Need help ASAP regarding News and Revealing license plates

[justin-branam]

I think this is the correct place for this, but if not please move it.

I was involved in an accident a while ago which made the news. Of course the video of the news clip is online now. The problem is, the news clip has a part where they zoom in on the license plate of the vehicle i was in, and you can clearly read it. From some training i received as a firefighter, we were told the media could not do this, unless they got a release from the owner of the vehicle.

I can't seem to find any law saying this (or anything related to this for that matter), but i, along with the owner of the vehicle, are not very happy that they revealed this information, and in fact, we never even saw the video crew or spoke with them, so they definitely did not get a release from us. If someone can verify this, or correct me on this, i would greatly appreciate it. Also, if i am correct, do i have any recourse on this? Thanks.

[johnastovall]

It's called editorial use and they don't need a release. Nor does anyone if it can be seen from a public place. It's such a trivial matter it's not even covered in Kabre's Photojournalism: The Professional Approach.

[mdurisseau]

Justin, I work in the newspaper industry, and this has been discussed strictly in the photography vein, but I am comfortable in saying that the news crew, if you were in an accident on a public street and they were working on a public street, has every right to record the incident as they see fit. Just like in print media or photography in general, the law says that if you can see from a public vantage point, there is no release involved AS LONG AS there is no commercial use of the image. Editorial use is NOT commercial use...I will stand to be corrected...

[justin-branam]

Originally Posted by mdurisseau

Justin, I work in the newspaper industry, and this has been discussed strictly in the photography vein, but I am comfortable in saying that the news crew, if you were in an accident on a public street and they were working on a public street, has every right to record the incident as they see fit. Just like in print media or photography in general, the law says that if you can see from a public vantage point, there is no release involved AS LONG AS there is no commercial use of the image. Editorial use is NOT commercial use...I will stand to be corrected...

so from what i was told in training, they said newspaper photographers couldn't take pictures to put in the paper. is this because you buy a newspaper, and then the paper is technically "selling" the information? Just trying to clear things up. Thanks for the quick response.

[mdurisseau]

Justin, I hate to say this, but what the trainers said is inaccurate, in that there is no way to enforce that without violating the First Amendment...so you're saying that your trainers say that newspaper photogs can't take pictures of accident scenes for their papers...that is definitely not true...I am sure some of the other newspaper photographers out there will concur...If what they are saying is true, you can't have ANY photos in a paper...think about it...

[justin-branam]

Originally Posted by mdurisseau

Justin, I work in the newspaper industry, and this has been discussed strictly in the photography vein, but I am comfortable in saying that the news crew, if you were in an accident on a public street and they were working on a public street, has every right to record the incident as they see fit. Just like in print media or photography in general, the law says that if you can see from a public vantage point, there is no release involved AS LONG AS there is no commercial use of the image. Editorial use is NOT commercial use...I will stand to be corrected...

so from what i was told in training, they said newspaper photographers couldn't take pictures to put in the paper with revealing info like license plates. is this because you buy a newspaper, and then the paper is technically "selling" the information? so would news video be exempt from this since you dont buy the video? Just trying to clear things up. Thanks for the quick response.

[Concisus Cognatus]

Ok I'm missing something here. How do pictures get into newspapers if they're not pictures submitted by newspaper photographers either directly employed or contracted to the news organization?

[justin-branam]

Originally Posted by nikonhobbyman

Ok I'm missing something here. How do pictures get into newspapers if they're not pictures submitted by newspaper photographers either directly employed or contracted to the news organization?

must have deleted some info.

[nash]

I used to teach media law. An example of editorial use of photography is a photograph or video used with a news story, regardless of whether the newspaper is sold or whether a TV news program includes commercials. A commercial use would be an ad asking people to subscribe to the newspaper or people to watch a news program--or a reality TV series. Thus, in reality TV cop shows the license plates are often pixelated. The innocent people appearing on those shows usually sign a release. Invasion of privacy wouldn't pertain here either. In Texas, invasion of privacy is when there is an expectation of privacy, for example, in one's backyard behind a wooden fence.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to do anything about editorial use, not wanting to hinder free speech, even though sometimes the unintended consequences can be embarrassing. I can tell you that the standard of care that ordinary citizens suing for libel is less than for public figures or public officials, just ordinary negligence instead of malice. But that wouldn't pertain here.

[justin-branam]

Originally Posted by nash

I used to teach media law. An example of editorial use of photography is a photograph or video used with a news story, regardless of whether the newspaper is sold or whether a TV news program includes commercials. A commercial use would be an ad asking people to subscribe to the newspaper or people to watch a news program--or a reality TV series. Thus, in reality TV cop shows the license plates are often pixelated. The innocent people appearing on those shows usually sign a release. Invasion of privacy wouldn't pertain here either. In Texas, invasion of privacy is when there is an expectation of privacy, for example, in one's backyard behind a wooden fence.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to do anything about editorial use, not wanting to hinder free speech, even though sometimes the unintended consequences can be embarrassing. I can tell you that the standard of care that ordinary citizens suing for libel is less than for public figures or public officials, just ordinary negligence instead of malice. But that wouldn't pertain here.

thank you for the info. it just really irritates me when the media cant get a story straight, and in this situation, reveals certain "identifying" material. okay, ranting over.

[nash]

Yeah, when I worked for newspapers I tried to be careful. It might be someone new or just someone jaded.

[CallMeAl]

What the media shows or doesn't show has a lot to do with their personal policies and/or agreements with local law enforcement. For example, most often, rape victims are not identified by name. Not because it's against the law, it's just a violation of their policy. Once the victim's name has been broadcast by one media outlet, many others will go ahead and mention the name (ala Kobe Bryant case), while many still will not because of their particular company policy.

Most media outlets also have policies and agreements with local law enforcement that they won't show the faces of undercover officers, etc. These are just examples. But for the most part...if you are out in public, you are fair game and have no expectation of privacy.