EU Court Says Simply Taking Someone's Photo Can Violate Their Civil Rights

from the who-did-what-now? dept

Fri, Feb 6th 2009 9:07am — Mike Masnick

I'm definitely a big supporter of privacy rights, but sometimes it seems that big time privacy rights supporters go too far. The latest is that an EU court on human rights has declared that simply taking someone's photograph can be a violation of their privacy. In the past, laws in Europe have said that you can't necessarily publish a photo of someone without their permission, but merely taking the photo was allowed. No longer. In the press release about the decision, the court explained its reasoning:

"The Court reiterated that the concept of private life was a broad one which encompassed the right to identity. It stressed that a person's image revealed his or her unique characteristics and constituted one of the chief attributes of his or her personality. The Court added that effective protection of the right to control one's image presupposed, in the present circumstances, obtaining the consent of the person concerned when the picture was being taken and not just when it came to possible publication."

Now, I could potentially understand such reasoning in private settings, but the statements above don't seem to limit the issue to private settings. The situation in the case itself also highlights what's a gray area between public and private. It involved a hospital that photographed a newborn baby -- as it does with all newborn babies. The parents protested and demanded the negatives, claiming that the photograph violated their baby's privacy rights -- and the court agreed. What's troubling is the implications of such a ruling, that you simply cannot photograph anyone without their official approval. This will almost certainly lead to new lawsuits, and even begins to raise some other questions. If it's a violation of someone's privacy rights to photograph them, at what point is it a violation of their rights just to see them?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: civil rights, eu, photographs, privacy

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:15am

"This will almost certainly lead to new lawsuits..."

Considering this decision was made by lawyers, why am I not shocked by this?

"at what point is it a violation of their rights just to see them?"

I remember back in the late 80s when the radical women's right movement considered a guy staring at a woman to be guilty of a hate crime.

And I seem to remember the UK banning non-parents from public parks because they might look at children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:20am

Mixed feelings
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, I do feel that the parents had a right to demand that the negatives and/or digital files be destroyed/deleted. On the other hand, I do NOT think that this should extend to the parents' right to sue for damages. What damages could possibly exist? Also, I don't think that it should be automatic that it is wrong to take a picture of someone. However, if they specifically demand the photos be destroyed, they should be.

This right, however, should also be forfeit in a public setting, or security cameras, etc, would be useless. Whether a room in a postnatal ward is a private setting is debatable, but I would say it is. It is secure, not just anyone can wander in, and even doctors are supposed to knock before entering when the door is closed. That creates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Mixed feelings
  And will it then become a violation of their rights to record the baby's footprint to ensure they pass out the right baby when you leave?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:31am
    
    Re: Re: Mixed feelings
    when the parents gave them the permission to do so, then no
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:23am

Death to Tourism
How long before some innocent tourist gets slapped with a lawsuit for simply taking a picture that includes some local yokel or their dwelling? How long after that before tourism in Europe drops to zero? It seems like people will lose interest in visiting places where something as routine as taking a photograph might get you sued -- in a foreign court, no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: Death to Tourism
  "It seems like people will lose interest in visiting places where something as routine as taking a photograph might get you sued"
  
  Well, you guys are certainly ahead of us in that regard.... At least we let people into the country before abusing them of their dignity and rights. You wouldn't believe how many people return from a US holiday swearing never to return thanks to the treatment they get at the hands of the TSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:30am
    
    Re: Re: Death to Tourism
    then learn to not taking pictures without someones permission
    its called respect
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Palmyra, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: Death to Tourism
  How long will it take the Europeans to realize that the EU is the multiheaded hydra of legend and do away with it. Only when the people themselves have a direct say in its makeup will it be worth anything. Napoleon and Hitler must be smiling in their graves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:25am
    
    Re: Re: Death to Tourism
    "Only when the people themselves have a direct say in its makeup will it be worth anything."
    
    Like the European Parliament elections? Or are you thinking of something more direct? If so, please supply us with your idea of a system that would equally benefit all 27 member nations in a more direct way that currently implemented...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Death to Tourism
      if you stop voting and if everyone did the same, then you have the right to complain, if you are still voting, you are part of it, because you choose to be part of it, so stop complaining about decissions that you took part in it
      its called stupidity
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
William C Bonner, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:27am

Death to surveilance society?
I want to bring suit against anyone putting up a camera in a public location.

If you take a picture of me running a red light, then you've violated my privacy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: Death to surveilance society?
  Agreed. "If it's a violation of someone's privacy rights to photograph them, at what point is it a violation of their rights just to see them?"
  
  They have "security" cameras all over England now file a complaint to have your image removed from the film.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2013 @ 1:40pm
  
  Re: Death to surveilance society?
  that's a bit much we need some cctv .how do you think we feel on the bus you get those idiots taking pictures of buses and we are in the pictures we do not agree with it can we sue too ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:33am

This raises a good point: Will security cameras now be illegal, since they take photos of people without their permission? WIll all public photography be banned because it's impossible to get the permision of everyone who happens to be on the street, or in the park?

Sounds like they didn't think this one through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  I was thinking about the security cameras as well. Watching "Torchwood" (I know, TV show, not real) made it seem as if the UK had some massive security camera networks. All of a sudden security cameras are now wrong? What about inside a building, like a store?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:33am

Wouldn't this make all their servilance cameras illegal then ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- No, 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:50am
  
  Re:
  You mean surveillance?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Carmon, 23 Mar 2009 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  Are you guys in 3rd grade or what?
  
  Of couse security cameras won't be illegal. Because thats what they are for, security of ones personal property. You can't say you want your privacy when your in someone's private business.
  
  The point of the story is you just can't go up to someone out walking with their family and start snapping photo's of them. I think it's for your safety and the safety of the person taking the picture. I don't know about you but if I had some wierdo following me taking pictures I can't be responsible if I just decide to shove his camera in his you no what because he is invading my private space. I have small kids also. Would you like it if someone who could be a pervert starts snapping photos of your children even though you tell them to stop? I dont think so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 20 Sep 2009 @ 8:40pm
    
    What if your sisters boyfriend is cheating on her,, you love your sister, so you told her, but she doesnt believe you.
    
    So i wont to take some pictures of him with hes other girl friend.
    
    Now is this illegal?
    
    Can he sue me if he gets hes hands on the pictures?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:44am
      
      Re:
      this goes under civil rights, it is something between you and the other party in a private matter. you are allowed to take pictures, if you are intending to make a case of it in the court, to prove what you thought is true, but you are not allowed to make pictures without permission for personal gain
      
      why do you people dont read your laws before you even try to do something
      
      it is stated int he law that you have to know what rigts you have and that you know the laws, but it seems you do not know anything at all, and you put your own opinion in it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kirk, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:35am

Honey! get those people away from the fountain. I want a picture!
If it's illegal to photograph someone without his or her consent, how can you reasonably take photographs of anything when in a public place? How long will it be until they have camera control laws to mirror gun control laws? Where do I get my camera license? Will government officials and police be included in this new reality? East Berlin, anyone? It seems a great way to put a lid on some of that damnable accountability created by citizen-level photographic and videographic evidence.
Maybe some in Europe will form the European Camara Association.
The ECA reminds you: Cameras don't take pictures of babies; people take pictures of babies.
It sounds like the couple bringing the suit are afraid of government reaching too far into their lives. Maybe they should have though things through to the next logical step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:16am
  
  Re: Honey! get those people away from the fountain. I want a picture!
  You can take pictures publicly, all you have to do is use your freaking dumb respectless mind and think, "i hould ask for permission first"
  
  People who makes photos for their living, they always have a contract of permission, as a model you have the rights of the photos that are being taken, until you have sold those rights.
  
  Maybe you as a mentally ill person who thinks he can rob someones private areas should consider the fact if you are harrassing people with your illness or not.
  
  Staring at people in a way that people are feeling uncomfortable should actually be taken seriously as it goes against article 3 of the european convention of human rights, but suprisingly to my experience, the only people who are against such things are not the victims, but the idiots who do not have any respect to other people or their private lifes.
  
  At the moment that you stare to other people, who are you to have the rigt to say that you are not harrassing the victim with it. It is exactly the same if you say, that when a woman is being raped, that it is the fault of the woman for being too sexy.....you do not have the right to interfere with someones private life, you think staring is a normal thing to do? NO it is a mental illness, and only disgusting mental ill people who have problems and issues about themselves, do these kind of things, good looking people do not stare as ugly people do
  
  and if you want a picture of that fountain, you have two options, either you ask them nicely to move away, or you wait until they have left, you do not take pictures without permission, that is very disrespectful, and that is what its al about, having respect to others.
  
  Do you really think you are being respectful? 95% of the world civilization doesnt even understand what it is by showing some respect, but they do complain when they are not treated with respect. this world is mentally ill, as for mentally ill people, with mental problems and issues, which they have caused themselves are harrassing others with it.
  
  THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS WORLD A PLACE WHERE WE CAN NOT WALK NORMALLY ON THE STREET ANYMORE!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:36am

If this decision is based on the premise that a person has a right to protect his or her "unique characteristics"... does this mean a person as the right to stop his or her identical twin from being photographed?

Or would those siblings lose such rights because their characteristics would no longer be unique?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kirk, 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:44am

C'mon
If you outlaw photopraphy, only outlaws will take photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:51am

Extremely bad lawyer-ing here.
The parents of the baby have no rights the light bouncing off of their baby while in the hospital. That light clearly belonged to the hospital, as the hospital pays for the light fixtures and the electricity to run them.

Now had the the photo been taken outdoors in sunlight, it would have been another matter. The owner of the Sun would have majority standing in this case.

What's really, really sad about what I have just written, is that there will be a lawyer or two out there that will actually agree with this argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:27am
  
  Re: Extremely bad lawyer-ing here.
  and who is paying the bills, so this hospital can exist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duane (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 9:53am

The best part...
With this ruling, you can't take photos of police and security officials anymore.

You wouldn't want to violate their civil rights by taking photos of them doing authoritarian scaremongering. Funny how that worked out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G. Orwell, 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: The best part...
  The Europeans are by nature (history) war starting, authoritative loving, socialists that will stop at nothing to dominate the world. They have done it before and want to do it again.
  
  George Orwell wrote 1984 because he understood where Europeans were capable of going and he was right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:29am
  
  Re: The best part...
  you do have the right to do so if they are violating the law as evidence,
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:16am

right up there with copyright
Just like copyright - now you have to secure the rights of everyone.

Way to go EU, just ensured that nobody can even take a photo of absolutely anything legally (since there might be a random shadow of a person in the photo).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LostSailor, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:16am

Simply Taking Someone's Photo Can Violate Their Civil Rights

And in some cultures, steal someone's soul. Gotta be careful out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:16am

From the article...

"As a commercial service operated by the hospital his photograph was taken" and "he Court added that effective protection of the right to control one’s image presupposed, in the present circumstances..."

It sounds like the Court restricted the effect of the ruling somewhat so it didn't rule that ALL pictures taken in public are now a violation of someone's privacy. The picture was taken as a commercial service - without asking the parents. THAT seems to be the problem.

If it was just a holiday snapshot that happened to catch the baby in the frame, or for ID purposes, then the Court might have ruled otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChrisB (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:38am

In this down economy, here is a new opportunity to make money:

1. Go the the UK
2. Walk around the tourist attractions
3. Sue the pants off anybody who catches me in a photo of said tourist attraction.

...horrible, horrible decision.

More thoughts: How about if a News camera "photographs" someone? The tape might not make it off the cutting room floor, but it sounds like from this ruling that if they taped you it would be in violation of your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Darko, 22 Feb 2009 @ 10:22am
  
  How are you going to sue them if you don't know who they are? You obviously can't take their photo to identify them. Do unto others and run.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LostSailor, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:39am

Likely to be a narrow decision
The article and the English press release on which the article is based, may possibly be overstating the ruling of the decision. The first part was procedural (whether the Greek court should have heard the case) and it's unclear to me at least what the ruling means in that regard.

But the wording "in the present circumstances" seems significant. The hospital had a commercial service supplying photographs of all newborns. They sent a commercial photographer into a sterile room to photograph the newborn child. They took photographs of a minor child without the parents permission. These are problematic circumstances and it appears that the parents couldn't get a court to deal with these circumstances, so they took the route of going to the ECHR on a procedural and substantive privacy issue.

Before rushing to judgment or extending this to tourists taking photos in public, the entire ruling should be read (it's available only in French). This wasn't a photo taken in a public place.

If it turns out that the ECHR ruling is being interpreted and implemented broadly to forbid taking photographs in open public places, I'll gladly join in the condemnation. But these things aren't always what they seem at first blush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 6 Feb 2009 @ 10:47am
  
  Re: Likely to be a narrow decision
  I try to be an optimist, but honestly now lets think about this. Surely no nation has ever taken a ruling and implemented it broadly beyond it's intent other than the US, right?
  
  *crickets*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re: Likely to be a narrow decision
  As you so aptly note, the facts pertinent to matters such as this are quite important. It is interesting, however, that this issue arises in Europe. Some time ago Eugene Volokh had an article that reflected an interesting aspect of how some in Europe view the dignity of "individuals", to wit:
  
  http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf
  
  Ever since I read it I have felt quite guilty about doing the simple act of mowing my lawn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiggins, 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:17am

Blown out of proportion
All the commenters here are blowing this out of proportion, much like they always do when they just read masnick's interpretation of an article instead of the source article.

The baby was not in a public place walking around, it was held under duress and its picture taken for COMMERICAL gain without its or its gaurdians consent. When the parents requested the copies, the hospital, along with a greek court REFUSED it.

At a restaurant i like to eat at they have old photos hanging on the walls, one booth i sit at has a large photo of some civil soldiers before going off to battle. One of the soldiers faces has a clear expression of utter despondance, Did this man know he was going to be brooding over someone's chicken strips for all time? DO you think he would have agreed to it if he knew? He wasn't given the option, and now he is forced to stare out his death stare for all time.

But to get back on point, yes if i am walking around town and you take a picture of me, and then REFUSE to destroy it or get my consent to publish it, you have very much so violated my civil rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: Blown out of proportion
  Yet it's just a short slide down a slippery slope to the point where anyone taking a photo, where the photo includes the personal characteristics of another person (i.e., their image) is also considered a violation of privacy. I'd bet my last dollar that in less than a year, such a suit will be filed, at great expense to some poor sap who was simply taking a photograph to remember his vacation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
    It was such a short slide that he was already there.
    
    He started out the comment by saying that it was not about public pictures (ignoring the insult to Techdirt readers)...
    
    "The baby was not in a public place walking around, it was held under duress and its picture taken for COMMERICAL gain without its or its gaurdians consent. When the parents requested the copies, the hospital, along with a greek court REFUSED it."
    
    ...and then ended his comment by stating that public pictures violate his rights.
    
    "But to get back on point, yes if i am walking around town and you take a picture of me, and then REFUSE to destroy it or get my consent to publish it, you have very much so violated my civil rights."
    
    He made it down that slippery slope and kept going. News reporting must suck in EU.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
      He's the guy planning to file the lawsuit. I saw him hanging around the Eiffel Tower, hoping someone would accidentally take his photo. And I saw his photo hanging on the wall in a restaurant, staring at my bowl of ravioli. Did he even ask me if he could stare at my ravioli? Isn't that a violation of my civil rights? I think photographs should ask my permission before looking at me or my things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
        yes people should ask for permission first to be able to do anything that influences others, which of the logical part dont you understand, YOU ARE INTERFERING SOMEONE ELSE'S LIFE
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
      PS: Where is it said that the child was "held under duress"? I didn't see that in this article, the linked to article, or the EU press release. Kidnapping should be just a little higher priority for the parents than a picture.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
      it is not only the news, it is human nature to think whatever they do, they have the right to do ith without any reflection back what they might cause to other people, this is a selfishness with what we are living nowadays, and only mentally ill people can think like this, without searching through the whole matter, they assume things that are totally incorrect, welcome to the new world order
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: Blown out of proportion
  But to get back on point, yes if i am walking around town and you take a picture of me, and then REFUSE to destroy it or get my consent to publish it, you have very much so violated my civil rights.
  
  Violated your right to what? Maintaining privacy in a public place? Why should you be granted any such right? Or if not that, then what right would that violate?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:38am

this begs the question
What of speed and red light cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex (profile), 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:58am

Point of Information
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:30pm

No more Paparazzi
Why do I see all Hollywood stars migrating to the EU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:37pm

I think unless the parents were able to distinguish a picture of their new born baby from that of any other (of the same skin tone) then they should definitely have not been able to win the case. I think the picture has to be uniquely identifying for there even to be a remote case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse, 6 Feb 2009 @ 12:40pm

To add to the above point, if one took a picture of a Muslim woman who was covering her face, would that be an invasion of privacy? If it is not uniquely identifying, then it would be less of an invasion of privacy than say writing down somebody's full name.

Is it an invasion of privacy to write down somebody's name and say I saw them at the mall? Aren't I tracking their whereabouts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solipsist, 6 Feb 2009 @ 1:05pm

Don't read this
Hey! I said don't read this. By reading this, you have violated my [un?]civil rights to privacy. I also claim a copyright on this paragraph. Do not use it in any response. In fact, I claim a patent on my existence. Do not refer to me in any way or I will sue you! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.M. Press, 6 Feb 2009 @ 1:23pm

Simply way around that in the States...
Everyone can publish a blog, claim they are part of the press and claim freedom of the press...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fentex, 6 Feb 2009 @ 4:49pm

Protecting of privacy
I too find it odd that courts should apparently find it abusive of someones civil rights to take their photo, but when considering the particular context of the case I see a sound reason.

Hospitals owe duties of care to their patients, and a newborn in their care is not a person in a public place.

A person in either a positon of authority, or with a duty of care, to that newborn has a relationship with them quite different from a passerby who might take a photo of someone sitting in public.

And it is not unreasonable to insist that the situation not be used for any purpose that the parents of the newborn may reasonably disagree with (who knows why the don't want their child photographed and we don't need to know, it wasn't neccessary to care for the childs health and safety).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Annony, 7 Feb 2009 @ 11:45pm
  
  Re: Protecting of privacy
  I think people assume that it is ok for a hospital to photograph and keep the pictures of a new born baby. I can understand it being done for security reason (in case a baby is taken from the hospital &they need a pic. of the child), however the hospital/photographer has no right to keep the pictures once the parents request them or want the pictures deleted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 7 Feb 2009 @ 3:10am

Piccies
As the law stands in the UK at the moment, I understand that it is not illegal to take a photograph of anything (with the exception of certain "secret" establishments - but how do we know that?) in a public place but police can twist it around so you are an "obstruction" or "likely to provoke public disorder" and move you on. Not sure about the publication bit, though. Would have thought if you were snapped in a public place, it was fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2009 @ 12:42am

Google street view - RIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, 9 Feb 2009 @ 2:49pm

Isn't UK the surveillance capital of the world
So its ok for the police to photograph your every move but people it is against the law for people to photograph other people. yeah that makes sense in a democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- brandon, 28 Mar 2015 @ 3:41am
  
  Re: Isn't UK the surveillance capital of the world
  the police annot take pictures of every move you do unless, it is a part of an investigating that proves you are violating the law, you have that exactly same right to do, for personal and commercial usage, you have to have permission of the owner. welcome stupid, for thinking you know everything
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dan sullivan, 18 Mar 2009 @ 2:25am

photographing en masse
what about taking photos of events - if your at the race track, people in the background can be made out? where is the law with this - in fact if you take a photo at any tourist spot, I defy you to make sure no one else is recognisable. So what happens here? this is relevant to my work so really interested if anyone knows...!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]