itf
itchy trigger finger
My thinking was that it was legal (depending on the country) to use a photo with an identifiable subject in editorial work, even if that subject was under-age. However, it seems to be a pretty vague line between using a photo of a celebrity and their child and a photo of any other citizen and their child. How long before someone could be in court for a photo such as this?
It also seems that the UK judge is suggesting that the average person has the right to not have their child appear in an editorial photo, and some people here seem to agree.
Tough thing is I think many paps do go too far, and the situation heads down the stalking direction; a pity it can't be seen as that.
Anyway, as you can see, this kid was armed and so if he had objected I probably wouldn't be talking about it
.
bmattock
Veteran
I just woke up and read this - looked at the first one, had to use Babelfish to translate it from French (I can only read French myself when I am drunk).
It appears that the gist of the lawsuit was not the photographs, but the way that they were used. Two people entered a building at separate times and were photographed doing so - but the paper published both together as if they entered at the same time, and made an insinuation about their romantic relationship with each other. I can easily see how that would lead to a lawsuit and damages. But that has little to do with the paparazzi in question or the photographs, per se, but rather in how they are used.
I did some research last night and found a case where Jennifer Anniston sued a paparazzi and won, but in her case, he climbed a wall to get onto private property to take a topless photo of her. Well again - if the paparazzi do something illegal, they're not protected - they have no special rights that allow them to break the law.
So far, I have found no cases of paparazzi sued successfully for taking a photo under the public circumstances where they can generally be taken and published (in public). I will keep looking and I will look at your other links.
I think it is possible that you are seeing paparazzi and their publications sued successfully because of OTHER things they do, things that are violations of civil laws. But not for the photos themselves if they were taken in public.
Still checking...
bmattock
Veteran
OK, I read another of your links, Pixtu, and it's a hoot. Celebrity sues and wins because of pictures of him taken while he was serving a prison sentence - taken from inside the prison.
I get it. Yes, you are technically correct - celebs are routinely suing paparazzi and winning. I capitulate! I should have been more precise. The lawsuits are happening because the paparazzi are breaking laws to get photos. I'm glad they get sued and lose under those circumstances! And their publications get sued and lose because the tell outrageous lies about the photographs, or place innocent photographs next to each other to make it appear that something happened which did not. Right! Good! Sue the *******s!
But I'm not seeing any successful lawsuits of paparazzi or their publications for taking or publishing photos of celebrities or their kids taken in public and used without lying about what they are or what they represent. N'est ce pas?
I don't defend paparazzi who break the law or publications that lie about what photographs mean. That is well-defined criminal and civil law territory. When they tread that ground, it is good that they get whacked.
I get it. Yes, you are technically correct - celebs are routinely suing paparazzi and winning. I capitulate! I should have been more precise. The lawsuits are happening because the paparazzi are breaking laws to get photos. I'm glad they get sued and lose under those circumstances! And their publications get sued and lose because the tell outrageous lies about the photographs, or place innocent photographs next to each other to make it appear that something happened which did not. Right! Good! Sue the *******s!
But I'm not seeing any successful lawsuits of paparazzi or their publications for taking or publishing photos of celebrities or their kids taken in public and used without lying about what they are or what they represent. N'est ce pas?
I don't defend paparazzi who break the law or publications that lie about what photographs mean. That is well-defined criminal and civil law territory. When they tread that ground, it is good that they get whacked.
bmattock
Veteran
I hear you, and I'm not trying to nit-pick everything you send my way. You are right - the way I originally asked the question - and I'm wrong. Celebrities DO routinely sue and win paparazzi and their publishers.
But even this one - without clicking - would appear to be that the paparazzi now fear this couple because they litigate. That's a reasonable response - use your wealth to break the press-arazzi of harassing you. But it doesn't really go to the heart of what we've been discussing - that paparazzi can't take or publishers can't publish, photos taken of celebrities and their brats taken in public places under otherwise legal situations. They may sue, and in this most recent example, they may win by intimidation - but that's not the same as them winning because they have some imagined legal right to prevent publication of photos of their kids.
I do concede your point - but it is a different point than the one I think I've been arguing.
I'm willing to drop it too - we could go around and around on this, and clearly we disagree with each other. I'm perfectly willing to walk away from this thread.
Best Regards,
Bill
oscroft
Veteran
I've been reading this thread with interest - I haven't contributed so far because I hadn't really decided what I think, and I think both sides have made valid points.
In this particular case, I think I've come down on the side of the Rowling sprog (even though I don't think I like JK very much). I think children should be afforded protection from having their photographs published in the press in a way that identifies them when the only interest is their identity itself. And that's got nothing to do with the parents' wishes - I think children should have rights that are independent of what their parents want.
But at the same time, I'm grateful to Bill for bringing this to our attention - I'd read the story on the BBC news, but I hadn't really thought about it until this thread made me do so. I think behooves us to be very attentive to any attempts to restrict our rights to freely practice our art, and even if we end up agreeing with any specific restrictions, we should first examine them critically and only accept them if we think they genuinely have merit. (For example, it would be so easy to lazily read a headline that said "NY wedding photographers to pay bond against possible non-delivery of agreed services" and think "Yeah, they shouldn't get away with it if they cheat", when in reality the photographic profession is being singled out in a way that does not apply to other professions, and honest photographers are being punished along with the dishonest - and that goes wholly against the ideals upon which the laws of Western democracies are based.)
Oh, and I also thank Bill for his usual brand of elegant and entertaining prose
In this particular case, I think I've come down on the side of the Rowling sprog (even though I don't think I like JK very much). I think children should be afforded protection from having their photographs published in the press in a way that identifies them when the only interest is their identity itself. And that's got nothing to do with the parents' wishes - I think children should have rights that are independent of what their parents want.
But at the same time, I'm grateful to Bill for bringing this to our attention - I'd read the story on the BBC news, but I hadn't really thought about it until this thread made me do so. I think behooves us to be very attentive to any attempts to restrict our rights to freely practice our art, and even if we end up agreeing with any specific restrictions, we should first examine them critically and only accept them if we think they genuinely have merit. (For example, it would be so easy to lazily read a headline that said "NY wedding photographers to pay bond against possible non-delivery of agreed services" and think "Yeah, they shouldn't get away with it if they cheat", when in reality the photographic profession is being singled out in a way that does not apply to other professions, and honest photographers are being punished along with the dishonest - and that goes wholly against the ideals upon which the laws of Western democracies are based.)
Oh, and I also thank Bill for his usual brand of elegant and entertaining prose