Recently I was asked to remove a photograph from my blog. There was nothing in that picture to compromise or embarrass anyone - it was simply a group photograph, inexpertly posed and openly taken, and the person concerned was the youngest, slimmest and prettiest of our number. I have removed it because I was asked, and I don't want to hurt anyone.
I understand about publishing a photograph with full names of the people involved (especially if those people are children), just as I shred any papers with my name and address on them.
I understand about embarrassing photographs of people metaphorically with their pants down. (Somewhere on this blog there is a picture of one of my nephews at work which, before posting. I doctored to hide his 'builder's bum' - I am not cruel even to my nephews.) Nor would I ever post the mishaps of any human on Youtube, but plenty of people do, although I have in the past posted videos of a mad partridge and a confused puppy.
However, in this age of digital photography, I think we all have to accept that any photograph is quite likely to appear on the internet. Even if it is not used to illustrate a public blog, a great many people have photo albums on Facebook, or on one of the many sites specifically for the storage and display of pictures. Some albums will be private, the photos kept that way as an insurance against computer failure, but many people will have them publicly or semi-publicly displayed for their friends, family or other enthusiasts of whatever the main subject is. As an example, I posted a lot of old photgraphs of my ancestors (including those of family members still very much with us) on a Facebook album for my extended family. This same set of albums includes photos posted by my cousins of their own small children and grandchildren. It is not an open site - members must be invited and approved, but some of these picture now appear on my best friend's family history site (she is also a very distant cousin) and on a village history site in Norfolk. I know about these, but they may well have migrated - via these sites or via my cousins' own blogs etc. - to a dozen different sites and into the private files of people whose only connection is a distant ancestor sharing one of the family surnames.
If, therefore, any of us has a strong objection to having our image on public display we should either avoid being included in any picture or should make a point of telling the photographer not to post it where it can be viewed by strangers. And I am sure that (except with children) that is where the responsibilty should be - with the subject not the photographer.
I am, of course, talking about photographs taken openly (not necessarily by friends as I am sure we all feature in, for example, strangers' holiday snaps) and not those taken surreptitiously by paparazzi, which is an entirely separate issue that has little to do with the photographs themselves and everything to do with personal privacy. Even on a blog I think it perfectly acceptable to talk about how people do their jobs (their public face)*, but totally unacceptable to gossip about their personalities or private lives without permission. (I have had far more to say about my godson Richard's wedding than about two recent family weddings, as Richard's mother has blogged it all anyway, while the other's have not - or they haven't yet told me where to find the pictures.)
Of course, even that leads to some very strange paradoxes. For example I can say that Lincolnshire County Council and/or West Lindsey District Council (where I live) are doing something very badly: that is my democratic right. If however I were to say the identical thing about Swallow Parish Council (of which I am a member) or North Lincolnshire Council (my employer) I would be 'bringing them into disrepute' and liable to disciplinary action. Odd, isn't it? And what of the many people who are employed by the council in the area in which they live (or the health authority or any other public body)? Would this apply to any area of that authority's remit or only to those where they are directly concerned in their work? For example, can a dustman say that the school his children go to is falling down and the council is to blame for not getting it repaired, but not be allowed to say that the recycling scheme is over-complicated and expensive, but that the neighbouring authority's is simpler and more efficient? As I say, it is all very odd and very, very complicated.
* I should add that when I do criticise I never give names. The subjects may be able to identify themslves by context and date, as would other people who were already involved, but it is their actions rather than themselves which I write about. I don't want to hold any identifiable individual up to personal ridicule. I did once inadvertantly include a photograph which made identifying the subject too easy, and I have apologised for that and removed it from my blog.
