I am not talking about privacy, but the treating of images of children as
personal data, ergo making them fall under the DPA.
"The Todal" wrote in message
news:68do85F2rl64eU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Aidy" wrote in message
> news:mNednVuVprHkCLzVnZ2dnUVZ8smgnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> and as it only applies to children (adults' pictures are not personal
>>> data) they can't stop publication in the press.
>>
>> Oops. "and as it only applies to children (adults' pictures are not
>> personal data) adults can't stop publication of their images in the
>> press."
>
> No, I don't think that can be right. Adults and children alike may be able
> to show that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That would
> apply if you are doing your weekly shopping, rather than appearing on a
> podium to wave to your cheering fans. If there is the reasonable
> expectation of privacy, the Press will have an uphill task to show that
> publication of the photos was justified.
>
> If you take a street scene which includes various un-named children and
> then publish it in the Press, I think a court would be reluctant to give
> the children (through their parents) the right to veto publication. Unless
> of course they felt they were being singled out for ridicule or unwelcome
> attention from the neighbours.
>
>
|