Posting people pics and the law.

sk66 said:
My understanding is that it very similar to the way things work here... we have national laws (i.e. EU laws) and state laws (i.e. UK legislation), and in general they must agree.... the UK is a member of the EU.
Click to expand...

Not always,and not quite the same as your state law & national law :)
 
I'm guessing this might change shortly with the paparazzi being over zealous with its pursuit of the young prince/ princes.
 
Peter69 said:
I'm guessing this might change shortly with the paparazzi being over zealous with its pursuit of the young prince/ princes.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. There was an attempt to change the Freedom of panorama rules by the European court a few months ago but that was scrapped.


Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMG
Peter69 said:
I'm guessing this might change shortly with the paparazzi being over zealous with its pursuit of the young prince/ princes.
Click to expand...

No the Palace has already said they do not want to go to court.they are asking the public not buy certain publication in mainly Australia, New Zealand,the U.S. And certain Europein countries :)
 
Peter69 said:
I'm guessing this might change shortly with the paparazzi being over zealous with its pursuit of the young prince/ princes.
Click to expand...
They did win a case regarding Catherine topless...
The basis of the judgement against the paper/photographer was that the vantage point used was not a readily/commonly accessed location, and a long (zoom) lens was required. I.e., there was a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
 
Naomi Campbell also won a UK case... in that situation she was in the open at a very visible location.
However, the court ruled that the photograph made public a sensitive private fact (drug abuse/treatment) and therefore was an invasion of privacy.
 
sk66 said:
They did win a case regarding Catherine topless...
The basis of the judgement against the paper/photographer was that the vantage point used was not a readily/commonly accessed location, and a long (zoom) lens was required. I.e., there was a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Click to expand...
The basis of it was that it was shot in France, where they do have privacy laws.
 
Phil V said:
The basis of it was that it was shot in France, where they do have privacy laws.
Click to expand...
Understood, but I think it would translate to the UK and anywhere else in the EU assuming no local laws to the contrary (section 8 vs section 10 of the Human Rights Act (if memory serves)). Particularly considering the Naomi Campbell case... I wouldn't have expected that ruling...

One interesting aspect of this discussion will be what happens with drone photography, and how that will impact the "reasonable expectation of privacy" consideration. From what I've read so far, it seems to be that if it would have been an invasion of privacy to take the picture w/o a drone it is (will be, probably, ?) an invasion of privacy to accomplish it using a drone. But I don't think it's been tested.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Understood, but I think it would translate to the UK and anywhere else in the EU assuming no local laws to the contrary (section 8 vs section 10 of the Human Rights Act (if memory serves)). Particularly considering the Naomi Campbell case... I wouldn't have expected that ruling...

One interesting aspect of this discussion will be what happens with drone photography, and how that will impact the "reasonable expectation of privacy" consideration. From what I've read so far, it seems to be that if it would have been an invasion of privacy to take the picture w/o a drone it is (will be, probably, ?) an invasion of privacy to accomplish it using a drone. But I don't think it's been tested.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is that a camera with a zoom lens is much more intrusive than a drone.

http://petapixel.com/2015/08/21/are...nses-for-spying-the-answer-may-creep-you-out/
 
Ricardodaforce said:
And how useful is a wide angle lens when you want to take stealthy photos of someone?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a wide angle it could be a 50mm or a 100mm fitted to a DSLR. Don't say they don't exist they do. It takes two people to operate the drone one to fly it, the other to operate the camera. It doesn't have to be stealthy it can be completely overt.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It doesn't have to be a wide angle it could be a 50mm or a 100mm fitted to a DSLR. Don't say they don't exist they do. It takes two people to operate the drone one to fly it, the other to operate the camera. It doesn't have to be stealthy it can be completely overt.
Click to expand...

Well believe it or not, I do actually know a lot about these things. Anyone using a heavy lift drone to spy on people is quickly going to get rumbled. They are big and they are noisy. Oh, and one-man operation is easily possible.
The subject of drones and privacy is one that's being seriously exaggerated in the media.
 
markrichardson said:
That's because it isn't. To take an extreme example, you couldn't freely walk along a street and take a photo of someone in their own home through their window.
Click to expand...

It is true and i have shoot people looking out of windows many times. As long as your on public ground your safe.
 
sk66 said:
Understood, but I think it would translate to the UK and anywhere else in the EU assuming no local laws to the contrary (section 8 vs section 10 of the Human Rights Act (if memory serves)). Particularly considering the Naomi Campbell case... I wouldn't have expected that ruling...

One interesting aspect of this discussion will be what happens with drone photography, and how that will impact the "reasonable expectation of privacy" consideration. From what I've read so far, it seems to be that if it would have been an invasion of privacy to take the picture w/o a drone it is (will be, probably, ?) an invasion of privacy to accomplish it using a drone. But I don't think it's been tested.
Click to expand...


Nothing will happen. Neither is it interesting because the human rights act only applies to interactions between private citizens and public organisations. A private individual flying a drone cannot breach your human rights no matter what
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Are we back peddling now then ? :) You made a very bold statement that you seem to now be saying some things rather than anything?
Click to expand...
You can photograph anything FROM a public space regardless of the location of the given subject. However the law then also states that privacy rights must be obeyed for subjects on private land. What this means in written law is that you can photograph from a public space, providing that you are not impeding on the privacy rights of the subject of which you are photographing. So for buildings, land, and other non-living entities this is fairly simple - No Problem. But for living subjects that have privacy rights such as people (and animals believe it or not) it is a much more complex problem.
 
strictly speaking the Privacy and the Human Rights Act 1998 does say that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence , however Wainright vs the Home office established that there was no cause for action under English law for invasion of privacy

that leaves harrasment - and to commit an act of harrasment you'd need to be photographing the same subject repeatedly
 
Last edited:
twhite87 said:
You can photograph anything FROM a public space regardless of the location of the given subject. However the law then also states that privacy rights must be obeyed for subjects on private land. What this means in written law is that you can photograph from a public space, providing that you are not impeding on the privacy rights of the subject of which you are photographing. So for buildings, land, and other non-living entities this is fairly simple - No Problem. But for living subjects that have privacy rights such as people (and animals believe it or not) it is a much more complex problem.
Click to expand...

the other proviso is that if you are photographing something which could be deemed relevant to national security (military bases, crown property, govt buildings, power stations, ports etc) the counter terrorism legislation gives the police the right to stop you if they can demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that you might be involved in terrorism ... of course we all know that the average terr would use google earth and /or a camera phone not 3 grands worth of DSLR kit, but this legisltion is widely used/misused so it is wise to be sensible about photographing such installations
 
The part about privacy comes under the Human Rights Act 1998.
 
twhite87 said:
The part about privacy comes under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Click to expand...

big soft moose said:
strictly speaking the Privacy and the Human Rights Act 1998 does say that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence , however Wainright vs the Home office established that there was no cause for action under English law for invasion of privacy
Click to expand...
 
boyfalldown said:
Nothing will happen. Neither is it interesting because the human rights act only applies to interactions between private citizens and public organisations. A private individual flying a drone cannot breach your human rights no matter what
Click to expand...
There are many examples of the Human Rights Act being applied between individuals... And many cases of lawsuits won regarding invasion of privacy under European Law.

big soft moose said:
strictly speaking the Privacy and the Human Rights Act 1998 does say that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence , however Wainright vs the Home office established that there was no cause for action under English law for invasion of privacy

that leaves harrasment - and to commit an act of harrasment you'd need to be photographing the same subject repeatedly
Click to expand...
The "privacy law" generally applicable in the UK is "breach of confidence," i.e. the making public of private facts...

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...law/invasion-of-privacy-is-not-law-essays.php
 
strictly speaking both sides are right - the human rights act does indeed enjoin all public bodies to ensure the rights - but it also enshrines the convention in UK law and that part of the act can apply between individuals.

however as i said above wainright vs the home office determined that breach of privacy was not actionable under the act
 
Ricardodaforce said:
And how useful is a wide angle lens when you want to take stealthy photos of someone?
Click to expand...
Plenty useful enough to get you into trouble... I don't know your drone regulations, but I do know ours (US). And it is reasonable to conclude that a typical drone carrying a GoPro (or similar) is of little privacy concern *IF* the drone were operated in accordance with the regulations.
But I would wager money that there are many more drones being flown in violation of the regulations than there are operators who actually even know what the regulations are (or care to follow them if they do).
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
No. Theres not. Maybe you'd stop spouting about stuff you don't understand.
Click to expand...
I do understand it.
I'm unaware of anywhere that states the act can be violated by an individual, or even a private company.
The act states that individuals have the right to privacy, but only a "public authority" performing "functions of a public nature" can be in violation of the act since that is who the act applies to. I.e. a privately owned/operated tabloid can not be in violation of the act.
However, the rights to privacy affirmed by the act *are* being considered in these cases, and they must be... they're your rights.
The actual torts being applied to resolve "the violation of privacy" in these cases are "breach of confidence/the misuse of private information." And those torts *are* applicable to individuals. Therefore, the violation of the act (right of privacy) is applicable to both individuals and privately owned tabloids/papers as well as public authorities.

Another way of understanding it is that the Human Rights act does not "create" the right to privacy... you already had those rights (they just never used the specific words before). And the only thing the act does is limit a public authority's ability to infringe on those rights. It would be a very weak position to say that you have the right of privacy *only* when dealing with a public authority.... the act itself doesn't say that, and the case law doesn't support it.

My original statement was/is; the only questions as to what you can photograph/disseminate are "is there a reasonable expectation of privacy" and are you recording something that is in fact "private." I.e. if you are standing in front of an open window there is not (typically) a reasonable expectation of privacy and what you look like is not a "private fact." Therefore, I can take your picture thru your window from the street, and I can do whatever I want with it as long as I don't violate some other law in the process (i.e. defamation).
 
Last edited:
The interesting case is Naomi Campbell's; it sets a precedence that there may be a privacy issue even with a photo taken from public property of an individual out in the open... that's bad news for paparazzi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top