Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco

This story raises concerns about the freedom of photographers to snap
celebrities:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...toryID=5505096

Not if you snap them in public!

"TP" wrote in message
...
This story raises concerns about the freedom of photographers to snap
celebrities:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...toryID=5505096

"TP" wrote in message
...
This story raises concerns about the freedom of photographers to snap
celebrities:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...toryID=5505096



"AW" wrote in message ...
Not if you snap them in public!


Isn't that what the article's saying, that the court has decreed that this
is not the case, or, at the very least, that the tabloids cannot publish
them?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote:

Isn't that what the article's saying, that the court has decreed that this
is not the case, or, at the very least, that the tabloids cannot publish
them?


Exactly, Matt. This case has huge significance across most of Europe,
because the remit of the European Court of Human Rights extends beyond
any mere national Court.

Previously, only in France were privacy laws established which
restricted the freedom of photographers working from public land and
public rights of way. This case extends the right of privacy across
all European countries who are signatories to the European Convention
on Human Rights, notably Germany, where the alleged infringement of
Princess Caroline's privacy took place.

The highest German court had already found in favour of the
photographers. This ruling means that the German court's decision has
been sidelined, and that an explicit right of privacy now exists
across most of Europe.

These are dark days for people photographers.

In article ,
TP wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Isn't that what the article's saying, that the court has decreed that this
is not the case, or, at the very least, that the tabloids cannot publish
them?


Exactly, Matt. This case has huge significance across most of Europe,
because the remit of the European Court of Human Rights extends beyond
any mere national Court.

"Photos appearing in the tabloid press were often taken in a climate of
"continual harassment which induced in the person concerned a very strong
"sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution,

I don't know exactly what photo's they took and where, but it may be possible
that this is not so much about the pictures, as it is about the behaviour of
the photografers. Stalking is not allowed in many countries.

Somehow, this text doesn't seem compatible with the Dutch laws w.r.t.
portrets. So either, there are some european directives that the Dutch
government (and probably the German government as well) failed to implement
in the local law, or they used a far more general privacy law that doesn't
have anything to do with photos and may have a big influence on the press
as a whole (if publishing pictures invades her privacy, writings may be bad
as well).

(disclaimer: IANAL)



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

I don't think so! It might be dark days for a certain kind of photographers.

Honestly: what kind of photographer one is to believe that photos taken of
Caroline at the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling
down are of particular importance to the public in a democratic state?

Furthermore, the Court bases it's arguments on former already existing case
law.

Here some quotations:

"[...] protection of private life has to be balanced against the freedom of
expression [...]
the Court reiterates thet the freedom of expression constitutes one of the
essential foundations of a democratic society.[...]"

The press' duty is to "impart information and ideas on all kind of matters
of public interest [...]"

"The present case does not concern the dissemination of "ideas", but of
images containing very personal or even intimate "information" (note the
quotes!) about an individual.[...]

In the cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private
life against the freedom of expression it has always stressed the
contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of general
interest. [...] the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's
private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and
that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance".[...]

The Court points out [...] that in the present case the photos [...] show
her in scenes from her daily life [...] .

The photos illustrate a series of articles with such anodyne titles as "Pure
happyness", "Caroline... a woman returning to life". "Out and about with
Princess Caroline in Paris" and "The kiss: they are not hiding
anymore..."[...]

The Court also notes that [...] she does not exercise any function within or
on behalf of the State of Monaco or one of its institutions.[...]

The Court considers that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between
reporting facts [...] capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic
society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions [...] and
reporting details of the private life of an individual who, moreover [...]
does not exercise official functions.[...]

The situation here does not come within the sphere of any political or
public debate because the published photos and accompanying commentaries
relate exclusively to details of the applicant's private life.[...] "

[...] The photos'"[...] of which the sole purpose was to satisfy the
curosity of a particular readership [...] cannot be deemed to contribute to
any debate of general interest to society [...] (photos taken of Caroline at
the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling down a.o.)
.."

"[...] The interest of the general public and the press is based solely on
her membership of a reigning family whereas she herself does not exercise
any official functions.[...] "

The Court considers "that the decisive factor in balancing the protection of
private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution
that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest
[...] in the instant case [...] they made no such contribution [...] the
public does not have a legitimate interest in knowing where [Caroline] is
and how she behaves generally in her private life[...] .



"TP" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Isn't that what the article's saying, that the court has decreed that
this
is not the case, or, at the very least, that the tabloids cannot publish
them?


Exactly, Matt. This case has huge significance across most of Europe,
because the remit of the European Court of Human Rights extends beyond
any mere national Court.

Previously, only in France were privacy laws established which
restricted the freedom of photographers working from public land and
public rights of way. This case extends the right of privacy across
all European countries who are signatories to the European Convention
on Human Rights, notably Germany, where the alleged infringement of
Princess Caroline's privacy took place.

The highest German court had already found in favour of the
photographers. This ruling means that the German court's decision has
been sidelined, and that an explicit right of privacy now exists
across most of Europe.

These are dark days for people photographers.

"AW" wrote in message ...
I don't think so! It might be dark days for a certain kind of
photographers.

Honestly: what kind of photographer one is to believe that photos taken of
Caroline at the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and
falling
down are of particular importance to the public in a democratic state?

Furthermore, the Court bases it's arguments on former already existing
case
law.

Here some quotations:

"[...] protection of private life has to be balanced against the freedom
of
expression [...]
the Court reiterates thet the freedom of expression constitutes one of the
essential foundations of a democratic society.[...]"

The press' duty is to "impart information and ideas on all kind of matters
of public interest [...]"

"The present case does not concern the dissemination of "ideas", but of
images containing very personal or even intimate "information" (note the
quotes!) about an individual.[...]

In the cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of
private
life against the freedom of expression it has always stressed the
contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of
general
interest. [...] the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's
private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and
that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance".[...]

The Court points out [...] that in the present case the photos [...] show
her in scenes from her daily life [...] .

The photos illustrate a series of articles with such anodyne titles as
"Pure
happyness", "Caroline... a woman returning to life". "Out and about with
Princess Caroline in Paris" and "The kiss: they are not hiding
anymore..."[...]

The Court also notes that [...] she does not exercise any function within
or
on behalf of the State of Monaco or one of its institutions.[...]

The Court considers that a fundamental distinction needs to be made
between
reporting facts [...] capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic
society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions [...]
and
reporting details of the private life of an individual who, moreover [...]
does not exercise official functions.[...]

The situation here does not come within the sphere of any political or
public debate because the published photos and accompanying commentaries
relate exclusively to details of the applicant's private life.[...] "

[...] The photos'"[...] of which the sole purpose was to satisfy the
curosity of a particular readership [...] cannot be deemed to contribute
to
any debate of general interest to society [...] (photos taken of Caroline
at
the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling down
a.o.)
."

"[...] The interest of the general public and the press is based solely on
her membership of a reigning family whereas she herself does not exercise
any official functions.[...] "

The Court considers "that the decisive factor in balancing the protection
of
private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution
that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general
interest
[...] in the instant case [...] they made no such contribution [...] the
public does not have a legitimate interest in knowing where [Caroline] is
and how she behaves generally in her private life[...] .



"TP" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Isn't that what the article's saying, that the court has decreed that
this
is not the case, or, at the very least, that the tabloids cannot
publish
them?


Exactly, Matt. This case has huge significance across most of Europe,
because the remit of the European Court of Human Rights extends beyond
any mere national Court.

Previously, only in France were privacy laws established which
restricted the freedom of photographers working from public land and
public rights of way. This case extends the right of privacy across
all European countries who are signatories to the European Convention
on Human Rights, notably Germany, where the alleged infringement of
Princess Caroline's privacy took place.

The highest German court had already found in favour of the
photographers. This ruling means that the German court's decision has
been sidelined, and that an explicit right of privacy now exists
across most of Europe.

These are dark days for people photographers.





So then it's ok for me to fly to Germany and follow the princess around the
streets taking her photo at every turn and then sell them to the tabloids?
'Cause I kinda got the idea that wasn't ok from the article.

Please quit top-posting.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com