Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Photography / Privacy - Celebs win £58k for breach of privacy

  • 15-05-2008 9:40am
    #1
    slumped
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭


    From www.sky.com/news

    Hurley And Grant Win £58K Damages
    Updated:10:32, Thursday May 15, 2008

    Hugh Grant, Liz Hurley and her husband Arun Nayur have accepted £58,000 damages for invasion of privacy over photographs taken while they were on holiday.
    More to follow...


    Just wondering what the laws are here in relation to taking photos of people in public places?

    If I take my camera into town and take photos of people - is this a breach of privacy?

    If I go to the beach and take the shots there - is that a breach?

    Anyone up on this??


Comments

  • #2
    Yerac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 235 ✭✭Yerac


    Generally the "rules" I've seen for British paparazzi are no shots while a person is on private property (e.g. no long lenses into their bedrooms) but while out in public they are fair game.

    There was an interesting series of documentaries on the biography channel recently about the Big Picture agency where stuff like that came up.

    If you read the expanded version of the Hurley story it says "Snappers obtained photos of the three while they were in a private resort in the Maldives."

    I would suspect the rules are similar here but I wouldn't go crazy snapping everyone until you were sure.


  • #3
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,272 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Read this.


  • #4
    digitally-yours
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭digitally-yours


    would it be any different if the pictures were taken just as a hobby and not for making money ?

    I guess snaping people on a public place should be fine until u start making money from them ? any ideas. anyone


  • #5
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,272 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Yes, there is a difference between a commercial photo and a private hobby photo.

    However, you can certainly make money from snapping someone in a public place, since they have no expectation of privacy, as long as you don't defame them in the use of the photo.


  • #6
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    To add to what Paulw said - it seems that while commerically exploiting people's images for art is okay it is certainly not okay to associate them with advocating a particular brand/company e.g. sell a picture of my face as "homeless man 1" is okay legally but sell my face to Coca Cola to be featured in their next ad campaign is most certainly not.

    Model release forms are needed for that.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement