As far as I can find out, no one can object to a photograph being *taken* in
a public place. It's different in private places, especially in view of the
Human Rights Act. (It's also different in France, for example.)
However, people can object to the use you make of the photo if it is
personal data, because your use would have to meet all the Principles.
(This wouldn't apply to private use, because of the s.36 personal, family &
household exemption.) In this case, they could object under Principle 1 on
Transparency grounds (that they weren't told) or on grounds of Schedule 2
Conditions (no consent and their legitimate interests over-ride yours).
If it's not personal data (e.g. the person is not identifiable, or it's a
single photo, not part of a set, not on computer and therefore not data)
then you just have to go with common sense, I think - unless someone else
knows of other relevant rights.
If you have a contractual obligation with the photographer to display the
photo and you cannot prove that they have breached the contract by failing
to get permission, then you have a dilemma. Otherwise, the individuals'
objection surely takes precedence regardless of the photographer's hurt
feelings. Presumably they still get paid, so what's their problem?
The other approach, when people attend an event that they pay for, is to do
what the London Eye do and put in the small print a waiver of all rights
over any photo they may take of you as part of the contract when you buy
your ticket. I'm not recommending that approach.
Paul Ticher
0116 273 8191
22 Stoughton Drive North, Leicester LE5 5UB
I hereby require any recipient of this message not to use my personal data
for direct marketing purposes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Diamantopoulos" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: photos in exhibitions
> Can anyone help me with this one. We have a 'streets of croydon'photo
> exhibition on at the moment and some of the photographers were
commissioned
> to take these photos. the proviso was that as far as was possible they
get
> the consent of whoever they took, which they said they had. anyway to cut
> a long story short,a photo was taken of a couple who were recently married
> and standing in front of the registry office, went to the exhibition and
> were upset that their photo was included as they had no knowledge of it
> being taken. it was taken down, but now the photographer is angry and
> wants it put back up. i was wondering whether this is along the same
lines
> as the pharmacist taking the photo of the intruders as outlined in the
> article printed in the sun. all thoughts appreciated.
>
> joanna diamantopoulos
> data protection officer
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
> available to the world wide web community at large at
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|