📣Responsible Media and Content

Consent before the camera

A photograph taken without consent is not documentation of work — it is taking something that was not given.

When you walk into an activity and take out your phone to photograph, you are asking something of the people in front of you even if you say nothing. The photo gets published, persists, and is reshared. The person in it will not be able to erase it tomorrow, and does not know where it will end up or who will see it. Informed consent does not mean walking past someone, smiling, and photographing, nor does it mean shooting from a distance on the assumption you have not disturbed them. It means stopping before the camera and explaining what the photo is, where it will be published, who will see it, and that they have the right to refuse without any pressure and without their refusal affecting their participation or services. Refusal does not mean they do not support the work; it means they are protecting their right to privacy, which is a right neither you nor your organisation owns.

1. Introduce yourself and the organisation before the camera or phone comes out
2. Explain in two sentences what the photo is and why you want it — "We want to post it on our page to explain what we do in this programme"
3. Specify where it will appear: website? Instagram? An annual report? An internal report only?
4. Confirm that refusing has no effect on their participation or on any service they receive from the organisation in any way
5. Wait for explicit agreement in words or a clear gesture — silence is not consent, and a smile is not consent
6. Record the consent as soon as you have it: a text message, an email, or a paper form depending on your organisation's system

Consent expires. A person who agreed to publish their image in one context did not agree to publish it in every future context. If you want to use an old photograph in a new context — a fundraising campaign, a report on a different subject, sharing with a new partner — the correct procedure is to return to the person and ask for new consent. This may seem complex, but it protects the person and the organisation at the same time. And if they cannot be reached, the safe choice is not to use the image.

The caption that preserves dignity

The caption can honour the person in the frame or turn them into promotional material without them realising or consenting.

The image alone does not tell the story — the caption is what frames it. The same photograph of a girl reading a book can be captioned "Naria discovers books for the first time in the refugee camp" or "Naria loves reading and dreams of becoming a teacher." The first caption defines Naria as a victim in a place; the second defines her as a person with dreams. Both may be factually true, but one takes from her something she did not give — an identity reduced to a circumstance. A good caption does not rely on inflating suffering to make the story more moving for a reader or more compelling for a donor. It relies on accuracy and honesty, describing only what can be verified without adding emotional interpretations that were not expressed.

Many caption problems arise from a gap between the writer's intention and the effect of what they write. The volunteer wants to show the world the value of the work they do, and wants to move people's feelings towards the cause — both are legitimate goals. But the way a reader's feelings are moved can either exploit or honour the person in the image. The easy test: read the caption and imagine the person in the photograph reading it now. Will they feel honestly represented? Does it disclose something they did not agree to disclose? Does it describe them in a way that makes them comfortable or uncomfortable? This mental test takes less than a minute and answers most questions.

Verifying information before publishing

A wrong number you published in good faith can destroy credibility built over months.

In humanitarian and volunteer work, many figures circulate about beneficiary numbers, disaster scale, aid quantities and coverage rates. Some are accurate and drawn from reliable sources with a methodology for producing them; some are inflated, circling in WhatsApp groups and on social pages until they sound real through repetition. The difference between them is not visible — it is found by verifying the source. The volunteer who publishes a number they heard without confirming its source harms trust in their organisation, however good their intentions and however close the number is to correct. And once trust is lost on a single issue, rebuilding it takes years across all issues. The simple rule: do not publish what you cannot say where it came from and how any person could verify it.

• Always ask: who issued this number? Is it an official source with a methodology, a personal estimate, or hearsay?
• Find the original source itself — not what someone wrote about it, but the document or statement issued by the originating body
• If you cannot find the original source in two minutes, do not publish the number — add "not yet verified" if you must reference it
• Very large numbers are not always wrong, and small numbers are inflated too — the standard is the source, not the size
• If the number comes from within your organisation, confirm the person who gave it has authority to issue and share it externally
• Doubt is not weakness in this context — "I'll verify and come back with an answer" is always better than publishing an error and apologising

The personal account and the official account

What you write from your personal account is sometimes read in your organisation's name — a difference that requires constant awareness.

When you volunteer with an organisation and people know it, your personal account acquires an institutional shadow. What you post about the cause you work in, the areas you visit, the groups you serve, and the events you participate in — all of it may be read as the organisation's position regardless of your intention. Your personal account belongs to you and your freedom in it is genuine, but the responsibility is doubled in this context: you are accountable to your conscience for everything you write, and accountable to those you serve for everything that might be misread or cause them harm. The essential distinction is not who owns the account — it is what is published: a personal opinion on a public matter unrelated to the organisation's work, or information relating to beneficiaries, partners or internal operations.

One of the most delicate situations is when a volunteer sees criticism of their organisation on social media and feels the impulse to respond from their personal account. The quick personal response seems reasonable — you know the truth and want to correct the error. But your unauthorised response is read as the organisation's position, and if it contains inaccurate information or increases the reach of the original post, the problem has multiplied. The correct procedure is to notify the organisation's communications lead, send them the link, and let them respond from the official account in agreed wording. Your temporary silence is better than your well-intentioned but unauthorised words.

Protecting people in digital content

A post does not disappear from the internet — but the harm it causes stays with the person photographed, not with whoever took the photo.

There are groups of people for whom publishing their image or information creates a real risk, direct or indirect: survivors of violence, people in a precarious legal situation, children, trauma survivors, and people who have fled environments that persecute them for religious, political or family reasons. A seemingly innocent photograph — someone at an educational or vocational activity — might reveal their location to a family they fled, identify them in a community that persecutes what they represent, or provide information to someone looking for them. You cannot see the risk because you do not live their story and do not know who is watching them. The core principle in these situations is: when in doubt, do not publish. And when you suspect a particular situation may be dangerous for a particular person, ask your supervisor or your organisation's protection officer before any decision, without exception.

• Do not publish any vulnerable person's face without explicit informed consent, even in group photos where the person appears merely as a face in the background
• Avoid mentioning the precise geographic location of an activity targeting a sensitive group — "in Tripoli" protects far more than "in the Mina neighbourhood in front of such-and-such mosque"
• Do not mention people's legal status (refugee, displaced, stateless) without explicit permission and full understanding of the potential impact on their safety
• Use blurring or masking tools when the content is necessary for documentation but the face must not be published
• If you make a mistake and publish something that should not be there, tell your supervisor immediately — do not wait for the problem to be noticed; one hour makes a difference
• Photos sent in internal WhatsApp groups are not private — treat them as you would any public post because every person in the group can forward them