I found the Masons' article very useful but I don't think it addresses the
issue which was raised in the original query.
The arguments in the article relate, in part, to whether or not the data
controller *intended* to identify the data subject. The issue in the original
query was whether or not the data controller had an *obligation* to identify
a data subject (because of an earlier promise to that person that his/her
personal details would not be publicly disclosed).
I’m sure most University marketing departments have photo libraries
containing “snapshots” of campus life. Now that data controllers have to
respect data subjects’ requests to be excluded from external publications
& exhibitions, does that mean that those photos cannot be used unless
there is some procedure for identifying those who have asked to be
excluded. The only way I can think to do that is to photograph the
"excludees" and use those photos to check publicity shots. A lot of work!
Have I missed something? Any views?
Anne Kipling
Information Security Officer
Oxford Brookes University
> We covered the case Eastweek, which involved a case of a newspaper
> taking photographs in a public place without the consent of the
> individual photographed.
>
> If anyone wants a reference, please e-mail me
>
> C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 26 October 2000 17:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: use of photograph without consent
>
>
> I have just read an interesting article relevant to the above on
> Mason's web-site at:
>
> http://www.masons.com/php/page.php3?page_id=japanese5969
>
> Mervyn Smith
> IM&T Security Officer
> Dept. of Information
> Wensley Court
> Rotherham District General Hospital
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|