Police to shame mobile phone drivers with photos. My understanding of photography is that if you take someones photo on the street and use it in an editorial context you need at the very least their consent. Their name for example. If you planned to use it for advertising you would need a model release form. So strictly speaking couldn't this become a legal issue for the police if they don't have consent?
Police to shame mobile phone drivers with photos
- Thread starter petemc
- Start date
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I spoke to a friend about something simlar recently, ( the flashing up of number plates on motorway signs of speeding drivers) who's a copper, and he said that it was stopped because the drivers human rights were being infringed, I don't see a differance between that and this, I guess its only a matter of time before someone takes it to the court of human rights in the same way
- Messages
- 12,095
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think that is some kind of loop hole about being able to show your photo/image in public if you have broken the law, guess it is there for mug shots etc. I remember it being mentioned on some police documentary. You know the ones where they follow police around. You use to be able (and still can mainly) tell if someone is convincted of the crime in the end as they show their face when arrested. If they are all blurred out then you know the voice over will say "the driver of the fiesta with 6 thousand crickets in his boot was released without charge"
- Messages
- 11,048
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Won't the Chav’s celebrate if there get there name in lights...can't imagine any of them feeling ashamed that’s for sure.
Take their license and then watch them laugh
TheRedUn
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 302
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Take their license and then watch them laugh
Exactly - if it's illegal, prosecute them. Or have the cops just got a bunch of new cams and want to practise their photo techniques?
- Messages
- 10,503
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Only if they make a profit from it, and the "model" can sue for profit from the sale of that product.
So if they put a bluetooth headset in the ad to say to prevent this, wear this headset then the model would be able to sue for compensation. Possibly in correlation to the effect of the picture has on the sale.
I thought it was more to do with the endorsement side of things? Say like Joey in Friends when his photo was used on an advert for syphilis. Even if you weren't making money from that usage I'm fairly sure the model might be annoyed if they saw adverts promoting arse cream or something.
- Messages
- 10,503
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
The problem is what can he sue for, tort is about damages, and damages is money.
If the syphills ad prevented him cost him his job then he could sue for that, and there is no punitive damages (a fine to punish) in this country so the loses can only be physcial and calculatable (is that a word ?
) losses. Back on topic, the driver won't be able to sue for defamation since it's true that he broke the law, and the court have a tendency to be on the side of the police/government in cases like these.
pxl8
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ever read the section in the local paper about what's been happening in the local court?
"Mr Joe Bloggs of 999 Scuzzer Road, Grimtown was sent down for a ten stretch for sniffing sweaty socks"
In both cases the individual is identified...
"Mr Joe Bloggs of 999 Scuzzer Road, Grimtown was sent down for a ten stretch for sniffing sweaty socks"
In both cases the individual is identified...
I suppose thats true but its not like the media really care. Just look at the whole Maddie situation. People are getting plastered across the frontpage for being a suspect. People's lives ruined. Slight side issue I guess....
