Hi, [...] > My guess is that this ruling will serve as a handle to prevent > stalking excesses (whether it involves celebs, children, former lovers, > whatever; any case were some maniac decides to follow you around with a > camera all day every day) more than some Draconian measure to ban people > from taking each other's photographs. I guess we'll have to see how > jurisprudence develops.
It occurred to me this morning that the law is (or may be - I only know what I've read in the paper) double-plus stupid. According to the article it becomes illegal to publish the photograph without the subject's (or indeed subjects' - there may be other people in the picture) consent. There is a presumption of innocence, so in any court case the publisher does not have to prove that they _have_ consent. Rather the plaintiff has to prove that the publisher does _not_ have consent. This means they have to prove a negative. -- Cheers, Bob
