media | In Principle

This year’s huge sporting events—the recently concluded European football championship and the Summer Olympic Games in Paris—are a good opportunity to look at regulations for broadcasting major events. In this article, we write about the events covered by the regulations, the obligations imposed on broadcasters, and the sanctions for non-compliance.

The country of origin principle is an effective tool for protecting providers of information society services. In the latest instalment in the controversies involving online platforms, the Court of Justice took their side, holding that the country of origin principle protects service providers with a subsidiary in the European Union. Only the state where they are established can exercise primary control over their activities, and other member states cannot impose additional obligations on them. Italy was recently challenged for infringing this principle in a set of cases decided by the Court of Justice. In the article below, we discuss the ramifications of the rulings by the EU’s top court.

The number of decisions by the chairman of Poland’s National Broadcasting Council imposing fines on media service providers for broadcast violations has risen dramatically over the last five years. These decisions involve content standards (respect for law, public order, morality, religious beliefs), protection of minors, and improper language. In 2011–2018, an average of three decisions imposing fines on providers were issued per year. Between 2019 and 2023, this figure leapt fourfold, to an average of 12 per year, and in 2023 there were more than 20. Fines for content harmful to minors are particularly noteworthy for their frequency and problematic nature.

Dissemination of people’s images is an essential ingredient of the media, both traditional and new. In an audiovisual work, the absence of human images strips the scene of human characters, and without them the media impact is lost. Under the applicable regulations, as a rule there is a duty to obtain the permission of the person whose image is presented, but consent is not required when the image of an individual constitutes only a detail of a larger whole such as a gathering, landscape, or public event. This distinction seems understandable and even intuitive, but how should it be applied in practice? The answer is not so obvious, and requires more extensive analysis.