sevres_babylone
Veteran
Interesting story on the BBC about a judge awarding damages to Paul Weller's family for pics published by the Daily Mail online of his family on a shopping trip in California.
I think it raises potential issues for the publication of street photography in Europe. The decision is being appealed however.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-27049435
"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."
The newspaper's position is as follows:
"The suggestion that children have an expectation of privacy in relation to publication by the media of images of their faces when one child (now nearly 18) has modelled for Teen Vogue, images of the babies' naked bottoms have been tweeted by their mother, and their father has discussed the children in promotional interviews is a worrying development in our law, as it has conferred unfettered image rights on all the children."
I would expect that someone who is not a celeb, or child of a celeb, might have a stronger right to privacy argument; on the other hand, thye might be less able to prove damages -- or have the money to pursue a lawsuit, in any event.
I think it raises potential issues for the publication of street photography in Europe. The decision is being appealed however.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-27049435
"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."
The newspaper's position is as follows:
"The suggestion that children have an expectation of privacy in relation to publication by the media of images of their faces when one child (now nearly 18) has modelled for Teen Vogue, images of the babies' naked bottoms have been tweeted by their mother, and their father has discussed the children in promotional interviews is a worrying development in our law, as it has conferred unfettered image rights on all the children."
I would expect that someone who is not a celeb, or child of a celeb, might have a stronger right to privacy argument; on the other hand, thye might be less able to prove damages -- or have the money to pursue a lawsuit, in any event.
Last edited:
