- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
David Bailey has had his share of bad pap snaps in the past.
He's probably the only 'famous' photographer who qualifies as a 'celebrity'.
Adele's Son Wins Damages For Paparazzi Photos
- Thread starter admirable
- Start date
He's probably the only 'famous' photographer who qualifies as a 'celebrity'.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
More likely no one cares -People like Bailey, and lichfeild and co arent really popular famous , in the way that gets you papped (in the sense that if you mention them to a typical "heat" reader they'll say " who , bailey, that a drink innit " , so there's no market for the photos so the Paps don't bother.
Also all this moaning about invasion of privacy is fine if the pictures were taken somewhere where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy - but if they were taken in public, being famous doesnt give them any more right to privacy than anyone else.
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Which is all the rights they needed - enough to win them the court case
I really don't understand this Pete - when it comes to 'photographers rights' and all the other boll0x discussed on forums, you take the straight line along with the law
- but you really are brainwashed by the s***e media on this issue discussing celeb's as if they're some sort of undeserving subspecies.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Point i'm making is that many celebs seem to expect greater protection than everyone else - vis for example the law Hannah Weller wanted passed. As i said if the celeb is somewhere that they have a reasonable right of privacy (such as in their garden or house) and their privacuy is invaded by a pap up a tree with a long lens then absolutely the papparazzi are in the wrong ... but if their picture is taken in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy then they've got nothing to complain about (any more than anyone else who is photographed in the street has)
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Point I'm making is that they don't. Even the stupid Hannah Weller idea wasn't 'for celebs' it was for kids.
And the other point is that the courts awarded damages in both cases, which seems to suggest that the paps are out of order, but you're still defending them
. Which seems to be because you don't like 'celebs' which is moronic.If I happy slapped Gideon Osborne, I'd expect my picture to appear in the papers, but if I release a new album and take my kids to the park, that's not a newsworthy event and the paps could expect a good kicking for following me if I'd politely asked them to get lost. Being a recording artist or actor is not a good reason for paps to follow someone around, and it's certainly not a reason to publish pictures of their kids. I appreciate that it's morons who buy these papers and magazines, but the publishers are responsible for maintaining standards.
Like all of us at work, we can maintain a professional standard or behave like morons, I can't defend moronic behaviour, whether there's a market for it's output or not.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yeah kids of celebs .
as i said at the time the thing that seems moronic to me is the inherent double standard -"my kids should be protected from intrusuion into their lives but i'm quite happy to sell images of them to teen vogue" - its like the daft mumnet attitude that says "every photographer is a potential peadophile but i'm quite happy to put pics of my kids on facebook because obviously no weirdos ever use the internet"
If you want to let your kids be kids then yes great protect them from media intrusion brought about by their parents fame
if you want to profit from the publics interest in your family by talking about your kids in your interviews, getting them photoshoots with magazines etc - also fine
but its an either or , you can't have your cake and eat it
- Messages
- 3,694
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Who is Adele?
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be fair, there's no photos left to be taken of mrs bailey, they've all been taken and displayed or published by Bailey.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yep a personal choice to be a hypocrite
its not remotely similar to the situations you cite in your example
end of the day its a straight forward question " do you Mr/Ms X celbrity want your kids in the public eye or not ? answer yes or no ? " either yes or no is an acceptable answer , but some celebrities want the answer to be "sometimes"
and in addition they don't have a right to privacy when they are in public any more than anyonelse does
its not remotely similar to the situations you cite in your example
end of the day its a straight forward question " do you Mr/Ms X celbrity want your kids in the public eye or not ? answer yes or no ? " either yes or no is an acceptable answer , but some celebrities want the answer to be "sometimes"
and in addition they don't have a right to privacy when they are in public any more than anyonelse does
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You haven't read this thread then. According to some she's a cold, heartless, selfish, double standards bitch.
Or you could take media stuff with a pinch of salt and give it about as much credence knowing what it was designed for, to sell copy and nothing else matters.
She does write, sing a good tune though
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
And the answer to all my scenarios was also 'sometimes'. And it's a perfectly reasonable response. Do you want strangers to have some of your money? Sometimes.
Do you fancy a bit of slap and tickle? Sometimes
Do you mind strangers having your apples? Sometimes
It's really quite straightforward.
And I don't understand why you can't see it.Forget the right to 'privacy' how ever you're imagining it, 2 judges say you're wrong. I can't see how you can blindly go on about these children's lack of a right to privacy, it's enshrined in the HRA and judges upheld it. But according to the law of Pete, that's wrong
Surely you believe that our newspapers would be improved if they were forced to start printing actual 'news' instead of this tripe?
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
They probably tried that but no one bought them ....
I think the masses are far less intellectual than we would like to think.
Speaking generally, I feel some celebrities are quite hypocritical and will manipulate the press as and when it suits their agenda, and will take exception when it does not. I firmly believe that if the behaviour of the paparazzi (or anyone else) is overly intrusive then such harassment should not be tolerated. But when it comes to the amendment of laws, some celebrities do seem to believe that their position should carry an unusual level of weight, simply because of who they are.
I'm sure that like most people I would find it very difficult if I was harassed every time I went out of the door - but it is the very definition of harassment which seems to be unclear. If I was a celebrity I think I would have to accept that there would probably be photographers hovering on every street corner waiting to take a picture. I don't think that can be avoided and I think it's reasonable to expect that, whether you have your children with you or not. Reference fodder for the masses and the manner in which newspapers are sold, and at times the symbiotic relationships which celebrities have with the press (at least whilst their star is rising). However if I was relentlessly stalked to the point where I couldn't get a photographer out of my face, or to leave me alone after they had taken their shots, or if I were being goaded, then I would be very angry indeed since beyond a certain point I would feel justifiably harassed. But in any of those scenarios I would nevertheless have to accept that it is not currently illegal in itself to take photographs of any person (or child) in a public place. Any case I might have would need to hinge upon the manner in which the photographer went about this and potentially whether or not the mode of publication was defamatory.
I used to live in Los Angeles when I did my postgraduate work, in West Hollywood, and pretty much every day I used to witness the lengths to which some celebrities (both established and rising) would go to attract media attention. Some of it was brazen, some of it was downright tacky. Consequently they will attract attention whether they are out alone or with their family. I realise that some celebrities do their best not to specifically gamer the attentions of the press, but unfortunately if a paparazzo is minded to be intrusive than that is what they will do. I think the press probably take a view that there has been collusion and this is part of the deal - it is the culture of celebrity after all. And I think there is a belief that some celebrities deserve it more than others. But as I said, overt harassment must be quite unpleasant at times, whether pictures were being taken are not.
I just watch a video on you tube about the time Murdoch took over the Sunday Times,when both Don McCullin and Harold Evans were pushed out,Murdoch said the public was no longer interested in hard news stories,but wanted lifestyle stories in their magazines.
So who made the sought of press we got today ?
So who made the sought of press we got today ?
- Messages
- 1,444
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is the issue here. Why is a celeb with money entitled to claim compensation for a photo taken in a public place? If the law allows street photography then why and what actual law civil or statutory law is broken? It is the thin end of the wedge and I don't like the idea one bit that celebs can pick and chose what publicity they want. The man in the street has no claim if his kids are photographed in a public place!
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
1. It's the publication of the photograph that is at issue not the taking of it.
2. Article 8 of the ECHR
3. It applies equally to the children of Joe Bloggs as it does to those of Adele Adkins in similar circumstances. (If he could afford to take the case.)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,444
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This does not mean anything to me.
In the daily Star today there are photos of children in public places. Prince Harry with child in public place no permission needed to take or publish the photo P19. On page 21 Coleen Rooney is with her child in public.So what law did this Adele use that these people arn't?and if there is any such law how does the Tog or publisher know to publish without fear of a claim?
I think there is more to it than has been published in the paper about Adeles claim. Rather than there being laws against photographing children in public I would say the default position is that is completely lawful and the burden of proving any offense or liberty infringement lies with the claimant.
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is of course lawful to take photographs of children in public.
If you publish them and:-
- It shows the child's face.
- The child is identified by name.
- There is no public interest debate
- There is no permission.
As a civil claimant the burden would of course be on you to prove this on the balance of probability.
Rather than making celebrities' children a special case the courts view it the other way round. From Murray v Express Newspapers :-
“if a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent. In our opinion it is at least arguable that a child of `ordinary’ parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him”.
We do not know the specific details of Adele's claim as the case was compromised before it was heard.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that is where public perception is entirely overlooked, in what appears to be fairly naive statement. Clearly a non-celebrity parent and child would not normally be considered newsworthy or of public interest in isolation, but the buying public will take a very different view of the celebrity family and therefore there is and will continue to be a huge demand for constant media fodder. The above statement takes no account of that. A celebrity or public figure cannot realistically expect to go about normal life free from scrutiny, and therefore free from photographers and media exposure - much of which will have done a great deal to place that person in the public eye in the first place, aligned with whatever spin is on the agenda at the time. The parents of celebrity children will obviously have to make specific provision for this, rightly or wrongly their own position will create considerable interest in their offspring. The statement quoted implies that there should be no more interest shown in a celebrity family than the child of Joe Bloggs, but we know that cannot ever be the case. It is unfortunate, but true.
One of my less near relatives is a household name and she accepts that most of her exposure will be coordinated, and some of it may not be. Generally there is no problem at all with the latter (in this country) but she understands she cannot conduct herself as the rest of us might without attracting the public gaze, because even the most innocuous of outings will be of considerable interest to the public.
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think the statement is saying that there is no more interest in a celebrity's child than an "ordinary" child. It's a child centred principle. When considering the reasonable expectation of a 12 year old girl then the arguments ( and the statement says it is arguable ) should be based on the 12 year old girl and not her parents' celebrity or expectations.
The child's interest is paramount. A further reference from the Weller case:
“… in reaching a decision that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her interests. This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other. It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other competing factors. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed, unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them”.
The child's interest is paramount. A further reference from the Weller case:
“… in reaching a decision that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her interests. This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other. It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other competing factors. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed, unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them”.
- Messages
- 2,138
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Adele has kids?
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lindsay, I wasn't stating my opinion (although it is); the legal analysis starts from the expectation of privacy from the child's point of view, not the parents, and not the general public. In that respect that's the way it does work. If the media keep publishing photographs in similar circumstances then they will keep paying damages.
What can be said is that there are no special rules for celebrities' children and that each case has to be considered on its own facts. An 8 year old boy being photographed and published whilst out shopping spending his birthday money is quite different from a 15 year old girl out on the town whilst "dating" the Rolling Stones bassist. I would suggest that one had the reasonable expectation of privacy and one didn't (and perhaps didn't want it).
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
In our jurisdiction at least, when in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and I think that has been the thrust of much of this thread. In this regard, I believe there are no specifically separate laws for the photographing (or publishing) of images of minors. When it comes to usage, providing that usage falls within one of the relevant data protection exclusions, it would not be a breach of the law and permission would not be necessary. That is of course with respect to a photograph, if there was in fact disclosure of certain personal data, then whether that constituted a breach would depend on the nature of the case in question and the nature of the data revealed at the time. If Adele's case concerned intrusion upon private property or into a locality where the family could expect privacy, then that is a different matter and certainly represents unacceptable behaviour on the part of the paparazzi.
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
This is very much the "having cake and eating it" mentality already touched upon earlier. As in, a wildly differing set of rules depending on the leanings of the individual concerned. Both are out in public, and the law does not currently prohibit their respective likenesses being captured and published within certain bounds. I would have to presume there was much more to the Adele case than a brief news bulletin might suggest.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And the answer to all my scenarios was also 'sometimes'. And it's a perfectly reasonable response. Do you want strangers to have some of your money? Sometimes.
Do you fancy a bit of slap and tickle? Sometimes
Do you mind strangers having your apples? Sometimes
It's really quite straightforward.
Forget the right to 'privacy' how ever you're imagining it, 2 judges say you're wrong. I can't see how you can blindly go on about these children's lack of a right to privacy, it's enshrined in the HRA and judges upheld it. But according to the law of Pete, that's wrong
Surely you believe that our newspapers would be improved if they were forced to start printing actual 'news' instead of this tripe?
because it isnt the same - its much closer to someone making a big song and dance about their apples and how great they are and look why don't you try some and inviting people to come and pick them , then getting upset because someone came and picked them without asking first.
Also I don't thing the right to privacy as enshrined in the HRA is wrong - but nowhere in the HRA does irt say that you have a right to privacy in a public place
our newspapers would be greatly improved by not printing tripe - but much of the public want tripe which is why it gets printed - as i said in the other thread mr weller had it right the first time " the public wants what the public gets"
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's applying the same set of principles and reaching a different conclusion based on different circumstances.
The Weller photographs were taken in public. Extract from the judgement:-
In my judgment the photographs were published in circumstances where Dylan, Bowie and John Paul had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was because the photographs showed their faces, one of the chief attributes of their respective personalities, as they were on a family trip out with their father going shopping and to a café and they were identified by surname.
Extract from Murray v Express Newspapers:-
it seems to us that, subject to the facts of the particular case, the law should indeed protect children from intrusive media attention, at any rate to the extent of holding that a child has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be targeted in order to obtain photographs in a public place for publication which the person who took or procured the taking of the photographs knew would be objected to on behalf of the child
Although not solely applicable to children an obiter in Campbell v MGN based on Peck v United Kingdom:-
In my opinion, therefore, the widespread publication of a photograph of someone which reveals him to be in a situation of humiliation or severe embarrassment, even if taken in a public place, may be an infringement of the privacy of his personal information
All of these rely on Article 8 and the reasonable expectation of privacy. All apply to photographs taken in public places.
It is simply wrong to say that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place in all circumstances. In particular case law as it has developed gives special attention to the rights of children.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So the issue was about the publication not the photograph then ... and the person as fault was not the papparazzi photographer but the newspaper who published the picture.
so its not 'simply wrong' at all - hardly any one has the right not to be photographed in a public place (with very few exceptions that arent relevant here) but children (and potentially other people who arent of legitimate public interest) may have the right not to have photos of them published together with identiable information.
my argument above however would be that weller had made his children objects of legitimate public interest by continually talking about them in his press interviews and selling photoshoots of them to certain magazines
so its not 'simply wrong' at all - hardly any one has the right not to be photographed in a public place (with very few exceptions that arent relevant here) but children (and potentially other people who arent of legitimate public interest) may have the right not to have photos of them published together with identiable information.
my argument above however would be that weller had made his children objects of legitimate public interest by continually talking about them in his press interviews and selling photoshoots of them to certain magazines
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
I did not specifically say that, which is why I alluded to the circumstances of the Adele case and the conclusions which need to be drawn from that - the ruling is such that my presumption is they were in fact in a situation where they should have expected some privacy - those details have not been set out publicly but they must have existed. It is nevertheless true to say that in a place where no such expectation can exist, then such a ruling would not have taken place.
- Messages
- 169
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From the editors code of practice http://www.editorscode.org.uk/the_code.html :
Under section 3 *Privacy
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Under section 6 *Children
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.
Further down in the public interest:
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.
Under section 3 *Privacy
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Under section 6 *Children
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.
Further down in the public interest:
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so in the case of Dylan Weller who's over 16 , a case for justification could be made from the fact that she's a model , and the interest in her that springs from paul wittering about her in various interviews
but you can't photograph his little uns unless they do something newsworthy
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Reading back my reply it seems somewhat terse and I apologise if it came over as rude. However my point is merely that as far as children are concerned they may potentially expect privacy even when doing something as simple as shopping with their parents even in a public place. Of course establishing that right is only the first step and other factors have to be considered before reaching judgement. We will never know the precise details as the parties agreed a settlement before court. We do know that some of the photos were of the first family outing and the child's first visit to playgroup.