Photos of Oxford Student Celebrations Raise Questions About Privacy Rights and Journalism

Dear reader,

This post was originally published on 14 October 2018, and subsequently deleted on 24 October 2019, after an interested party contacted me and asked that any reference to them in my blog post be removed. I chose to delete the post in its entirety to avoid any further problems.

I stand by what I wrote and shared, including the watermarked images from a stock photo company for illustrative purposes, an image from Flickr, and screen captures of newspaper headlines on a related subject. I also quoted information that the individual had already made public themselves in statements to the press, and provided links to those relevant articles. As readers of my blog will know, I always try to credit the source of the information and images I share — and I did so in this instance. 

I am happy to remove an image or quotation, if requested to do so by the relevant rights holder or person concerned. 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never made any money from my writing here at I write about technology and media law, and about legal careers more generally, because that’s what I am passionate about. I do so in the hopes that it may provide some interesting or helpful insight, not because I am trying to generate advertising revenue.

Thank you for your understanding.


Kelsey Farish


  • Greg B
    14.10.2018. / 13:48

    The subject, NF, is American, and attempted to massage out history while not legally being able to benefit from GDPR. She threatened lawyers on me, and refused an offer of buyout, then went to Alamy and probably did the same to them with New York lawyer in tow.

    I left Alamy, as their ethics left a somewhat putrid smell of merde in my nose.

    Partially sympathise all you like, there a shits in this world, and those who wipe the arse of them.

    Irony: when she does make it really big, the buyout will be far higher, but them again, I will probably just smear them all over the New York Post

  • Greg B
    14.10.2018. / 13:48

    PS your use of photos in the article almost certainly contravenes CDPA 1988 by unauthorised use of copyrighted imagery. Funny how a lawyer doesn’t give a toss about her own website being unlawful.

    • Kelsey Farish
      14.10.2018. / 13:48

      Hi Greg. I’m not sure why you’re accusing me of unauthorised use of copyright imagery. I credited the copyright owner of each of the photos – they are, in turn: (1) Alex Krook; (2) Alamy; (3) Alamy; (4) David Hartley; and (5) David Hartley. Furthermore, the use of the photos should be covered under the fair dealing exemption. If ever a copyrights holder contacted me and wanted the images to be removed, I would remove them from the page without hesitation.

      • Greg B
        14.10.2018. / 13:48

        Sadly, since your admitted and open use of copyrighted works is not directly making critique of the images you’ve seemingly appropriated, it would NOT fall under the ‘fair dealing’ guidelines in CDPA 1988. Furthermore, you appear to be making egregious use of work where it is qutie possible to contact the IP owner/s via their own websites to obtain written and informed explicit consent.
        Active use of Intellectual Property you have not generated in order to drive traffic to your blog is commonly known as ‘flagrant’ use and would in most cases introduce an immediate uplift to the fee.
        Additionally, where you’ve been made aware of the potential breach, the continued use is again somewhat flagrant, and indefensible in my opinion, and you should, therefore, immediately cease and desist.
        Alamy are NOT copyright owners, and stating this would demonstrate to me that you’re not entirely aware of the difference between Agent and IP owner/creator.

        It’s somewhat ironic that a purported professional is commenting on rights use where the full circumstances(of the news report) are unclear to the writer, that the images used are not actually the images in question – ,merely representative ones to fill space, and the writer is embarassingly unclear about the differentiation between an Agency and an IP originator.

        PS I hereby withdraw my consent for you to use my words or quotes in relation to this article. You are not to make use of my speech in any way, shape or form.
        Furthermore you are not to name me in person directly or indirectly, and are legally required to exicise all use of my name from this site and any other references you hold.
        GDPR that.

      • Kelsey Farish
        14.10.2018. / 13:48

        Greg, out of courtesy to you I am happy to remove all references to you in this article, which I have done.

        I would, however, like to point out that the Alamy image does state that it is from 1968 in the first instance. The second photograph says directly beneath it, “An Alamy stock image of Oxford University Trashing celebrations. Note: THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS.” As such, I do not think it is fair to state that it is “unclear to the writer, that the images used are not actually the images in question”. Furthermore, I was only quoting what was mentioned in the Press Gazette, with a direct link to the relevant article.

        Furthermore, as this has clearly upset you (and to be honest, I am somewhat concerned by your tone) I will be deleting this post in its entirety, shortly.

Leave a Reply