"Aidy" wrote in message
news:mNydnWlt_pGxCLzVRVnyhQA@bt.com...
>> 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 :)
I think it is important to read the judgment. Naomi Campbell has a lot to
answer for, I think. I believe the law still allows anyone to take photos of
children in a public place, but publishing the photos in the national press
is quite a different matter, if the children had a reasonable expectation of
privacy. But it may be that this judgment extends the law somewhat, or will
be thought to do so.
"On 8th November 2004 Dr and Mrs Murray [aka Rowling] were out walking in an
Edinburgh street some time after 9 o'clock in the morning. Dr Murray was
pushing a buggy with David in it. The respondent BPL took a colour
photograph of the family group which was subsequently published in the
Sunday Express.
David asserts an infringement of his right to respect for his privacy
contrary to article 8 of the ECHR. He also puts his claim under the Data
Protection Act.
It may well be that the mere taking of a photograph of a child in a public
place when out with his or her parents, whether they are famous or not,
would not engage article 8 of the Convention. However, as we see it, it all
depends on the circumstances.... this was not the taking of a single
photograph of David in the street.... it was the clandestine taking and
subsequent publication of the photograph in the context of a series of
photographs which were taken for the purposes of their sale for publication,
in circumstances in which BPL did not ask David's parents for their consent
to the taking and publication of his photograph.
The first question is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is of course an objective question. ... At a trial, if the answer to
the first question were yes, the next question would be how the balance
should be struck as between the individual's right to privacy on the one
hand and the publisher's right to publish on the other.
We have reached a different conclusion from that of the judge. In our
opinion it is at least arguable that David had a reasonable expectation of
privacy. The fact that he is a child is in our view of greater significance
than the judge thought. ... If a child of parents who are not in the public
eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the
media, so too should the child of a famous parent. In our opinion it is at
least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect
that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him."
|