This is less about the photographer waiving their moral rights, and about thinking of the rights of the children, and relating that to issues of what constitutes explicit consent, which relates to the the Data Protection Act 1998, where Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 set out the conditions relevant for the processing of any personal data. In this case because of the use of images of children, this is less related to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act than to the processing of personal data where explicit consent is required.
BBC editorial guidelines are pretty good in this area:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-children-full
Suzanne
--
Suzanne Hardy
Senior Project Officer
Learning and Teaching Development Service (LTDS)
Room 2.70 Bedson Building
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
Tel: 0191 208 3264
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt
email: [log in to unmask]
mobile: 07790 905657
skype: glitt3rgirl
The Enterprise Shed: Making Ideas Happen starts 30 March
www.futurelearn.com/courses/enterprise-shed
Hadrian's Wall: Life on the Roman Frontier
www.futurelearn.com/courses/hadrians-wall
Ageing Well: Falls
www.futurelearn.com/courses/falls
> On 2 Mar 2015, at 16:16, Pat (Pgogy) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 2015-03-02 11:09, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2015 8:05 AM, "Pat (Pgogy)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Moral rights tends to refer to the copyright holder.
>> In what jurisdiction? That seems very problematic.
>> Pete
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
>
> Quite a few, if not most
>
> I am not arguing you don't have a right to privacy (/ not to be photographed) - good discussion here - http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people/
>
>
> --
> Pgogy Webstuff
> pgogywebstuff.com
|