Paul Weller and his wife call for child privacy changes...

It's directly comparable. Either suggestions are to be judged on the merits of the suggestion or on the merits of the suggestor. Which is it?

big soft moose said:
Does the new MP for newark regularly court the media and tell them intimate details about his private life and tha of his children ? if he doesnt then its not really a comparable situation
Click to expand...
 
Llamaman said:
It's directly comparable. Either suggestions are to be judged on the merits of the suggestion or on the merits of the suggestor. Which is it?
Click to expand...


no its really not - if the suggestor comes over as being a collosal hypocrite then that has direct relevance to the credibility of their suggestion as do the circumstances in which the suggestion is made.

clearly a decision is made on the merits of the suggestion - but the merit or othewise of the suggestion depend on the motivation of the suggestor and their credibility with you
for example if your wife says " why don't you go on a lovely holiday for a week" its somewhat different to if the suggestion that you go away on a lovely holiday for a week is given by a man standing outside your window fondling a crowbar and a big bag marked swag.

Exactly the same form of words, exactly the same suggestion - but a massively different motivation and thus a massive difference in credibility.
 
jakeblu said:
You keep banging the same drum Pete, and it's completely irrelevant. The children have a right to privacy, despite what you think, seems the judge thought so too
Click to expand...

do they ? - really ? - I guess everyone that does street photogaphy better not ever photograph a child again under any circumstances ... seems all those posts on mumsnet were right when they said the photographers were breaking the law.

I'm sorry but talking of assinine points your assertion here takes the award - the judge didnt say any such thing , he fined the daily heil because thy had failed to adhere to the code of practice for the media (and he only fined them 10k which is a pittance to a company their size - they probably made a lot more than that from the pictures)

No one has a 'right to privacy' in a public place (in the UK at least - american law may be differet and the alledged ofence did occur in santa monica)
 
big soft moose said:
paul weller keeping his private life private in the guardian in 2010



and again keeping his kids completely out of the public eye in 2012 (in the guardian again - he seems to like the guardian)



and again this time in the big issue 2012 (in an aricle sub titled Paul weller shaes parenting tips)





heres an idea if you want to protect your kid's privacy and not have any media interest in them - perhaps not metioning them repeatedly in media interviews might be an idea ? Admittedly you'll then have to find a new way of appearing right on to the fans who also have kids and with whom you want to appear to empathise...
Click to expand...
 
jakeblu said:
That's probably the most asinine post yet despite Simons best efforts :)

You keep banging the same drum Pete, and it's completely irrelevant. The children have a right to privacy, despite what you think, seems the judge thought so too
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
But you just posted an shot on the candid thread with a child in it riding an scooter,so say if by any chance this law did go thought you would now would have committed an criminal act.
?
Click to expand...

and as things stand he jhas infringed that childs right to prvacy and is open to lawsuit ? (except he isnt because the right to privacy is b*****ks unless you are somehere whee you have a reasonable expectation of privacy)
 
big soft moose said:
and as things stand he jhas infringed that childs right to prvacy and is open to lawsuit ? (except he isnt because the right to privacy is b*****ks unless you are somehere whee you have a reasonable expectation of privacy)
Click to expand...

Your right,but i am out of this one now were,i think i have said all i want to.
 
Last edited:
So if someone does something professionally that puts them in the public eye, this makes it ok to stick a camera in their face every time they venture out of the house?
Nonesense.
 
big soft moose said:
do they ? - really ? - I guess everyone that does street photogaphy better not ever photograph a child again under any circumstances ... seems all those posts on mumsnet were right when they said the photographers were breaking the law.

I'm sorry but talking of assinine points your assertion here takes the award - the judge didnt say any such thing , he fined the daily heil because thy had failed to adhere to the code of practice for the media (and he only fined them 10k which is a pittance to a company their size - they probably made a lot more than that from the pictures)

No one has a 'right to privacy' in a public place (in the UK at least - american law may be differet and the alledged ofence did occur in santa monica)
Click to expand...


He didn't fine them; he awarded damages to the children. He found there had been a misuse of private information and therefore a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. When coming to that conclusion he most certainly considered the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. To quote from the case :-
"It is common ground that the Claimants’ claim is for misuse of private information. It is also common ground that the claim for infringement of the Data Protection Act will stand or fall with the claim for misuse of private information. It is also agreed that, in relation to the claim for misuse of private information, the first question to be asked is “whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy”, but there is a dispute about whether that needs to be “known or ought to be known” by the publisher. ........."

His conclusion was that the children did have such an expectation.

You can certainly TAKE pictures in public places. Once you PUBLISH them however there are certain circumstances in which you have to consider the reasonable expectation of privacy, this being one of them.
 
zednini said:
You can certainly TAKE pictures in public places. Once you PUBLISH them however there are certain circumstances in which you have to consider the reasonable expectation of privacy, this being one of them.
Click to expand...

all those doing street photography better not post any picture on here or anywhere else on the net then :LOL: (although i'd actually suspect that the judement only really applies to publication in pursuit of profit by news agencies but its a really grey area)

Theres also a legal can of worms about if children have an expectation of privacy in public , why doesnt that apply to adults (as not doing would be a clear case of ageism) -take many steps down that road and soon you can't publish or put on the net a picture of anyone without their consent.

(also with reference to the weller case what private information was misused ?)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
all those doing street photography better not post any picture on here or anywhere else on the net then :LOL: (although i'd actually suspect that the judement only really applies to publication in pursuit of profit by news agencies but its a really grey area)

Theres also a legal can of worms about if children have an expectation of privacy in public , why doesnt that apply to adults (as not doing would be a clear case of ageism) -take many steps down that road and soon you can't publish or put on the net a picture of anyone without their consent.

(also with reference to the weller case what private information was misused ?)
Click to expand...

I said earlier in this thread that I hoped this would be appealed to clarify the circumstances. I don't think it will be though.

This is a developing area where the courts are looking at resolving the conflict between Article 8 and Article 10 ( Freedom of Expression).

At present publishing photographs has been found to breach Article 8 where:-

  • The subject is an identifiable child, permission has not been given, and there is no public interest debate. (The Weller Case)
  • The context of the photo discloses private information. (Campbell v MGN)
  • The subject is in a severely embarrassing or humiliating situation and the photo is widely published. (Peck v United Kingdom)

This applies whether or not the subject is in public.
 
be interesting to see what happens on appeal if it goes through
 
zednini said:
IThe subject is an identifiable child, permission has not been given, and there is no public interest debate. (The Weller Case)
.
Click to expand...

So does this genuinely mean that all the varuious street photographers here who've taken pics of kids and put them on TP (and indeed the TP admin team who are actually responsible for the publication) are now at risk of lawsuit ? If it does that is a massive massive deal

Also if it does mean that , why the hell does Ms weller want the law changed as it seems she already has what she wants
 
zednini said:
Their identifiable faces which is "one of the chief attributes of their personality."
Click to expand...

thats absolutely ridiculous - a persons face isn't private information. That has an even bigger ramification as it essentially mean that anyone who takes a picture of anyone without their consent is now at risk of lawsuit if they put the picture on the net... and by implication also of anything else identifiable, what about car number plates for example ?

If that is indeed he correct interpretation then TP better alter its rules to include no 'street' shots at all lest matt, marcel and brian wind up getting sued. (similar restriction will also be needed on every other photo sharing site or social media platform)

Surely this can't actually be a correc reading of what the case means ?
 
big soft moose said:
So does this genuinely mean that all the varuious street photographers here who've taken pics of kids and put them on TP
Click to expand...

Unlikely, unless you can identify the kids in question and do so in writing next to the photo. Which is the significant difference between a random photo of a stranger taken by an hobbyist and a papparazzi photo taken purely because of the identity of the subject and advertised and marketed as such.
 
big soft moose said:
do they ? - really ? - I guess everyone that does street photogaphy better not ever photograph a child again under any circumstances ... seems all those posts on mumsnet were right when they said the photographers were breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Are you being purposefully obtuse, can you not see the difference between a street photographer taking random photos of street life and the paparazzi stalking and harassing people going about their business. If I had been asked by the father of the child not to keep the image I would have deleted it, unfortunately the paparazzi do not afford their subjects the same courtesy
 
big soft moose said:
and as things stand he jhas infringed that childs right to prvacy and is open to lawsuit ? (except he isnt because the right to privacy is b*****ks unless you are somehere whee you have a reasonable expectation of privacy)
Click to expand...

From the beeb

The judge agreed the images could have been published legally in California, but said their appearance in the UK violated the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
Llamaman said:
Unlikely, unless you can identify the kids in question and do so in writing next to the photo. Which is the significant difference between a random photo of a stranger taken by an hobbyist and a papparazzi photo taken purely because of the identity of the subject and advertised and marketed as such.
Click to expand...

This is the crux though does a shot have to be identified , or just identifiable - you seem to be saying that if I see one of the Weller kids walking down the street wiith their au pair, i don't know who they are and just think ohh how adorable and take a street shot an post it here , there wouldn't be a problem

bt the judgement as described in zedinis post above said 'and indentiable child' and went on to say that their faces were private information... that isnt the same as itentified and would suggest that lawsuit would be viable merely for posting a picture which could be identified by someonewho knew who they were.

The former is a non event, the latterwould be the death of street , so it'd be interesting if anyone sees a deinitive legal opinion on which interpretation is corrrect ?
 
big soft moose said:
So does this genuinely mean that all the varuious street photographers here who've taken pics of kids and put them on TP (and indeed the TP admin team who are actually responsible for the publication) are now at risk of lawsuit ? If it does that is a massive massive deal

Also if it does mean that , why the hell does Ms weller want the law changed as it seems she already has what she wants
Click to expand...


Again 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."

So they were identifiable by name as well. Their first names were also used in the captions.
 
jakeblu said:
Are you being purposefully obtuse, can you not see the difference between a street photographer taking random photos of street life and the paparazzi stalking and harassing people going about their business. If I had been asked by the father of the child not to keep the image I would have deleted it, unfortunately the paparazzi do not afford their subjects the same courtesy
Click to expand...

I understand that the difference exists - but you see to be being purposeflly obtuse in not comprehending that

a) the judgement doesnt say that - it says 'publishing a photo of an identifiable child' (according to the posts above) are you saying that the child in your photo isn't identiable by someone who knows who they are ? - if you arent according to that judgement the father can now sue you, and slack for publishing a picture of his child without his consent.

and

b) The wellers alledgedly want the law to go even further, so that not only would you be open to lawsuit as a result of caselaw, but that you'd have actually commited a criminal act and now be open to prosecution.

Personally i wouldnt she any tears if the papparazzi and the gossip press went out of business tommorow , but this isnt about that, this is about the freedom of every photographer to take photos in public , and frankly i'm amazed that someone who shoots considerably more street than i do should defending the idea of limiting his freedom to do so
 
zednini said:
Again 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."

So they were identifiable by name as well. Their first names were also used in the captions.
Click to expand...

so actually this was incorrect ?

zednini said:
  • The subject is an identifiable child, permission has not been given, and there is no public interest debate. (The Weller Case)
.
Click to expand...

and should have said

- the subject is an identifiable child who has been clearly identified in the accompanying caption, permission has not een given, and there is no public interrst debate (the weller case)

which gives a somewhat different complexion
 
Yep. My bad. Sloppy use of language ! Should have read :

"The subject is an identified child, permission has not been given, and there is no public interest debate. (The Weller Case)"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top