Hi, Saturday, September 25, 2004, 8:03:59 PM, DagT wrote:
> This is not the way it is interpreted here. They only conclude that > the royals have some right to privacy. > Usually, you can photograph anywhere and anybody, but you can�t publish > without permission if the person is important or dominant in the > picture and the theme is not of any special public interest. This was > the same before the verdict. that's not the way it is/was in the UK. If you take a photograph of somebody in a public place then you don't need their permission to pulish. Now we will have to enact this stupid ruling. -- Cheers, Bob
