Wtf The Guardian

[The Dude 20,026]

52 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

Born liars 

No way to talk about a Rangers icon like Willie Waddell.

[AberfeldyBlue 1,561]

Begging bowl Tim paper if ever there was one

 

 

[Loyal72 11,656]

58 minutes ago, Jamie29 said:

Anyone got the original picture?

It's actually quite hard to find that picture, even if you Google "Police Scotland Ibrox" or just "Police Scotland"

Which makes it even harder to believe it's just been a random stock image of Police Scotland.

[Bad Robot 21,386]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

No way to talk about a Rangers icon like Willie Waddell.

that was when they had credibility which sadly is long gone

nice try but no cigar 

[Big Al 55 9,282]

5 hours ago, The Dude said:

Did they specifically pick one with Ibrox or did they pick the first one that appears on their photo library for 'Police Scotland' or similar? From experience, when it comes to using generic pics for headers, I'll almost always pick the first one in the pile.

Well you shouldn’t, you should pick one that negatively portrays that lot.

[Rowley Birkin 9,023]

4 hours ago, Loyal72 said:

It's actually quite hard to find that picture, even if you Google "Police Scotland Ibrox" or just "Police Scotland"

Which makes it even harder to believe it's just been a random stock image of Police Scotland.

as the dude said then they must have it in their own library. so it must be for a specific reason then

[Blue72 1,151]

Pretty sure I’ve been critical of the Dude in the past - (cba searching my own posts for opinions) but he’s definitely the only person making sense here.

seems totally paranoid to believe that (low paid) sub-editors are going to be part of the big bad anti Rangers conspiracy by placing problematic photos next to a headline.  We really do go looking for offence.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 hours ago, Rowley Birkin said:

as the dude said then they must have it in their own library. so it must be for a specific reason then

Newspapers having their own photo library is an entirely normal thing. They’ll often pay third-party companies like Getty/PA etc for exclusive rights to a certain % of photos i their library or have their own in-house photographers 

[Stoorie 1,088]

2 hours ago, Blue72 said:

Pretty sure I’ve been critical of the Dude in the past - (cba searching my own posts for opinions) but he’s definitely the only person making sense here.

seems totally paranoid to believe that (low paid) sub-editors are going to be part of the big bad anti Rangers conspiracy by placing problematic photos next to a headline.  We really do go looking for offence.

Yea, it was just another one of those many little accidents that scumbag journalists make, when they associate Rangers in a topic with absolutely nothing to do do with the club.

These old firm stabbings and offended dogs are just wee accidents they don’t plan at all. 
 

But not being a leech scumbag journalist, I wouldn’t know these things, but the support should let it go again, because some worked there once.

[Fear no foe 2,257]

[Loyal72 11,656]

11 hours ago, Blue72 said:

Pretty sure I’ve been critical of the Dude in the past - (cba searching my own posts for opinions) but he’s definitely the only person making sense here.

seems totally paranoid to believe that (low paid) sub-editors are going to be part of the big bad anti Rangers conspiracy by placing problematic photos next to a headline.  We really do go looking for offence.

Happens far too often to just be a mistake, or someone that didn't understand what they were doing by attaching such an image.

It's spiteful at minimum.

[KeyserSoze 14,637]

If you need a stock picture of loads of cops together it’s going to be from a football match. Most likely us or them. Dafty didn’t think about the implications of including us in the picture. Simple 

[Loyal72 11,656]

16 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said:

If you need a stock picture of loads of cops together it’s going to be from a football match. Most likely us or them. Dafty didn’t think about the implications of including us in the picture. Simple 

It didn't need to be loads of cops together, but that's still not the case that it's going to be from a football match. Example:

The journo that wrote the piece has spoken out:

But.. 

 

 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

15 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

It didn't need to be loads of cops together, but that's still not the case that it's going to be from a football match. Example:

The journo that wrote the piece has spoken out:

But.. 

 

 

 

Several of those pics are wholly inappropriate as the officers are clearly identifiable.

[Loyal72 11,656]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Several of those pics are wholly inappropriate as the officers are clearly identifiable.

The original image used by the guardian, one of the police officers was also easily identifiable.

Several of those images are also fine, and probably approved for use by Police Scotland, no?

 

[KeyserSoze 14,637]

25 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

It didn't need to be loads of cops together, but that's still not the case that it's going to be from a football match. Example:

The journo that wrote the piece has spoken out:

But.. 

 

 

 

Well that’s a bit more intriguing 

[The Dude 20,026]

11 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

The original image used by the guardian, one of the police officers was also easily identifiable.

Several of those images are also fine, and probably approved for use by Police Scotland, no?

 

They don't have any input whatsoever.

[Loyal72 11,656]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They don't have any input whatsoever.

I'm talking for example the photo of them all lined up in front of their van, they are aware and approve of that photo being taken and used, same with other PR images that will be available from Police Scotland.

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

I'm talking for example the photo of them all lined up in front of their van, they are aware and approve of that photo being taken and used, same with other PR images that will be available from Police Scotland.

That's a photo taken by Police Scotland for use on their socials. That's not one that'll be in any media outlet's photo library and is subject to copyright restrictions and, likely, a usage fee.

Most papers/outlets have contractual arrangements with photo libraries (such as Getty or PA) and can pay as much as six figures per year for the right. They can't just lift one off the polis' Facebook page and use it.

[DiamondDan 2,386]

28 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They don't have any input whatsoever.

Yes they do. Individual officers would have to give consent to their images being published, if its an official media engagement, which a lot of them appear to be.

[graeme_4 34,854]

3 minutes ago, DiamondDan said:

Yes they do. Individual officers would have to give consent to their images being published, if its an official media engagement, which a lot of them appear to be.

Correct, although it’s usually a broader consent that any images they appear in can be used for various purposes - rather than for a specific post or article. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, DiamondDan said:

Yes they do. Individual officers would have to give consent to their images being published, if its an official media engagement, which a lot of them appear to be.

Most of those in the screengrab aren't 'official media engagements' but Polis out on the streets in the course of their duties. In that instance there's absolutely no requirement to do so. If they are at an official media engagement where photographers are present then their attendance at said event is considered giving consent to their photo being taken and used. It's kinda like punters at the fitba. The moment you walk into the stadium, you've consented to your photo being taken and published.

[DiamondDan 2,386]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Most of those in the screengrab aren't 'official media engagements' but Polis out on the streets in the course of their duties. In that instance there's absolutely no requirement to do so. If they are at an official media engagement where photographers are present then their attendance at said event is considered giving consent to their photo being taken and used. It's kinda like punters at the fitba. The moment you walk into the stadium, you've consented to your photo being taken and published.

They explicitly have to give written consent, prior to attending whether they consent to having their photos used. You can attend events and refuse consent to have your image published.

[DiamondDan 2,386]

4 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Correct, although it’s usually a broader consent that any images they appear in can be used for various purposes - rather than for a specific post or article. 

Aye but if media are going to be in attendance at any formal event then they'd have to sign a media disclaimer before attendance at each event. Once someone consents they can use tge image however they like but consenting to your image at one event doesn't mean you negate any right to refuse when you attend others.

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, DiamondDan said:

They explicitly have to give written consent, prior to attending whether they consent to having their photos used. You can attend events and refuse consent to have your image published.

Right and if it's made its way into a photo library,  its a fair assumption they have consented.

When it comes to photographing polis in their every day duties - as all but one of those in the screengrab appear to be - there's zero requirement for consent.