On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:47:45 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > A ruling by the European court looks (to me) as though it could outlaw > publication of almost any type of photograph which includes people without > their consent: > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=565537 > > The ruling is in the case that the normally media-hungry, grubby little > Monagesque royals have brought against the equally grubby paparazzi. But > I can see no reason, based on this report, why it should not also cover > photographs of unknown people, unless we have one law for celebs and > one law for proles. In this respect it sounds similar to the French law. > > The implication of it seems to me that few of the great classics by > people like Erwitt, HCB, Doisneau and so on could be published in > Europe. This is a very bad decision.
Wow. First of all, I absolutely don't believe that Britain, the birth place of Common Law, with its centuries-old tradition of the finest jurisprudence, ever signed a legal document wherein its courts would have to recognize precedent made in a court outside of its borders. Quite astounding. Is this what globalization leads to? Talk about eroding national sovreignty!! Was the signing of this Human Rights treaty debated in Britain? If so, was the public made aware that the document set up a court that actually makes law applicable in Britain? I suspect not. Beyond that, as the article is written (and the press, BTW is reknowned in legal circles for getting legal principles ~wrong~ when writing about legal matters), it appears that the ruling applies to everyone, not just celebs: " The test, the court said, was whether publication was likely to contribute to any debate of general interest to society." So, I take a photo of two people kissing in a park, out in the open, in public display, and I can't put it in a book? Well, if it doesn't contribute to any debate of general interest to society I can't. Dag, maybe the law is interpreted differently in your country, but really, it seems that it's only a matter of time before it's expanded. Some ordinary non-celeb is going to be photographed and put in the newspaper, and they're going to sue. A court will rule on the above test, find in favour of Joe (or Josephine) Public, and just like that, the law will be expanded. This stuff scares me. It really does. What about Photo.net? Is that publishing? I think it is. If someone finds their likeness on Photo.net or some such site put there without their consent, it seems that they have an action. Geez, 1/2 of my photos put there are of strangers. So far, in this part of the world, we can still publish any photo taken in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, even without the consent of that person. I just hope it stays that way. You're right, Bob, it's a bad law. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
