> Now I think I'm correct in saying this is a new principle - a photograph
> taken
> on a public street can't be published because.... well I'm not really
> clear, the
> judge just waffles about 'reasonable expectations'. And sets different
> standards
> for children. Not impressed.
Isn't it right that pictures of children are now classed as "personal data"
so are protected from unauthorised publication (DPA)? It wasn't the taking
of the picture that was unlawful but the publication, and as it only applies
to children (adults' pictures are not personal data) they can't stop
publication in the press.
I think that's what is going on anyway, if anyone knows better feel free to
say :)
|