F. Published and/or non-published material

On its face, the Statute does not distinguish between published and non-published material. In People v. Slover, the court interpreted the Statute as granting a qualified privilege against disclosure for even unpublished photographs taken by members of the media. 323 Ill. App. 3d 620, 624, 753 N.E.2d 554, 558 (2001). There, a murder defendant sought a subpoena to compel production of unpublished newspaper photographs that depicted search warrants being executed. Id. at 622, 753 N.E.2d at 556. The trial court held that the Statute did not apply to the photographs. Id. at 623, 753 N.E.2d at 556. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to allow the defendant to file an application seeking access to potentially privileged information. Id. at 625, 753 N.E.2d at 558. The court held that a photograph is a "source" of information under the plain meaning of the Statute even if the photo does not depict the identity of a person who is a news source. See also People ex. rel. Scott v. Silverstein, 89 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 1043, 412 N.E.2d 695 (1980) ("The compelled production of a reporter's resource materials is equally as invidious as the compelled disclosure of his confidential informants."); Reitz v. Gordon, 26 Media L. Rep. 1447 (quashing subpoena because unpublished photographs were not shown to be sufficiently necessary to the parties); McCabe v. Greager, 27 Media L. Rep. 1702 (video outtake was considered a source under the Statute regardless of whether it was confidential or that it was only an outtake).