Nevada’s governor signed the law on Thursday with bipartisan support and described it as a “new frontier” for the gambling industry. The law came about after the federal government in late 2011 decided to change its policy and permit online gambling to take place in states that explicitly permit it.

The new policy is significant in light of research that predicts online gambling will be worth $100 billion worldwide on mobile devices alone by 2017. This potential market has attracted the established casino industry as well as tech companies that are vying to make gambling games or process back-end betting operations.

The new U.S. gambling rules are also a potential lifeline to social game maker Zynga which has seen its titles like Farmville and Mafia Wars stutter. And since being cast adrift by Facebook last year, Zynga has seen its shares fall around 80 percent.

The Nevada law, however, is unlikely to change Zynga’s fortunes anytime soon as it only applies to internet users in the state. The law is also primarily intended not to help social gaming sites but to ensure that Vegas casinos have a first-mover advantage in providing operational support when — and if — other states follow suit. As the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports, the Nevada law is written to keep out companies that already have existing player data. The story in question refers to “illegal operations” and those who “operated online gaming with U.S. patrons” — it’s unclear if this refers to organizations like Full Tilt Poker who broke the law in the past or to any company with gaming data.

The upshot is that the U.S. will, at best, have a patchwork of states in the foreseeable future where online gambling is permitted. If big states sit it out, it will not be easy for companies to guarantee that online poker tables are full. It also means operational headaches and potential criminal penalties for the game makers which must ensure, for example, that a player in Colorado doesn’t slip into a Nevada-based poker game.

The bottom line is that full-scale online gambling is still far on the horizon as the U.S. regulatory process shakes out. In the meantime, the winners and losers among Zynga and other tech companies like Big Fish are likely to be determined in the U.K. and elsewhere.

This story was updated at 12pm PT to clarify how the law may favor Nevada companies.

(Image by Beto Chagas via Shutterstock)

But, despite some recent examples, search engines are not supposed to be amongst the list.

Russia’s Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor) has issued a “clarification” to say Web search, image search, news search, video search and other content cached by search engines like Google, Yandex and Bing should not be included in the recently-launched Zapret web blacklist.

This is despite recent inclusion of Google image search and YouTube, which is put down to a “mistake” (via Roem.ru).

Such a distinction by the Russian government is an important one at a time when Google is facing growing international challenges to its long-held operating model. An Australian court ruled that Google search had been a publisher of material deemed defamatory, while a proposed German law would require Google pay a license to publish excerpts of third-parties’ news articles.

Some campaigners out there, like former Formula One boss Max Mosley, want Google to pro-actively strip out excerpts from “illegal” websites, alleviating complainants’ need to go to dozens of individual end sites to which Google points. But the Russian government’s position seems sensible since it blocks access to illegal material at source, not at the signpost.

The result leaves large mainstream newspaper publishers, which are in decline, the focus of the proposed new standards enforcer — but appears to leave untouched the growing wave of online-only outlets that inquiry chair Lord Justice Leveson nevertheless believes often operate to even lower standards than newspapers.

Weblogs aren’t news, aren’t even popular

Beside the proprietors of several large newspapers, victims of press intrusion and other interested parties, the nine-month-long Leveson iniquiry heard from the publishers of the weblogs Holy Moly (1.6 million monthly visitors), Guido Fawkes (up to 100,000 daily readers), Popbitch (350,000 subscribers) and Huffington Post UK. His report also notes that many large newspapers now publish their own weblogs.

But Leveson’s report nevertheless uses a narrow definition to appear to dismiss the notion “weblogs” could ever produce newspaper-like content…

“Although the blogs cited here are read by very large numbers of people, it should not detract from the fact that most blogs are read by very few people.

“Indeed, most blogs are rarely read as news or factual, but as opinion and must be considered as such”.

In truth, “weblogs” nowadays can no longer be described as simply opinion journals, and are often regarded merely as content management systems for publishing news, opinion, gossip, high-quality investigative journalism and scurrilous defamation — all the equally excellent and embarrassing kinds of content which large news institutions are accused of committing.

Many publishers on weblog platforms are becoming — and have already become — very popular and influential, and will become only more so as print media wane. Most newspaper publishers also publish their own weblogs.

Leveson remains interested in weblogs elsewhere in his final report, but not in considering whether they should be regulated in the same way he is proposing of newspapers. Instead, he notes instances in which newspapers nowadays often report unverified stories by reporting what weblogs themselves are saying — a kind of blogging in print by proxy. It is the newspapers and not the blogs which Leveson is putting on alert.

‘Twitter too small to be news’

One of the biggest digital stories of the year has been the challenges posed by social media users naming alleged criminals and, prejudicing trials and defaming others — the same accusations levelled at many in the “press”. In his report, Leveson acknowledges:

“Although there is limited news provision in the terms that are relevant to this Inquiry on pure social networking sites, all social networks provide opportunities for individuals to disseminate and discuss news, information and comment.”

But he nevertheless contends:

“Despite their extraordinary growth, as with most blogs, in the main, few tweets or social network pages are read by very large numbers of people, most tweets are read by very few people.”

This overlooks not only the rapid explosion of news delivered “socially” by the same institutional publishers who are Leveson’s focus (The Guardian now has a very large Facebook audience) but also the massive disruptive effects threatened by amplification of amateurs’ own inter-personal social messaging.

One of several apparent contradictions in his report, Leveson later himself recants the tale of a Twitter user who “had posted on Twitter anticipating a small circulation to her followers but failing to take account of the ability to retweet and so reaching a far wider audience”. And he later acknowledges that social media do have enough heft to disrupt conventional news publishers:

“Newspapers in this country cannot be viewed as once they were, as being uniquely responsible for the delivery of news. They are not. Control over information which might have been possible in an earlier age can be defeated instantly on Twitter or any one of many other social media sites.”

So who regulates social media?

If weblogs and social networks are not to fall under the auspice of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposed new press self-regulating watchdog, how are they to be regulated? Using existing laws, some of which are adequate and some of which are struggling to keep pace, he suggests…

For example, internet services like Google, Facebook and Twitter have pledged to act in accordance with UK law, removing content where the law has judged it illegal.

But Leveson acknowledges not all is perfect vis-a-vis these platforms:

“They are, however, understandably unwilling to make decisions on whether content may or may not be illegal or to take decisions where there are grey areas in law.”

And that can also leave victims of defamation or intrusion aggrieved:

“In some cases, considerable damage may have been done to the subject of those allegations before a judgment has been reached and the defamatory content consequently removed.”

Social can regulate itself, the law can try keeping up

Leveson acknowledges that, if social media were newspapers, they would have to work to his proposed new regulation agency:

“Although social networking sites are not obviously in competition with newspapers for audience, revenue or advertising, they may be used to publish information that would not be able to be published by a newspaper in conformity with the standards set by self-regulation.”

But he says such platforms have in-built organic correction mechanisms of the kind the new body will have to build for itself:

“The instant nature of social networking also differentiates it from more traditional media. Rebuttals and denials of allegations can take place instantly, helping if not to kill a story at least to provide the subject of the story with a voice and make users aware that the veracity of the allegation or story may be in doubt.”

The dozens of politicians recently named on Twitter as potential child abusers might disagree, as the recent outcry over the Twitter naming of a former politician at the centre of a BBC Newsnight report would suggest.

But, whilst Leveson is cognicent of the many areas in which law is currently being tested to keep up with social, this was not the remit of his inquiry in to “press” standards.

But technology platforms and digital libertarians alike should rejoice at, not feel affronted by, the report’s ignorance — for, it seems to recommend specific new regulation only for that waning group of large publishers who print newspapers.

For an inquiry that was tasked by government to examine the “press”, this focus is perhaps unsurprising. But Leveson’s intellectual contortions, in exploring news publishers’ online evolution, are curious, and important in assessing where UK media policy currently lays…

Newspapers better than the internet

Leveson’s 1,987-page report appears to rule out out extending proposed new self-regulation to online-only publications and has rejected newspaper publishers’ argument that they should be allowed to re-publish whatever is online — on the basis of a fundamental value judgement…

“The internet does not claim to operate by any particular ethical standards, still less high ones. Some have called it a ‘wild west’ but I would prefer to use the term ‘ethical vacuum’.

“This is not to say for one moment that everything on the internet is therefore unethical. That would be a gross mischaracterisation of the work of very many bloggers and websites which should rightly and fairly be characterised as valuable and professional. (But) bloggers and others may, if they choose, act with impunity.

“The press, on the other hand, does claim to operate by and adhere to an ethical code of conduct. People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular assurance or accuracy; it need be no more than one person’s view. There is none of the notional imprimatur or kitemark which comes from being the publisher of a respected broadsheet or, in its different style, an equally respected mass circulation tabloid.”

The irony of this viewpoint is that it is nostalgic. Leveson has admonished newspaper publishers for dropping standards. Some, though not all, have hacked the mobile phones of a murdered schoolgirl and terrorism victim, chased celebrities down the street for photographs and too commonly disregard accuracy and right of reply, the report found. Leveson concluded newspaper publishers have “caused hardship”, “wreaked havoc” with the lives of innocents and failed to live up to their responsibilities.

Yet he still holds these newspapers to meet higher standards than he expects of the internet.

Print is the focus

Lord Justice Leveson has proposed a revised and enhanced self-regulation body to oversee UK “press” standards. But he is not going so far as to lay down the terms or specific scope of that body. The current Press Complaints Commission (PCC), comprised of big newspaper editors, encompasses newspapers and their websites, but it is thought its now-discredited code is subscribed to by only one online-only outlet – AOL’s Huffington Post UK.

In handing over the establishment of the new body, Leveson is passing on whether that scope should be extended farther online — but the clear cue from his report is that new-look self-regulation should remain pertaining to newspapers and their own sites. That is because he is both satisfied that some areas of online media have necessary protections built in — and because he is frankly uncertain whether online media can be controlled anyway…

Internet is uncontrolled, except when it is

Leveson himself notes ”profound questions about the ability of any single jurisdiction to set standards which, in a free and open society, can be breached online with the click of a mouse”, and says: ”In evidence to the Inquiry, the Internet has been described as an unregulated space, in which businesses can avoid the regulation of a given jurisdiction by hosting the content they publish in a different legal jurisdiction.

In one breath, he disagrees, calling that view “a simplification that ignores what is a more complex picture”, before reeling off a list of bodies and laws to show the internet is indeed already regulated. However, later in the report, he contradicts himself, asserting: ”The internet is an uncontrolled space.”

The contradiction is tangible. It shows Leveson wrestling not just with whether digital news outlets should be self-regulated in the same way proposed of newspaper websites, but whether they can. For these two reasons, Leveson’s conclusion appears to be that the internet must inevitably host lower-quality content than must be expected of print publishers.

Lord Justice Leveson, who has been hearing issues including the “hacking” of mobile phones for news stories, said the existing Press Complaints Commission (PCC), comprised of newspaper editors, is “not actually a regulator at all”. And he has rejected news publishers’ alternative suggestion of binding themselves to ethical standards by commercial contracts.

Instead, he is advising the government to legislate the creation of a new independent body to promote “high standards” and safeguard individuals’ rights, run by a chair and a board who will hold publishers to a code.

Leveson is leaving the definition of that code and the implementation of the new body to whomever Prime Minister David Cameron, should he follow the recommendation, might appoint to set them up. But Leveson suggests the code should outline what constitutes “public interest” – a thorny topic on which newspapers and others often disagree.

The Lord Justice says publishers will be incentivised to adhere to this code because it will create an alternative dispute arbitration forum that will be cheaper than court battles — if publishers lost against a complainant in court, they would face heftier damages awards than in arbitration.

Whether this is enough of an incentive if unclear — after all, news publishers have operated in what Leveson called a “reckless” manner with the threat of hefty court fines up until this point.

Newspaper industry campaigners had worried that Leveson’s report, if it required legislation, would amount to state interference in newsgathering. They had highlighted United States citizens’ right to free speech under their First Amendment. But Leveson says:

“This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press. The legislation would not establish a body to regulate the press: it would be up to the press to come forward with their own body that meets the criteria laid down.

“The legislation would not give any rights to Parliament, to the Government, or to any regulatory (or other) body to prevent newspapers from publishing any material whatsoever.

“Nor would it give any rights to these entities to require newspapers to publish any material except insofar as it would require the recognised self-regulatory body to have the power to direct the placement and prominence of corrections and apologies in respect of information found, by that body, to require them.”

That definition of the body’s role sounds somewhat akin to that of the existing Press Complaints Commission, which is now discredited. But Leveson also says: “(The legislation) would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press.”

But the new body must be recognised by Ofcom, the existing and powerful regulator of UK radio spectrum, telecommunications infrastructure and broadcasting standards — and Leveson suggests Ofcom be used as a “backstop” regulator for publishers that refuse to join the new scheme.

Leveson said: “For the seventh time in less than 70 years, there is a new report commissioned by the government dealing with concerns about the press. The PCC has failed in the task — if, indeed, it ever saw itself as having such a task — of keeping the press to its responsibilities to the public. There must be change.”

In sum, the Leveson Inquiry report amounts to a stern telling off for British newspapers, sets the basic colour and ideas for a slightly enhanced regulatory body but leaves all of the next steps to government — a process that is likely to be mired in ongoing political wrangling.

Update: Prime Minister David Cameron says he agrees with much of the recommendations but not the need to create the new body through state legislation:

“For the first time, we would have crossed the rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land.

“We should, I believe, be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press.

“In this House – which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries – we should think very, very carefully before crossing this line.”

The Authority for Television On-Demand (ATVOD) has ruffled online publisher and broadcaster feathers since its introduction in 2010. Complaints included:

• the fees ATVOD charges operators to be regulated by it
• classifying online publishers like newspapers sites as “TV-like” under its auspice.

But, after an inquiry launched in May in to ATVOD’s suitability, UK communications regulator Ofcom has concluded it is acting adequately on all counts.

It has re-assigned ATVOD to continue overseeing content standards on UK “TV-like” VOD services. In fact, Ofcom is also giving ATVOD more freedom to act without having to notify it of certain aspects of its work.

ATVOD’s renewal may come as a disappointment to some online publishers. Newspaper and magazine publishers like News International have protested being classified for ATVOD’s attention, arguing that any video they publish is just a small part of their service. BSkyB has argued that rightsholders of the TV shows it makes available through its on-demand TV service should be held responsible for the content, and not it.

ATVOD was appointed in 2010 because the UK consented to implement the European Commission’s 2007 Audio-Visual Media Services directive - legislation which compels “TV-like” services (including online) to protect minors from harmful content, to comply with sponsorship requirements and not to incite hatred. Ofcom, which adopted the directive, handed joint implementation to ATVOD under its oversight.

ATVOD recently reduced the fees required by companies it regulates by 3.58 percent.

The Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) had earlier ruled that, by allowing its satellite TV subscribers to watch MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central shows on-demand via its Sky Anytime internet TV service, BSkyB should be held editorially responsible for those shows.

But Ofcom on Tuesday highlighted a counter-ruling in which it said it is quashing that decision. It is instructing ATVOD to reconsider the case because, since the original ruling, Ofcom has given new guidance on how ATVOD should interpret matters.

ATVOD was established in 2010 because the UK consented to implement the European Commission’s 2007 Audio-Visual Media Services directive - legislation which compels “TV-like” services (including online) to protect minors from harmful content, to comply with sponsorship requirements and not to incite hatred. Ofcom, which adopted the directive, handed implementation to ATVOD under its oversight.

But ATVOD’s implementation has riled online publishers. Many, like newspaper website publishers, object to being classified for ATVOD’s regulation in the first place, protesting that they are not primarily video suppliers. Those companies which are regulated by ATVOD must pay it membership fees running to thousands of pounds per year to finance the group. Some smaller publishers protested the fees made sustainability impossible.

ATVOD has agreed to reduce fees by 3.58 pecent and not to classify newspaper websites as video operators, following appeals against its decisions brought by News International and others.

But, this May, Ofcom launched an inquiry to learn whether the body it appointed is “an appropriate regulatory authority” at all. That means Ofcom may loosen what some see as the conservative approach which ATVOD has taken to internet video.

Ofcom overturned ATVOD’s BSkyB decision in July. BSkyB successfully appealed to Ofcom that its content suppliers MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central determine which shows get carried on Sky Anytime; it merely curates their on-screen appearance.

Those suppliers had, in fact, protested the opposite. Ofcom’s decision, at least in this case, would appear to make producers, not distributors of online video editorially responsible for it.

Netflix may change its model and urge UK’s media and anti-trust regulators to launch a second movie monopoly probe against BSkyB if it cannot wrestle top film rights from the News Corp outfit there by summer 2013.

The Competition Commission in May provisionally ruled that Sky Movies’ exclusive deals for six Hollywood studios’ films do not overly dominate the UK market for first pay-TV subscription window (FPTSW) movie rights.

That conclusion was a reversal of the commission’s earlier decision and was based on the recent and future arrival, since the investigation began, of IPTV movie services from Netflix itself, Lovefilm and Sky’s own upcoming Now TV service.

In its response to the conclusion, published on Wednesday, Netflix, which launched in the UK and Ireland in January, says that conclusion is “dangerous”, arguing:

“Despite the entry of Netflix and Lovefilm’s presence in the UK, Sky continues to hold a near monopsony on the acquisition of these rights.

“While Netflix intends to continue to compete vigorously against Sky for content, including FSPTW content, it remains the case that none of Sky’s competitors currently have meaningful FSPTW content from the major studios.

“If, in the upcoming year, it becomes apparent that Netflix and other Sky competitors are not able to obtain significant FSPTW rights from the major studios, this may demonstrate that continuing market dominance by Sky has resulted in Netflix having to find other routes to the acquisition of FSPTW content—other routes which avoid head to head competition with Sky for the acquisition of rights which Sky wishes to obtain in order to maintain the market position of Sky Movies.

“Netflix believes it would be irresponsible and dangerous for the CC (Competition Commission to simply conclude at this point that any AEC (adverse effect on competition) arising from the dominance of Sky in the acquisition of FSPTW rights will be offset by new competition emerging for these rights from Netflix and Lovefilm.

“For this reason, Netflix is strongly of the view that the CC should now expressly anticipate a further review in one year’s time. This would allow Ofcom and if necessary, the CC to review whether the emergence of OTT SVOD services in the UK has in fact created strong competition for Sky Movies by recruiting subscribers at the retail level, and, in particular whether this has actually resulted in erosion of Sky’s market power as an acquirer of FSPTW rights.”

The submission, Netflix’s first to the investigation which began in August 2010, is an interesting insight in to how it regards its chances of success in the UK. Effectively, Netflix is giving itself a one-year run at outbidding Sky Movies for first-run rights – if it fails, it will call for regulators’ help.

The “other routes” referred to by Netflix are not clear but could include jointly bidding for shared rights against Sky, or sub-licensing from Sky .

This is also a more cautious tone than the company previously struck on its entry to the UK, when CEO Reed Hastings told paidContent in January: “We could just bid against them (Sky). We are not dependent on whatever the Competition Commission does.” Netflix has spent heavily on other UK rights and a large marketing campaign but has not disclosed sign-ups so far.

In other responses to the Competition Commission’s revised provisional conclusion, BSkyB, NBC Universal and Paramount are supportive, but the British Film Institute and Consumer Focus expressed concern and NBCU suggested competition could become even greater than the commission has finally concluded…

British Film Institute:

• “The CC appears to have overturned almost five years worth of analysis with undue haste on the basis of highly speculative market forecasts.”
• “The reversal of position appears to be based on assumptions about the future growth of very new entrants to the video-on-demand market. Such growth is far from guaranteed.”
• “VoD services cannot be accessed by people who do not use the internet” … ”As it stands, the impact of these new services (Lovefilm, Netflix and Now TV) is very small.”
• “We urge the Commission to reconsider its position.”

Consumer Focus:

• “Not convinced that material changes have occurred in the  market which would remedy the lack of competition”
• “Does not believe that competition between providers of movie services in relation to FSPTW rights has materially changed with the entry of Netflix to the UK market”
• “Not convinced that the launch of Now TV would remedy the consumer detriment.”

NBC Universal:

• “The Commission may be too conservative in its assessment that SVOD OTT services of LOVEFiLM and Netflix are unlikely to become close substitutes for bundled packages of traditional pay TV in the foreseeable future.”
• “The evolving pace of competition between OTT services and traditional pay TV should not be underestimated, particularly given continuing growth in the smart TV sector.”

Despite earlier provisionally concluding News Corp’s part-owned BSkyB’s exclusive subscription pay-TV deals with Hollywood studios restricts competition, the UK’s Competition Commission has now reversed its decision, saying:

“Whereas in the past consumers wanting to watch recent movies on a pay-TV movie service had to subscribe to Sky Movies through a traditional pay-TV platform, the launch of new and improved movie services in the pay-TV market by Netflix and Lovefilm means that they now have other alternatives.”

That development – the unleashing of new content options over internet TV – was evident to those who have been watching the sector. But it was a a development the Competition Commission had to find for itself, during an inquiry that began almost two years ago.

Sky, led by CEO Jeremy Darroch (pictured), had declared itself “perplexed” by the December 2011 provisional ruling. After provisionally ruling against Sky Movies, the Competition Commission at one point mooted that BSkyB be forced to carry competing services from the likes of Lovefilm and Blinkbox on its own pay-TV box – something BSkyB would have contested vigorously.

But there were especially two factors behind the commission’s change of mind:

“In particular, Netflix launched in the UK in January 2012 and, since the original provisional findings, LOVEFiLM has enhanced significantly its Internet-distributed movie offering.

“As rival services increase the number of their subscribers, the barriers to them acquiring further first subscription pay-TV window rights will continue to fall.”

Indeed, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings had left the door open for the Competition Commission’s reversal when, whilst launching Netflix in to the UK in January, he told paidContent:

“We could just bid against them (Sky). We are not dependent on whatever the Competition Commission does.”

Now Hastings will have to front up. BSkyB will this summer launch Now TV, its own suite of on-demand and live TV channels including movies, over internet TV devices without requiring a full annual satellite subscription as its core business does.

“The CC expects consumer choice to increase further when Sky launches its own Internet-based service in the summer (branded Now TV), which will offer Sky Movies without the need to take any other pay-TV content or subscribe to Sky’s satellite platform.

According to a report this week from Open Rights Group and the London School of Economics, many local mobile operators are using aggressive — but haphazard — child protection filters by default, leaving adult customers unable to see perfectly ordinary websites instead of preventing kids from accessing adult material.

As the report says (PDF):

“There are serious consequences to badly implemented, default child protection blocking systems. They include restrictions on markets, censorship, a failure to address young people’s diverse needs and a false sense of security for parents.”

The document outlines more than 60 reported cases where websites have been erroneously flagged as containing adult content — and these are just the small number of cases reported to the Open Rights Group’s blocked.org.uk complaint service.

This really isn’t just an oddity. I regularly run into blocks when browsing news or data online on my phone, which is on a business tariff with Vodafone — surely a product most kids wouldn’t be using.

And in fact, just yesterday we received a message saying that the adult filter for France Telecom-owned Orange was blocking GigaOM.

Now, I know we’re a site for grown-ups, but that’s just silly.

If your operator is deciding on your behalf that what we write is off limits — including now, of course, the fact that we’re telling you that these blocks are faulty — then there’s really no reason to suspect it couldn’t happen to anybody, at any time.

Spreading censorship

And it’s not just in Britain, either. This sort of approach is happening all over Europe, in a variety of ways.

In a piece for Foreign Policy, the author and activist Rebecca Mackinnon outlines some of the incursions being made — and points out that, crucially, none of this is happening because of regulatory pressure.

“This type of problem is serious enough, in enough countries, to have made its way to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Last year, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, delivered an official report to the council that not only condemned the censorship and surveillance practices of authoritarian countries, but also warned of dangerous trends in the democratic world that threaten citizen rights to free expression in the Internet age.

“One of his major concerns is ‘over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law’. He singled out two examples of how governments are, ironically, using law to delegate enforcement responsibilities and functions to the private sector: Britain’s Digital Economy Act, which could potentially disconnect Internet users suspected of illegal downloading, and France’s similar ‘three strikes’ law.

The result of all this?

In the name of protecting us, mobile operators are now becoming the de facto censors of the web, whether we’ve asked them to or not.

Photograph copyright Shutterstock/Pixel 4 images