peterwn wrote:
> On May 12, 7:10 am, Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>> May 12, 2008
>>
>> Child can have right to privacy infringed by surreptitious photography
>>
>> Court of Appeal
>>
>> Published May 12, 2008
>>
>> Murray v Express Newspapers plc and Another
>>
>> Before Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Laws and
>> Lord Justice Thomas
>>
>> Judgment May 7, 2008
>>
>> It was arguable that a child had a reasonable expectation that he
>> would not be targeted in order to obtain photographs in a public place
>> for publication which the person taking or procuring the photographs
>> knew would be objected to on the child’s behalf ........
>>
>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article391...
>>
>
> All the Appeal Court did was to overturn the lower court's striking
> out. Express Newspapers may still 'win' at a substantive hearing.
No, they can't.
Express Newspapers surrendered and settled the case: it then continued
only against Big Pictures Limited, who were responsible for taking the
picture and selling it to Express Newspapers.
I think we can be fairly sure that Big Pictures will likewise settle out
of court now that they have failed at this particular hurdle. I can see
though that in this modern age a requirement to deliver up the
photographs and any negatives, is not realistic. You can only deliver up
whatever electronic copies you have on file, and this is unlikely to be
of any benefit unless you can trace every copy that you sent elsewhere,
and recall it. |