Many thanks for the responses to date.
Reason for the question is that some legislation talks of photographs within
it. (e.g. Police and Criminal Records Act).
As far as I am aware there has been no case law determining if digital
images are to be interpreted as photographs for the purposes of legal
proceedings. So - Does existing legislation and case law relating to
photographs cover digital images? If not there are probably some
difficulties ahead and much potential re-inventing of the wheel.
Summaries.
Many very interesting and useful definitions of photograph, photography and
photographic. Will forward them to anybody requesting.
=
At this point technology gets very mixed indeed and you may have
difficulty arguing that for the purposed of DPA electronic
capture/storage of images does not constitute photography.
There is a system which allows you to store up to 100 photographic images on
a CD and watch them on a television or computer screen.
The agreement forbids the photographic reproduction of written, printed, or
graphic work.
It was my understanding that personal data could
be an image of a person. And that image could be static or moving. And it
could be a photograph or a digital image. I suppose it would of course have
to be stored electronically to come within the Act's provisions (unless it
forms part of a relevant filing system).
But "image processing" systems can recognise a person by a variety of
techniques that may never have the "image" stored in a representation
that you or I could recognise that person by. It might be some
statistical pattern, some mathematical transform, a gait pattern, or
maybe a neural network system. These "fingerprints" of you could be used to
track you, or be traded. Presumably they are still your personal data
though, but how you could
certify that they were "correct" would be interesting.
+
Looking at the advertisements for digital cameras, image processing software
over the last few months/years it is my impression that 'photograph' has(is)
become(ing) commonly recognised as any photo sensitive process whose end
product is a 'picture', be that digital or film based. If that is a correct
impression the English language definitions of 'photograph' probably need
updating to include any 'picture' irrespective of medium, rather than any
legal or legislative re-definition of photograph.
It is an important issue in the context of determining in what circumstances
and how images can be processed. I note the RIP (71(1b)) appears to have
noticed this technological implication and is worded accordingly. Clearly
the DPA 1998 captures any description of an individual, no matter how
contrived, within it, so there is a need to appropriately apply the
principles both to electronic and hard copy images.
An interesting situation illustrating this to me was a set of cameras
collecting digital images which were only processed in their electronic
form. The collection and processing was clearly covered by the DPA 1998,
but what other legislative controls, if any, also applied to the scenario?
Hence the reason for the question to the group as a whole. Once you start
considering this it can get quite complex, and a reason to collect my
e-mail more than once a week :-)
Any changes in the definition of the word photograph is probably something
to watch and review against notified processing.
Ian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|