bmattock
Veteran
I honestly did not think this would happen. But it has, and it is going to affect photographers in the UK. I'm glad it isn't in the US, but it just goes to show that anything can happen, anywhere.
JK Rowing Wins Battle to Keep Son's Photo Out of Newspapers
One might consider cheering her victory - after all, not many of us like the paparazzi, and it is true enough that they give photography a bad name. However, like them or not, they fulfill a function that society apparently wants (I don't, but someone does, and a lot of someones, apparently). They are also on the edge of what the legal rights of photographers are - like pornographers in a way. One might not have liked Larry Flynt, but he certainly helped establish some boundaries in what is and is not 'freedom of speech' in the US.
I have not read the legal decision, only the article, but it would appear at first glance that as of now in the UK, a person in public can prohibit their photograph being taken - or at least used for publication as 'news'.
Not really a bright day for photographers, although I have no doubt many will be thrilled by this news.
JK Rowing Wins Battle to Keep Son's Photo Out of Newspapers
One might consider cheering her victory - after all, not many of us like the paparazzi, and it is true enough that they give photography a bad name. However, like them or not, they fulfill a function that society apparently wants (I don't, but someone does, and a lot of someones, apparently). They are also on the edge of what the legal rights of photographers are - like pornographers in a way. One might not have liked Larry Flynt, but he certainly helped establish some boundaries in what is and is not 'freedom of speech' in the US.
I have not read the legal decision, only the article, but it would appear at first glance that as of now in the UK, a person in public can prohibit their photograph being taken - or at least used for publication as 'news'.
Not really a bright day for photographers, although I have no doubt many will be thrilled by this news.
tripod
Well-known
Isn't it because JKR herself is the celebrity, not her son, and that the photo was going to be published in a newspaper? Her son isn't newsworthy. She certainly could not prevent HER picture from being published.
Paul T.
Veteran
it's a non-issue.
This dispute refers to identifying children of celebrities. You are still free to take photos of j K rowling, or indeed of her kids if they happen to be playing on the streets and you don't identify them.
It will only handicap you if you work for the Daily Mirror or similar, and you hope to put on sales by printing 'new' photos of celebrities' kids.
Edit: this doesn't, of course, mean that the onward march of celebrities' "privacy" is not relentless. We're still working through the implications of EU privacy law, and celebrities' attempts to copyright their own likeness, which will ultimately restrict photographers, journalists and all news organisations. For instance, in the UK it's risky to debate a celebrity's mental state unless s/he has placed it in the public domain. Likewise, a journo friend of mine who specialises in books on criminals, tells me how it's basically illegal to mention that someone served s prison sentence! Of course it's ludicrous, and is regularly flouted, but if you're a publisher without deep pockets, facing a rich criminal, you will not be able to mention a crucial aspect of his criminal past!
This dispute refers to identifying children of celebrities. You are still free to take photos of j K rowling, or indeed of her kids if they happen to be playing on the streets and you don't identify them.
It will only handicap you if you work for the Daily Mirror or similar, and you hope to put on sales by printing 'new' photos of celebrities' kids.
Edit: this doesn't, of course, mean that the onward march of celebrities' "privacy" is not relentless. We're still working through the implications of EU privacy law, and celebrities' attempts to copyright their own likeness, which will ultimately restrict photographers, journalists and all news organisations. For instance, in the UK it's risky to debate a celebrity's mental state unless s/he has placed it in the public domain. Likewise, a journo friend of mine who specialises in books on criminals, tells me how it's basically illegal to mention that someone served s prison sentence! Of course it's ludicrous, and is regularly flouted, but if you're a publisher without deep pockets, facing a rich criminal, you will not be able to mention a crucial aspect of his criminal past!
Last edited:
myoptic3
Well-known
The implications go far beyond photography. The State has set it self up as the only entity that may publish a news photo w/o censorship. It follows that The State is assuming control over the news, and the news has a large say in what many people think.
The UK seems to have gone far beyond the intrusive state surveillance seen even in the US. There are cameras on street corners, on buildings, in buildings, on highways, on the public transportation, looking out of the public transportation, in the subway and train terminals, just everywhere. Nearly all of these are controlled by The State, and all are subject to State officials demands to see the images.
Little by little, inch by inch, freedom has been taken away from the public, and unchecked power has been seized by The State. No citizen has been asked to vote on these draconian changes. Government propaganda has produced a mindset that anyone who questions these losses of freedoms is accused of being paranoid, unpatriotic, or of having something to hide.
They have cleverly manipulated the truth, so now it appears as if this ruling is a victory for public privacy, when in effect it is just one more loss of freedom. Brave New World indeed. But I will assuredly be seen as a crank for stating the obvious. Anyone that protests State control is obviously a misfit in society, or at least in the society being fashioned for us.
The UK seems to have gone far beyond the intrusive state surveillance seen even in the US. There are cameras on street corners, on buildings, in buildings, on highways, on the public transportation, looking out of the public transportation, in the subway and train terminals, just everywhere. Nearly all of these are controlled by The State, and all are subject to State officials demands to see the images.
Little by little, inch by inch, freedom has been taken away from the public, and unchecked power has been seized by The State. No citizen has been asked to vote on these draconian changes. Government propaganda has produced a mindset that anyone who questions these losses of freedoms is accused of being paranoid, unpatriotic, or of having something to hide.
They have cleverly manipulated the truth, so now it appears as if this ruling is a victory for public privacy, when in effect it is just one more loss of freedom. Brave New World indeed. But I will assuredly be seen as a crank for stating the obvious. Anyone that protests State control is obviously a misfit in society, or at least in the society being fashioned for us.
Last edited:
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
The last time I checked, Great Britain is a democracy. If the people don't like the changes they're seeing, they're free to "kick the bums out". It may not have reached that threshold yet. But, perhaps it will one day. If you were talking about Burma, or China for that matter, we'd have an entirely different issue. There, short of armed revolution, The State is in complete control.
chikne
Well-known
bmattock
Veteran
I don't get the distinction. Who decides who is newsworthy? You? Me? The courts?
If 'the public' wants to see photos of JK Rowling's kids, then that is newsworthy. Sorry, but it is. You and I may think it's silly for anyone to want to see that, but 'the public' disagrees with us - or such photos would not be in demand. Remember, the public generates demand for such things - they don't exist in a vacuum.
And when a photographer's right to photography ANYONE in public is infringed, it is an infringement that affects all.
If I take a photo of Joe Blow now (in the UK, at least), he may have a legal leg to stand on to demand that I delete his photo, because he is not newsworthy. In the past, that was not the case.
bmattock
Veteran
I do not know how the court system works in the UK. But in the USA, we do not live in a democracy, that is a popular misconception. We live in a representative republic, which is not the same thing.
The Supreme Court here (I presume something like the Appeals Court in the UK) makes decisions based on the constitutionality of laws - so if they were to say that taking photos of non-newsworthy people - or children in public - was not legal, then no amount of 'throwing the bums out' would change things - it would require a constitutional amendment, which is extremely hard to do.
What I am trying to say is that it is not as simple as just passing the appropriate law - if the same thing were happening in the US. I don't know if that argument applies in the UK.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
It would be nice if the pro-NRA and the anti-NRA folks keep their "discussions" with each other "on topic" here.
Sheesh.. one mention of a gun and we've already got a pro-gun bumper stick with Hitler even...
I was actually going to comment on the story but I'll take a pass and let this thread dissolve into the expected anarchy.
Dave
Sheesh.. one mention of a gun and we've already got a pro-gun bumper stick with Hitler even...
I was actually going to comment on the story but I'll take a pass and let this thread dissolve into the expected anarchy.
Dave
oscroft
Veteran
The BBC news version of the story is here.
The following seems to sum up the reason for the judgement...
Judge Sir Anthony Clarke said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.
"In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him."
So it's about the child, and not about JK Rowling herself - there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that one can no longer photograph famous people for news purposes.
The following seems to sum up the reason for the judgement...
Judge Sir Anthony Clarke said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.
"In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him."
So it's about the child, and not about JK Rowling herself - there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that one can no longer photograph famous people for news purposes.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm not convinced that the 'protection from tyranny' argument holds much water.
Bulgaria was a heavily armed society during the communist era but didn't overthrow the (widely hated) government.
Old Tibet was quite heavily armed, but as HH Dalai Lama put it, "There's not much you can keep at home that is much use against tanks and bombers."
Finally, if the original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to be upheld, the weapon that must be permitted is the automatic/semi-automatic 'assault rifle' -- precisely the most widely-banned gun in the United States.
The Rowling ruling is, as Paul says, essentially a non-issue, relaying to identifying celebrities' children before they're old enough to be regarded as celebrities in their own right. Austin Mitchell's current work in the UK parliament is a lot more important.
Cheers,
Roger
Bulgaria was a heavily armed society during the communist era but didn't overthrow the (widely hated) government.
Old Tibet was quite heavily armed, but as HH Dalai Lama put it, "There's not much you can keep at home that is much use against tanks and bombers."
Finally, if the original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to be upheld, the weapon that must be permitted is the automatic/semi-automatic 'assault rifle' -- precisely the most widely-banned gun in the United States.
The Rowling ruling is, as Paul says, essentially a non-issue, relaying to identifying celebrities' children before they're old enough to be regarded as celebrities in their own right. Austin Mitchell's current work in the UK parliament is a lot more important.
Cheers,
Roger
yanidel
Well-known
So if the public decides that they want to see Madonna taking a ****
in a public toilet that makes it newsworthy, therefore you can take a picture ?Laws are there to protect the weak. Children. This is not about news or not.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I'm sorry, Dave, but I'm getting tired of some of the screeds that seem to pop up all too often. And for the record, I don't start these things. I come here to discuss PHOTOGRAPHY. What a concept!
I did want to comment on the original post, so I'll say that Bill seems to have nailed it with his last two posts on the subject, so I have no more to add.
Edit: I deleted the message Dave referred to after reading a message down thread from Bill Mattock.
Last edited:
chikne
Well-known
bmattock
Veteran
So if the public decides that they want to see Madonna taking a ****
Here is where we disagree.
First, I did not suggest that anyone can take a photo of someone using the bathroom and publish it. The law allows for an expectation of privacy - and bathrooms are part of that. No disagreement from me. However, the courts (in the US) have consistently held that there is no expectation of privacy in public. 'public' being the key word, as in 'out in public'. A bathroom is not 'in' public, although it may be 'open to the public'.
Here we disagree as well. Laws (in the West) exist to create and maintain an ordered society, with respect and protection for individual rights as they are defined and as long as they do not adversely affect the safety of society as a whole or infringe upon the rights of others.
Laws do not exist to 'protect the weak', but done right, they also serve that purpose. They also, you might note, protect the strong - if the strong are in the right.
This is entirely about what it appears to be about - the right of photographers to take photographs of whatever they wish that is in public view, and the right of publishers to publish those photos as 'news', however they define news.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
For the first point, the basic flaw in your argument is easily illustrated by drawing the comparison with under-age sex. Your right to sleep with a 21-year-old is not infringed by the fact that you will be prosecuted if they find you having sex with her 11-year-old sister (or his 11-year-old brother, for that matter).
Children are normally deemed in need of more protection than adults, and most reasonable people would accept that: The extent of the protection is a fair subject for debate, but few, I think, would say there should be no protection at all.
Your second para is simply irrelevant to the present debate, as several others have pointed out. Unless, of course, Joe Blow is a child.
Cheers,
Roger
kully
Happy Snapper
bmattock
Veteran
Thank you for posting this clarification.
I would disagree with the justice, not that it matters one whit of course.
People, including children, become 'news' for all sorts of reasons. Celebrities are such not because of some decree - they are such because they have caught the attention of the public, who demands more information. A child of a celebrity *is* a celebrity. Not because of what they've done, but because of who they are.
Take Paris Hilton (please). She was of no particular interest to anyone, in the sense that she was not a famous model, movie star, or anything else except (as far as I know), rich and slutty. The 'celebrity' as far as I know would have been her famous grandparent. And yet, she found herself a 'celebrity' for no apparent reason - who can gauge the whims of the crowd?
If Paris had a child (let us devoutly hope not), I presume such child would be a 'celebrity' as well. For what? Well, for nothing more than being the subject of the public's attention, that's all.
Celebrity is not a condition which is bestowed by some act, election, or conferment. It just means the public is interested in a person, that's all. So JK Rowling's child *is* a celebrity.
In any case - one might also argue that whatever the news sees fit to publish *is* newsworthy by definition - or they would not have published it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As an addendum to my previous post, it's worth pointing out that J.K. Rowling is an extraordinarily rich woman, whose child might well be a very attractive target for kindnapping. It would be next to impossible to stop anyone ever taking pictures of the child, but at least by preventing identification of the child in the gutter press, you can deter opportunists. This question of identifying the child is, it seems to me, at the centre of the ruling. This is an extremely small limitation of journalistic rights, and no limitation at all of the photographer's rights, provided there is no identification.
Cheers,
Roger
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
Veteran
In the example you used, the law is not related to 'protection' as much as it is to 'consent'. This is why (in the US), such laws are known as 'Age of Consent' laws. For the same reason, children cannot buy liquor, enter into contracts, vote, etc.
One may say "we do this to protect children" and there is truth in that, but legally, it simply has to do with a child not being legally presumed to have the capability to give informed consent as an adult might.
However, having a photograph taken of oneself in public does not require consent - so age does not enter into it.
How the photograph is ultimately used does enter into it. But in the US (and again, I apologize, I do not know much about UK law, I only presume it is similar), such prohibitions have been limited to 'commercial' use, from which use by the press is excluded from the debate.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this ruling generates a new requirement - to obtain consent - where one was not present before in the case of photographs to be used in the news.
I might also ask in what manner a juvenile is protected by their photograph not being published? If they are in public with their parents, anyone who sees them knows that they are the child of those parents. A news photo simply expands the number of people who witness this event. How can this be an invasion of privacy when the parents and child were in public? Can the parents likewise demand that passers-by lower their gaze when passing by, so that their child is 'protected'?