 |
 |
John Peel wrote: You've secured the most important rights so I would say that although > you're still not legally suppose to the risk is low to publish them. Whilst there may be some good moral arguments for not publishing identifiable photos of people without permission, I've never really understood where the law actually stood on this. From only having dipped my toe in photography forums like Flickr (where there are some pretty militant photographers) and a quick bit of reading on Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Photography_and_privacy), it seems that there's no specific prohibition against taking or publishing photos of people, other than the potential to infringe privacy - and this seems to come down to whether there's an 'expectation of privacy' - which wouldn't exist, for example, in public places, but would prevent people taking photos of you in your own home with a telephoto lens. Am I missing anything here? There are still some good reasons for requiring model release forms - especially where you're using an image for marketing purposes. Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com **************************************************************** For mcg information visit the mcg website at http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/ To manage your subscription to this email list visit http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/ ****************************************************************