the point copyright expires - 70 years after the death of the photographer.

Is it different if the photographer is an employee? Which appears to be the case here as the local newspaper is claiming copyright.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

Is it different if the photographer is an employee? Which appears to be the case here as the local newspaper is claiming copyright.

Yes. It's generally a term of your contract of employment as a photographer that the copyright in any photographs you take in the course of your employment belong to your employer. If you're a freelancer, when you offer a picture to a newspaper and receive payment for it, it's again a term of the deal that you are transferring the copyright to the newspaper.

alastair

coylemj wrote: »

Is it different if the photographer is an employee? Which appears to be the case here as the local newspaper is claiming copyright.

The law isn’t different. Copyright protection pertains regardless of it’s being asserted or not, and regardless of it’s being in the public domain. If the photographer had a contract transferring ownership of their work to their employer is of no significance to the principle. It’s legally protected for decades to come.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. It's generally a term of your contract of employment as a photographer that the copyright in any photographs you take in the course of your employment belong to your employer. If you're a freelancer, when you offer a picture to a newspaper and receive payment for it, it's again a term of the deal that you are transferring the copyright to the newspaper.

My question was in relation to the rule quoted about the copyright lasting until 70 years after the death of the photographer, does that apply if the photographer was an employee?

alastair

coylemj wrote: »

My question was in relation to the rule quoted about the copyright lasting until 70 years after the death of the photographer, does that apply if the photographer was an employee?

In that case it’s tied to the life of the copyright holder; the employer, plus 70 years.

Edit: Nope, I read up a bit more. It’s still tied to the lifetime of the photographer, despite transfer of all other rights. If the identity of the photographer is unknown, it’s copyright protection lasts 70 years from publication date.

Peregrinus

You may be right; it depends on the terms of what you sign.

Copyright is property; you can sell it, give it away, bequeath it, lose it in a card game, etc, just like any other property. The copyright in an image belongs in the first instance to the creator of the image, and anyone else who claims to be the copyright holder needs to be able to show how they acquired the copyright. They may have acquired it under a term of an employment contract to which the creator of the image was a party, or under the terms of an agreement with a freelance photographer. But in either case you would need to be able to point to a provision in the contract or agreement which assigns the copyright.

positivenote

just to pick this up and as a means of seeking clarification. There are no legal or Data protection issues if I want to share 'everyday' images taken in public of children across Social Media provided that I have taken the photograph myself? I do not have to seek permission prior to sharing the photos from either the child or their parents/guardians?

Again thank you for the feedback up to this point.

Peregrinus

It will depend on the circumstances in which you took the picture. For example if your employer photographs you, or if a school photographs students, for the purpose of producing identity cards for the purposes of the workplace/school, there would be GDPR issues (to put it no higher) if the photographs were to be used or circulated for any other purpose. Whereas if you are a documentary photographer taking candid photographs of public events in a public place, go for it.