Case Study 1: A Man v the Northwich Guardian

• A newspapers website has a video which has been uploaded to youtube
• It shows youths throwing fire bombs at a freight train and setting it alight
• The printed edition shows stills from the video in a subsequent article
• The father of a 15 year old boy who appears in the video says that in publishing images of his son the newspaper has identified him on an issue involving his welfare
• He believes the interests of children who appear in the video outweigh any public interest in showing it
• He says the newspaper should have pixelated their faces
• The newspaper points out that the boy published the video to youtube himself, voluntarily making it available to the public
• The manner of embedding meant that it would become instantly unavailable on the website if removed from youtube
• The father says that the stills used in the article will always remain available
• The newspaper says it is in the public interest to publicise the incident due to its serious antisocial nature

Does the publication of the video on the newspaper's website and of the stills in the print version improperly identify a 15 year old boy?