Street photography IS illegal, apparently ...

Nope. That was regarding the publishing of said photos, not the taking.
The judge ruled in her favour because (and I summarise as to how I understand it).

The face of a 'normal' child wouldn't have been published (or would at least be blurred), then the same should be of the famous parent.
 
Marcel said:
Nope. That was regarding the publishing of said photos, not the taking.
The judge ruled in her favour because (and I summarise as to how I understand it).

The face of a 'normal' child wouldn't have been published (or would at least be blurred), then the same should be of the famous parent.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I can imagine all the "informed" PCSO/Police saying to a tog when stopped "It was in court recently that you can't take pictures in the street".

Bah Humbug
 
It seems to me that the ruling said that it's not legal to take a photo of a child's face and publish it? There are countless "classic" photos taken by a journalist, or art photographers, of children at play or in the streets, none of which would have been "legal" under this latest ruling?
 
Each case will be different. In the linked example it was publishing the photo that changed a private moment into a public one. If different circumstances the ruling could have gone the other way. Essentially the ruling says a private moment from everyday life shouldn't be published just because the child has a famous parent. Had the child been doing something else it might have been ok to publish because it was in the public interest. That could include committing or preventing a crime for example but the reasons for and against are almost endless.
 
dakid said:
There are countless "classic" photos taken by a journalist, or art photographers, of children at play or in the streets, none of which would have been "legal" under this latest ruling?
Click to expand...

Yes but in a group photo like that they wouldn't have said 'here is John Smith, son of Peter Smith, playing outside his house'.
 
My interpretation is the same as Marcel & Mattyh's.

However, I'm concerned that this may have potentially set a rather nasty precidence that by "publishing" a photo you are infringing the person's right to privacy. I understand that this case covered the child of a famous person, however does (or even can) the law take into account these differences? Or as I fear the law applied to a "person" regardless of age or celebrity status, in which case this is not good news.

If this is a precidence is there a legal definition of publish and would that include posting an image on the internet e.g. a forum, a flickr account or printing and displaying the image in a photo club competition? If it does include this then what arguement can photographers possibly use when taking street photos?

Without knowing all the legal details it's difficult to say whether this is bad news but I can see this may be start of a very slippery slope.

Is there a lawyer in the house that can clarify?
 
SimonTALM said:
Without knowing all the legal details it's difficult to say whether this is bad news but I can see this may be start of a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

I think that slippery slope started along time ago, I'm sure it won't be long before there are restrictions on who and what you can photograph in public.
 
I suspect, and I could be wrong as I haven't read the full judgement, that this centers around the deliberate targetting of the family and subsesquent publication of the picture in a paper, based on it being in the public interest. The story will have added more information to the picture than a simple picture of mother and child that may be displayed and indeed sold in a gallery or on the internet.

If the shot was taken covertly with a long lens, with the express intention of creating or supplementing a story then this will limit the intrusive elements of the paparrazi. There is already legislation covering the use of images gained covertly.

It is still somewhat concerning ruling and a full clarification of the ruling by a qualified lawyer would be useful as I suspect precedent has been set.

Thats my humble opinion anyway
 
Ok, how would you feel if you or your child was photographed without your knowledge and/or agreement and that photograph published?
 
We are all photographed every single day without our knowledge or permission;).

But my answer would be this, if the picture in which I and my children was taken in a public place and was published and sold as a piece of art I'd feel proud to be part of that piece of work.

If the shot was taken and then untrue or unsavoury comments were made about me or my children as part of a story associated to that photograph I would be angry and would seek a legal remedy to that situation. This is what I suspect this case was about, the deliberate targetting of Rowling and her child for the furtherance of a story about her, which she did not feel was in the public interest.
 
  • At what point does someone become famous?
  • Is it financial, if so what's the threshold?
  • If not financial then what is it?
  • If a normal (because famous people must then be abnormal???) person is published do they become famous?
  • If someone becomes famous because their photo is published does said picture become instantly illegal?
  • Doesn't this create a catch-22 situation?
  • Isn't it a well known fact by now that if you want to be able to enjoy the luxuries of fame you also have to deal with the downside of things?
  • These people don't complain when they need the press to increase their fame and increase their wallet/purse - as per Newton's Law every action has an equal and opposite reaction but they don't want to deal with this.
  • I'm not in a good mood today.


In my eyes this is just more reinforcement that the law is just one large gray area and should be given careful consideration but never relied upon.
 
When she lost her last hearing of this case, in the High Court, the judge said ...

BBC News said:
"I have considerable sympathy for the claimant's parents and anyone else who wishes to shield their children from intrusive media attention," Mr Justice Patten said.

But he added that "an area of routine activity which, when conducted in a public place, carries no guarantee of privacy"
Click to expand...

So, now it would seem as if this latter statement is not upheld as an opinion by the legal system, and that anything involving a private individual in a public place could be construed as having privacy invaded when a photo of it is published.

While I can see why she's doing what she is, I actually hope that this gets appealed again up to the House of Lords, for a decision which reflects the true legal status of there being no right to privacy when in a public place; something that today's judgement seems to be contradicting.
 
The report does mention 'long lens' shots, which would lead me to imagine that they were indeed a purposeful invasion of privacy, rather than just a street shot!
 
dakid said:
While I can see why she's doing what she is, I actually hope that this gets appealed again up to the House of Lords, for a decision which reflects the true legal status of there being no right to privacy when in a public place; something that today's judgement seems to be contradicting.
Click to expand...

That's why the publication is the key point as it opens the "moment" up to a wider audience than those who were there at the time. In effect the ruling says that in a public place you don't have privacy from those around you but you do from those that aren't - common sense really.
 
Did they define "long lens"??!!
 
haggis said:
Did they define "long lens"??!!
Click to expand...

Not quite in terms of mm lol.....but the way it sounded was as if they had been sat in a bush covertly spying on the family, in which case in my opinion it is a bit wrong!! But thats just speculation!
 
I would think the likes of OK and Hello magazines are taking a very long hard look at this judgement, as the ramification of the precedent set could be huge.

I think is about time we gave these famous people the privacy they desire, and NEVER publish a single word about them their family's and any book/film they want to promote.





As a side note it just confirmed to me what a control and money grabbing cow J K Rowling really is.
 
pxl8 said:
In effect the ruling says that in a public place you don't have privacy from those around you but you do from those that aren't - common sense really.
Click to expand...

That's the bit that scares me .... only those who were there in the street at that time are allowed to look at any street photographs you take? Or is that only if you used a lens longer than 100mm? ;)

Comments not meant personally, honest! I'm just really scared that this precedent absolutely has the potential to prevent anyone taking photos of anyone else in a public place. There's no way they can come up with a "celebrity test" that will be admissible in court, so that won't be a factor when this case law is referred to in lower courts.
 
There's a few people missing the point here.

The case is not about photography; its about the publication of photos in the press and the consequent financial implications that has.

The case was not brought by a celebrity. JK Rowling was not the claimant. The case was brought by her son.

The decision is not a final judgment. The defendant sought to have the case struck out as being one with no realistic chance of success. The Court of Appeal have refused to strike it out. They take the view that the claimant's case is, at least arguable. That does not mean the claimant will win at trial. (Although, the chances of it going to trial are probably pretty slim now)

The full judgment is here: http://SPAM/4uoecs

Obviously, you can all go and read it for yourselves and decide what it means, but one paragraph from the judgment seems to me to be the crux of it:

"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. That is the context in which the photographs of David were taken."​

MV
 
All good points, mobilevirgin, and I really hope that it is just about the publication, not the photographing.

Time will tell, hopefully that we'll continue to be able to photograph people and places in public with impunity! :)
 
dakid said:
That's the bit that scares me .... only those who were there in the street at that time are allowed to look at any street photographs you take? Or is that only if you used a lens longer than 100mm? ;)
Click to expand...

No, a photo taken by Joe Tog in the street for it's artistic merit is vastly different from a photo taken by Pete Pap with the intention of publication for commercial gain. Intent is a key factor here but as I said earlier, each case will be different and you can't take a simplistic view that there's a basic rule allowing photography of people in a public place or not.

Perhaps it would help if you consider the difference between Publish and Exhibit...
 
mobilevirgin said:
There's a few people missing the point here.

The case is not about photography; its about the publication of photos in the press and the consequent financial implications that has.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I guessed this thread might go off the point a bit.
 
mobilevirgin said:
The full judgment is here: http://SPAM/4uoecs
Click to expand...

MV,

Thank you for the link a vital part to this whole thing - the BBC website put a distinct spin on things IMO (if not completely wrong) - the most important part is now clear, this case that JKR's son won is nothing to do with photography at all.

It is all about the fact that her son can get a case regarding photography invasion of privacy whist in public heard by the court.

All I can hope is that either

1) Big Pictures and JKR's son settle out of court
2) JKR's son looses the case

otherwise I think then a precidence may be set.
 
whiteflyer said:
Yea right, her 5 year old child brought this claim
Click to expand...

Yup - the judgment makes it pretty clear that the outcome would probably have been different had JK Rowling brought the claim. The issues are different. The balance of rights (privacy vs. freedom of expression) would almost certainly tip towards allowing publication in her case. She's a celeb and, to a certain extent needs the exposure. Her son is not and doesn't need the exposure.

The Court of Appeal criticised the 1st instance judge for precisely that error. He paid too much attention to the position of the parents. He should have paid more attention to the rights of the child.
 
I do now realise that the case is about the publication, but I'm not entirely convinced that matters. Case law doesn't necessarily look at context as strongly as it ought when examining previous judgements. I see every chance that someone will attempt to use this judgement to create a "right to privacy" in this country, because they don't want a photo of them published.

I seem to remember from my Law course that there are no rights in this country (unlike America), because everything is permitted except that which is illegal. All very confusing :D
 
Rowling's son won the case because his mother had taken steps to conceal his identity previously. This is unlikely to be the case for any child walking down the street. Thus you will be able to take photos in public places of children or anyone else. The Queen cannot prevent people taking photos of her, nor can most other people.

Keep clicking - or go to China where they are happy for you to take their pictures.:)
 
Organisers of public events have already used the 2001 case about JKR's daughter to justify an embargo of snaps including children being used in their record of the event. OK, they don't/didn't have the Law behind them, just an excuse for a lot of finger-wagging. Other events include a disclaimer printed in the programme.

The 2001 case was about a pap who followed them to a holiday island and used a long lens to get a shot of the girl in her swimming costume, apparently causing embarrassment for her at school.
 
Court of Appeal judgement published May12, 2008
ref Murray V Express Newspapers plc and Another.
Bottom line:-
"In the circumstances, the judge was wrong to strike out David's claim on the ground that he had no arguable case that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top