If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|