On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:55:43 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Thu, 8 May 2008 09:47:17 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
> wrote:
>
>>I am in the position that my local paper has published a photograph of my
>>good self on their front page a couple of years ago. I was in a public
>>place, but the paper neither told me my photograph had been taken nor asked
>>me if they could publish it. I hold no illusion that the paper had to do
>>either thing, and I don't suppose for one moment that I could do anything
>>about it.
>>
>>To be fair to the paper, I don't believe that it was me that they were
>>specifically photographing but rather some new business that had just opened
>>in the town that I happened to be walking past when the photograph was
>>taken.
>
>The big difference in that case is that you were not *identified* by
>the newspaper.
>
>Not that I understand the judge's ruling. If you happened to be an
>integral part of a newsworthy event, such as being involved in an
>accident or having your house catch fire etc., you may well find your
>photograph in the paper with a caption that clearly identifies you as
>being the person in the image.
>
>In such a case you will have become an involuntary temporary
>celebrity, and I see no reason why you should not be protected in the
>same way as the child in the case under discussion.
The difference will be "public interest".
According to the judgments, there is a balance to be drawn between
freedom of expression and a right to privacy.
Both of these being extensions of common law to make the HRA articles
8 & 10 apply to organisations and individuals, rather than just the
public authorities specified by statute.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't rush me. I get paid by the hour.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |