"Alex Heney" wrote in message
news:8i5424h7ok4ackd08u0ldpvle40us2md3k@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Colin Wilson
> wrote:
>
>>> It is not the street photography which is unlawful - it was the
>>> *publication* of it - two very different things.
>>
>>IANAL, but she was in a public place, and therefore no more worthy of
>>protection from a camera lens than a normal member of the public -
>>unless of course i'm missing something. Oh, that's it - she's rich.
>
> Well the point the judge made is more or less exactly that (but saying
> "celebrity" rather than "rich").
>
> i.e. in his opinion, a "normal" child would not expect their photo to
> be published under such circumstances, so why should the "celebrity"
> child expect it?
>
> Which is a perfectly valid comment, but I don't understand how that
> "expectation" makes it unlawful.
It doesn't.
A family walking down a street to do their shopping have a reasonable
expectation of privacy. That means they do not expect to have their photo
splashed all over the newspapers or shown on national TV, just for walking
down the street. None of us would be happy with that.
That being the case, there is then a balancing act for the judge, to decide
whether the expectation of privacy outweighs the public interest in
publishing the photograph.
Anyway, it's all in the judgment of course:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
|