Aidy wrote:
>> 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 :)
DPA does not apply to individuals (it applies to organisations and
businesses, of which an individual is nominated and responsible).
Gaz
|