Rowling privacy victory to hit photographers

[bmattock]

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.

One might then consider that JK Rowling is a criminal for exposing her child to that sort of danger by appearing with the child in public.

Taking a photograph of a bank and identifying it as a 'bank' and publishing it might well attract the attention of those who rob banks. In what way is that possibility my responsibility as a photographer or a news agency?

 

[chikne]

Yeah! Vaisakhi day parade!

What's the point of posting it here?

bah, gotta post it somewhere

 

[yanidel]

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.

Your definition of West must not include most of the Western Europe countries then because the belief that the state and laws are here to protect the weak is deeply in our roots. This was put forward again in the inaugurational speech of newly elected French president Sarkozy when he came to power. So don´t generalize your US perception to the Western world as well as I will not generalize mine to all European countries.

Apart from that, we can all have point of view but I am kind of shoked to see some reasonings as "Now its Rowlings fault because she goes out in public with her child¨ What is your solution ? the kid stays forever in his house ?
Children are protected because they don´t have discernment and are weak targets. I feel a lot of dogmatism in some posts : if there is one breach in our right to photography in public, soon it will be all gone" Nobody is saying that / wanting that. But in times where Europe has been hit by a lot of secuestration / rap and minor sex scandals, the awareness on children protection is very high and action needs to be taken. Take for example the Austrian scandal about a father that secuestrated his daughter for 24 years and rapped her to give birth to 6 children. Is it newsworthy ? Probably ? Will people want to see pictures of the children ? probably. Should the press be allowed to show it ? Of course not, these children had already their lives ruined for many years, do you want them to suffer more because they get recognized in every corner they go as they do headlines? I believe and hope the Austrian laws will prevent that like they do in France. Please, a bit of humanity, nobody is going to prevent you from shooting in public places.

 

[visiondr]

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.

Bill,
You are quite right here. Great Britain's judicial system is similar to ours. Decisions from the bench are not subject to government oversight and thus are not something the voters can readily change.

My comments were in reference to a previous poster's reference to the current issue of State surveillance in Great Britain. This is a police action which is overseen and managed by the appropriate cabinet member (usually the Minister of Justice, or someone similar) and thus is subject to democratic oversight.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Your definition of West must not include most of the Western Europe countries then because the belief that the state and laws are here to protect the weak is deeply in our roots..

Not only that: the strong don't need laws, because they can simply take what they like. Most rational laws are designed to stop this sort of thing happening. So, in a very real sense, the vast majority of laws ARE for the protection of the weak. That they sometimes protect the strong and wealthy as well is commonly a side-effect; the rich man is protected from robbery by the same laws that protect the beggar's sou.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[yanidel]

Not only that: the strong don't need laws, because they can simply take what they like. Most rational laws are designed to stop this sort of thing happening. So, in a very real sense, the vast majority of laws ARE for the protection of the weak. That they sometimes protect the strong and wealthy as well is commonly a side-effect; the rich man is protected from robbery by the same laws that protect the beggar's sou.

Cheers,

Roger

Fully agree, good clarification.

 

[bmattock]

Your definition of West must not include most of the Western Europe countries then because the belief that the state and laws are here to protect the weak is deeply in our roots. This was put forward again in the inaugurational speech of newly elected French president Sarkozy when he came to power. So don´t generalize your US perception to the Western world as well as I will not generalize mine to all European countries.

I will restrict my comments, then, to the US and UK.

Apart from that, we can all have point of view but I am kind of shoked to see some reasonings as "Now its Rowlings fault because she goes out in public with her child¨ What is your solution ? the kid stays forever in his house ?

You misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that Rowling keep her kid in the house. I was suggesting that if publishing an identified photo of her kid increases the chance of that child being kidnapped - and that therefore it should not be done, then it is logical to also assume that she herself puts the child at risk by appearing in public with that child. I was arguing the fallacy of the former, not the necessity of the latter.

Children are protected because they don´t have discernment and are weak targets.

What is a child protected from when their identified photograph appears in the news?

I feel a lot of dogmatism in some posts : if there is one breach in our right to photography in public, soon it will be all gone" Nobody is saying that / wanting that. But in times where Europe has been hit by a lot of secuestration / rap and minor sex scandals, the awareness on children protection is very high and action needs to be taken.

I believe that dams are breached because leaks in them are not repaired. Rights are abrogated in similar ways.

Or, as it is sometimes said: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."

Take for example the Austrian scandal about a father that secuestrated his daughter for 24 years and rapped her to give birth to 6 children. Is it newsworthy ? Probably ? Will people want to see pictures of the children ? probably. Should the press be allowed to show it ? Of course not, these children had already their lives ruined for many years, do you want them to suffer more because they get recognized in every corner they go as they do headlines?

First, many developed countries have 'shield' laws to protect the victims of sexually-based crimes from being identified in the press. I presume Germany does too. JK Rowling's child is the victim of no sexual abuse, I presume.

Second, I do not 'want' for anyone to be identified in particular. I don't have any personal interest in seeing JK Rowling's child - identified or not. Arguing in favor of a news agency's right to publish a photo is not the same as saying I want them to do it.

I believe and hope the Austrian laws will prevent that like they do in France. Please, a bit of humanity, nobody is going to prevent you from shooting in public places.

I don't think you can put the children of that monster and the child of JK Rowling into the same box and compare them in this way.

As to 'humanity', please. Argue from logic, argue from fact, argue from opinion. But please don't accuse me of inhumanity to shut me up.

 

[bmattock]

Not only that: the strong don't need laws, because they can simply take what they like. Most rational laws are designed to stop this sort of thing happening. So, in a very real sense, the vast majority of laws ARE for the protection of the weak. That they sometimes protect the strong and wealthy as well is commonly a side-effect; the rich man is protected from robbery by the same laws that protect the beggar's sou.

Cheers,

Roger

Nonsense. Laws are a byproduct of society, and societies are formed by people, without reference to 'strong' or 'weak'.

Laws are intended to create and maintain an ordered society - and if the 'strong' and 'rich' and 'powerful' were impeded by such laws, they'd simply have not allowed them to happen in the first place. Do you suppose they were napping whilst the poor and unempowered snuck in one night and wrote a constitution or two?

Who forced the Magna Carta to be created and signed? The weak? The poor?

The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.

 

[yanidel]

As to 'humanity', please. Argue from logic, argue from fact, argue from opinion. But please don't accuse me of inhumanity to shut me up.

The humanity term is probably a bit too harsh from me, sorry about that. Yet, it came as a response to your statement that Rowling behavior was at fault because she was in a public place with her child and I believe my argument came before that. I found that suggestion pretty harsh myself.

Now where do you draw the line between the Austrian children and Rowling's child ? Why can't I compare it ? The UK law would apply to both I guess. Do you have to be a victim to have such laws apply to you? If Rowling sued the news agency, it is probably because she felt it was endangering her child life.
Finally, I believe that you don't want to see her child in the news, so as many of us, but as you demonstrated it seems to be newsworthy, an even better reason for the state and law to help
protect her child.

Finally, you might find nonsense that law is here to protect the weak, it is your right. These are two fundamental different ways to perceive to goal of the state and his legislative power. Debating on that more would need nowhere and we should keep it off this thread.

 

[Paul T.]

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'.

We keep bouncing this back and forth, but the fact remains that this contention is simply wrong.

if you want to revise your argument to suggest that this is the 'thin end of the wedge', then there's a logical basis to that - but not a very good one. There has always been a legal distinction between the law as it applies to minors, and to adults. Te ruling that the child has a right to privacy is a reasonable one - furthermore, there was no public interest in publication of the photograph.

If the right to privacy had been extended to rowling's husband, and there was a public interest in the story, I would be on the barricades with you, but I can't see how this is anything other than a non-event.

 

[bmattock]

Now where do you draw the line between the Austrian children and Rowling's child ? Why can't I compare it ?

Sorry, I meant it in the sense that the two are 'not comparable' as opposed to 'you cannot compare them'.

More on why in a moment...

The UK law would apply to both I guess.

Actually, I would guess not. At least in the US, sexual crime shield laws protect victims of sexual crimes only.

Do you have to be a victim to have such laws apply to you?

Yes, generally. In the US, 'shield' laws are at once a protection and an understanding that this is a unique situation - in other words, if the victim were a victim of a purse snatching as opposed to a sex crime, the protection would not apply and the right of the press to publish photos they deem newsworthy would be paramount.

If Rowling sued the news agency, it is probably because she felt it was endangering her child life.

I have no doubt she did. I will note that her 'feeling' is not the same as being a victim of a crime.

Finally, I believe that you don't want to see her child in the news, so as many of us, but as you demonstrated it seems to be newsworthy, an even better reason for the state and law to help protect her child.

Again I ask - protect her child from WHAT?

The right of the press to publish what they deem to be newsworthy should (in my opinion) be paramount UNLESS some person's rights (not feelings but rights) are abridged thereby - and then it is a matter for the courts to decide which has priority in any given situation.

I do not see that JK Rowling's child has been the victim of any crime. Could she be? I'm sure. But shield laws protect victims of actual crimes, not crimes that haven't occurred, with no credible evidence that they're about to occur.

Finally, you might find nonsense that law is here to protect the weak, it is your right. These are two fundamental different ways to perceive to goal of the state and his legislative power. Debating on that more would need nowhere and we should keep it off this thread.

I agree. I'll drop it.

 

[Matt White]

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.

Unless you take democracy to mean only an Athenian-like direct participation by citizens in the decisions of government, I don't think I can see any distinction here. The US electoral system is simply the mechanism by which you choose your representatives. It's a kind of indirect or representative democracy like any of the dozens of others in use around the world. As long as it produces governments which are chosen - and can be removed - by the people it fits any of the common modern definitions .

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.

It's not like that in the UK since we have no constitution which sits higher than laws made through the usual legislative process. Broadly speaking there's no law which Parliament cannot change simply by passing another law. And the only function of the court system is to interpret and apply the laws. Unlike the US courts they have no role in applying separate, higher constitutional tests.

So throwing out the old bums is a remedy, at least in principle. But that assumes that the bums-in-waiting are a better bet, which they rarely are.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . 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.

Dear Bill,

To borrow your own style of argument -- distinctions without differences -- the child does not consent to be a celebrity, and is therefore protected in the same way as the unfortunate Austrian children mentioned by another poster.

Also, no consent is required for an adult to be falsely identified, e.g. as a paedophile, but legal protection is afforded against false identification. Identification of a child as a 'false celebrity' is, I suggest, in the same class.

'Slippery slope' arguments are nothing novel, but you are inclined to stake out your position in all-but-absolutist terms. Of course you eat an elephant one bite at a time; but the first time you sink your teeth into a live elephant, it is not much of a threat to the mighty pachyderm.
Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

We keep bouncing this back and forth, but the fact remains that this contention is simply wrong.

It is not a 'fact' and I reject it as such.

if you want to revise your argument to suggest that this is the 'thin end of the wedge', then there's a logical basis to that - but not a very good one. There has always been a legal distinction between the law as it applies to minors, and to adults.

Yes, there is. And it deals with the right of a child to give their consent. This applies to situations in which consent is necessary. Public photography for purpose of news reporting is not one for which consent is required. No consent required equals no consent based on age required as well.

Te ruling that the child has a right to privacy is a reasonable one - furthermore, there was no public interest in publication of the photograph.

You stating that it is reasonable is not an argument, it is an opinion. I disagree. A person, in public, has no general right to expectation of privacy. This is actually a fact, as opposed to opinion, at least in the USA.

I also think we disagree on what the 'public interest' is with regard to news reporting. You may feel that the public ought not to have an interest in photographs of JK Rowling's child. But the proof is that 'the public' (as opposed to the general good) does want to see such photos, else the news would not collect and publish such things. Newspapers and periodicals do not generate demand - in fact it is the opposite. The photos are published because the public wishes to see them. That is the public interest, even if I may privately agree with you that it serves the public good not at all.

If the right to privacy had been extended to rowling's husband, and there was a public interest in the story, I would be on the barricades with you, but I can't see how this is anything other than a non-event.

"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow."

I am not suggesting that barricades need be manned at this time. I do see it as another brick in the wall, however small and inconsequential it may seem to you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Who forced the Magna Carta to be created and signed? The weak? The poor?

Oh, dear, Bill, you've done it again. Your talent for 'own goals' is impressive.

Individually, the barons were weaker (and poorer) than the king.

United, they were stronger.

The same was true of the common people (led, it is true, by a nascent bourgeoisie) in the French Revolution.

The weak -- and weakness is always relative -- band together to pass laws to restrain those who are stronger, or who claim greater strength.

Q.E.D.

Roger

 

[bmattock]

To borrow your own style of argument -- distinctions without differences -- the child does not consent to be a celebrity, and is therefore protected in the same way as the unfortunate Austrian children mentioned by another poster.

One consents to engage in sexual relations.

One consents to enter into binding legal contracts.

One consents to a variety of things, but in all things requiring the notion of consent, there is at root a choice. One can refuse to engage in sexual activity. One can refuse to sign a contract.

Celebrity, however one may wish the term be used, is not something one takes unto oneself by voluntary action, nor can one refuse its loving embrace. Celebrity is bestowed.

Fickle though it is, arbitrary as the public's taste appears to be, celebrity is bestowed on hero and villain alike, on rich and poor, with good consequences and bad.

One thinks of politicians and movie stars who seek the limelight and revel in celebrity - but many are those who seek such acclaim in vain.

One also thinks of the Richard Jewels of the world, celebrities against their will, while the world reviles them for crimes they did not commit and ignores them by revoking that same celebrity when it is found they were entirely innocent - and in fact, heroes.

From Joey Buttafuco to the late Teflon Don, from the late Richard Nixon to the late DC Madam - celebrity targets whom it targets. One does not choose to engage celebrity, and consent is not required.

 

[bmattock]

Oh, dear, Bill, you've done it again. Your talent for 'own goals' is impressive.

I accept your argument and concede. The snottiness is not required. Have a nice day.

 

[yanidel]

Again I ask - protect her child from WHAT?

Rowling is the biggest net worth in the UK currently I believe, so it gives many reasons for her not want people see her child because : - they will identify who her child is, - identify where she hangs with him, -raise awareness of some Wacko that she has a child, - etc, -etc . Again, if she went to court, she must have pretty good reasons, nobody does it for fun.

Ok, I am soon off to Burgundy for a long weekend. Will try to shoot some pictures in the streets of this rural areas. They will tell me that I can't take their pictures without agreement to what I could argue that the law allows me to do so. And I'll get the typical reply "You can stick your law up your a.. " ... Laws are here too protect against the weak, but what can you answer to that!

 

[bmattock]

Unless you take democracy to mean only an Athenian-like direct participation by citizens in the decisions of government, I don't think I can see any distinction here. The US electoral system is simply the mechanism by which you choose your representatives. It's a kind of indirect or representative democracy like any of the dozens of others in use around the world. As long as it produces governments which are chosen - and can be removed - by the people it fits any of the common modern definitions .

It's not like that in the UK since we have no constitution which sits higher than laws made through the usual legislative process. Broadly speaking there's no law which Parliament cannot change simply by passing another law. And the only function of the court system is to interpret and apply the laws. Unlike the US courts they have no role in applying separate, higher constitutional tests.

So throwing out the old bums is a remedy, at least in principle. But that assumes that the bums-in-waiting are a better bet, which they rarely are.

I see. Well, that's something new I've learned today. By being strict in my definition of 'democracy' I only meant to distinguish from the often-heard ''but that's what the majority wants'' argument for nearly any ill. Pure democracy is mob rule, and most of us don't want it, unless it is our ox which is being gored.

"The majority" may well want children not to be photographed if they are in public - or at least not have their photographs published in the news with identification. But if what 'the majority' wants is the final arbiter, we should have killed all the Catholics in the USA when that's what 'the majority' wanted. I'm being facetious, but to demonstrate a point. What representative republics do is make sure that the will of the people is represented, but not that public laws change radically with the ebb and flow of the the zeitgeist.

 

[bmattock]

Rowling is the biggest net worth in the UK currently I believe, so it gives many reasons for her not want people see her child because : - they will identify who her child is, - identify where she hangs with him, -raise awareness of some Wacko that she has a child, - etc, -etc . Again, if she went to court, she must have pretty good reasons, nobody does it for fun.

So what you are saying is that her child is to be afforded more protection than my child or your child, and again, not because of a crime or even the threat of a crime, but because she fears that a crime might be committed.

And again - you seem to be restating that since she took the trouble to go to court, the reason must be 'good', and by implication, valid.

Lots of people sue. I'm sure it is important to them, or they would not do it. Therefore, they have a 'valid reason' to go to court. That does not mean they have a valid reason to win. I know some people in favor of mandatory prayer in public schools who love to go to court - they have perfectly valid (to them) reasons for so doing. That does not make them right. Thank goodness.

Ok, I am soon off to Burgundy for a long weekend. Will try to shoot some pictures in the streets of this rural areas. They will tell me that I can't take their pictures without agreement to what I could argue that the law allows me to do so. And I'll get the typical reply "You can stick your law up your a.. " ... Laws are here too protect against the weak, but what can you answer to that!

Please enjoy. I continue to shoot what I like in public. Only on rare occasions am I challenged. I am no longer the firebrand I once was regarding my need to fight every battle. But I am well aware of the general erosion of our rights as photographers, and remain dismayed at how many fellow photographers actually prefer that such rights be terminated.

I posit that they will feel differently one day.