On Thu, 08 May 2008 22:15:36 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>The photographer didn't just happen across the family and take a
>photograph.
>
>He sat in a car where he knew they were likely to pass, with a
>long-lensed camera just waiting for the chance to photograph the
>family.
>
>If you think that is not "targeting", then you have a very weird
>definition of the word.
Is that of any significance, legally? What would be the position of, say, a fan
who 'just happened' across the family, took a photo, and published it on their
blog?
I don't see any legal significance to such terms as 'long lens', 'targetting',
or 'clandestine'. In fact all of the above would tend to *reduce* the intrusion,
as the 'victims' were clearly unaware a photograph had been taken until it was
published.
I didn't like the Campbell judgement, and I like this one even less; they both
seem wrong to me. It smacks of both new 'rights' being invented and significant
other rights being abridged, without any legislative process.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |