On 12 May, 09:35, MM wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:01:00 +0100, Sleepalot
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Steve Walker" wrote:
>
> >>Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>
> >>> 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=92s behalf ........
>
> >>>http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article391..=
.
>
> >>Mmmm - not a fan of the paparazzi , but can't welcome a ruling which
> >>constrains photography in a public place.
>
> >Indeed, it's up to newspapers not to buy such photos as children
> >in public places does not constitute news: or alternatively, it's
> >up to us to not buy such newspapers.
>
> In German newspapers and magazines many pictures of people have a
> black bar across the eyes, so as not to completely identify the
> person. Also, newspaper articles will read something like: "Mrs K of
> Wiesbaden..." or "Alibert T. from Berlin.." Surnames are abbreviated,
> again so to preserve some degree of privacy.
>
Presumeably they do that when there's an actual story, rather
than takes to dance class (say)?
|