things you do not want to have to explain at work because they should already know :
Right, we publish medical journals. And often these have photos. Which by law you have to obtain written and informed consent from the patient or patient's guardian to publish, especially if the subject of the photo is even slightly identifiable. The only time you don't have to is if the patient is dead and/or their guardians are too.
It appears most of editorial and production do not know that this is law. And that as publishers we're the ones liable and can get sued if consent is not obtained. And did not understand why I started raising bloody hell over an article that had pictures of children in it (fortunately the faces were obscured) which of course goes double, with added furious emails to production that we were not letting any articles through that did not comply.
Cue me somewhat frantically trying to explain this to my boss and the deputy publisher. Cue them looking puzzled. Cue me trying to explain in a very quick version the law relating to models (ie, the subject of the photo) and the concept of model release forms and the fact that the only images that are exempt from this are journalistic ones. Emphasising the concept of 'they can sue us'.
...How can I be the only one who knows this? They're the publishers. And the only bloody reason *I* know this is the photography degree.
And then had people telling me 'you're rather frantic about this, calm down' - which of course brings out the backlash of 'do not fucking well tell me to calm down, I will calm down when this is fixed!'
:headdesk:
It appears most of editorial and production do not know that this is law. And that as publishers we're the ones liable and can get sued if consent is not obtained. And did not understand why I started raising bloody hell over an article that had pictures of children in it (fortunately the faces were obscured) which of course goes double, with added furious emails to production that we were not letting any articles through that did not comply.
Cue me somewhat frantically trying to explain this to my boss and the deputy publisher. Cue them looking puzzled. Cue me trying to explain in a very quick version the law relating to models (ie, the subject of the photo) and the concept of model release forms and the fact that the only images that are exempt from this are journalistic ones. Emphasising the concept of 'they can sue us'.
...How can I be the only one who knows this? They're the publishers. And the only bloody reason *I* know this is the photography degree.
And then had people telling me 'you're rather frantic about this, calm down' - which of course brings out the backlash of 'do not fucking well tell me to calm down, I will calm down when this is fixed!'
:headdesk: