More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
mike703
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,913
Like?
Re: More privacy restrictions or fair decision?
In reply to malcolml1, 5 months ago

malcolml1 wrote:

Paul Weller has won damages from a daily newspaper in the UK after a freelance photographer took some pictures of his children in a public place:

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-27049435

On one hand, it was a public place. On the other hand, it was in a newspaper and presumably intended to help sell more copies.

Do you see this as more evidence of censorship, or a correct decision based on what the intended use of the photos was? Interestingly, the damages were awarded in the UK, even though the photos were taken in LA (and apparently legally under California law).

Malcolm

It's not the taking of the photos that is the issue.  As you say, in the USA (and UK) photos can legally be taken in public places, including of other peoples children - if you want to take the risk of having to forcibly swallow your 300mm f/2.8.

The problem is the use of the photos.  in the UK 'journalistic use' is OK, but in a case like this the newspaper would have to prove that photos of someone else's kids in the park are a legitimate news item.  The kids are not themselves celebrities; they have not chosen to make a living by being in the public eye; there is no reason that the public needs to know what they are doing.

So it strikes me as completely reasonable that this use of the (legally-taken) photos was inappropriate. It's not 'censorship' but, to my mind, reasonable application of existing and well-established restrictions as to how images of other people can be used.

Best wishes

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Ah!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow