Rowling wins photos privacy ruling

This is a discussion on Rowling wins photos privacy ruling within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; Harry Potter author JK Rowling has won a landmark privacy ruling in her battle to ban publication of covert long lens pictures.. more...


Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,595
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Harry Potter author JK Rowling has won a landmark privacy ruling in her battle to ban publication of covert long lens pictures..more
    Admin


  • #2
    A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Posts
    855
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    I'm glad she won, the sneaky paparazzi makes people paranoid of anyone carrying a camera

  • #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Higham, South Yorkshire
    Posts
    29,002
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Thanks for the info

  • #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,288
    WHO GIVES A HOOT WHAT THEIR KIDS LOOK LIKE ANYWAY..
    say cheeseburger!!!

    MICROSOFT DIGITAL IMAGE PRO 9

  • #5
    A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Posts
    855
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    WHO GIVES A HOOT WHAT THEIR KIDS LOOK LIKE ANYWAY..
    Thank you SONYNUT, for saying what I was going to say!

  • #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,005
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    No, I think if you had better read this ruling carefully, you will not applaud it. The piucture was taken in public as they were strolling with the child in a baby stoller. Normally, the law says that if you can expect that where you are is private, then no pictures can be taken. This ruling goes way beyond that. It says that if you can expect that if you were "normal" the picture would not be taken, then the picture should not be taken.

    This means that any picture taken of any one famous and their children, aunts, uncles, cousins... can claim that you had no right to take their picture because you took it only because of their association with someone famous.

    You might as well ban all portrait photography that does not have a signed release. Read the judgment again and see what you think about it in that light.

    And the paparazzi are deliberatly painted by the media as being these ruthless bad boys that will do anything for a candid shot. It is the media personalities that are reporting on the paprazzi. Personalities that are themselves subject to candid photography. Were do you think their sentiments lie?
    I currently spend a fair amount of time on Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/103236949470535942612

    my personal website (not very current I'm afraid): clupica and family
    my photogarphy : cwlupica - Photograher
    my photos on SmugMug. StudioLupica on SmugMug
    me on facebook: Charles Lupica
    My fan page on facebook: StudioLupica

  • #7
    A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Posts
    855
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    No, I think if you had better read this ruling carefully, you will not applaud it. The piucture was taken in public as they were strolling with the child in a baby stoller. Normally, the law says that if you can expect that where you are is private, then no pictures can be taken. This ruling goes way beyond that. It says that if you can expect that if you were "normal" the picture would not be taken, then the picture should not be taken.

    This means that any picture taken of any one famous and their children, aunts, uncles, cousins... can claim that you had no right to take their picture because you took it only because of their association with someone famous.

    You might as well ban all portrait photography that does not have a signed release. Read the judgment again and see what you think about it in that light.

    And the paparazzi are deliberatly painted by the media as being these ruthless bad boys that will do anything for a candid shot. It is the media personalities that are reporting on the paprazzi. Personalities that are themselves subject to candid photography. Were do you think their sentiments lie?
    I didn't read the entire article, but if that's the case, then I retract my above statement. I have seen some photos taken by paparazzi that were definitely taken "through the bushes" so to speak...and I do find that wrong and invasive of someone's privacy. Now, if they were out somewhere open to the public, then they should have no complaints about who takes their picture. There are some images online that you can REALLY tell they were taken by invading someone's privacy, and I'm not just talking about celebrities. Any portraits I do I have a signed release for. While I'm not saying that everyone should have to have a release to shoot portraits, but it's good to protect your own rear end.
    I don't trust any media source, since they all seem to feed us the same bullcrap ROFL. But yeah, not to get off subject here, but I agree if they were in a public place (or any private property OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)...then she shouldn't have won. But I also agree with SONYNUT..who gives a crap about which movie star weighs 65 lbs because of anorexia, or which star is a drug addict? I honestly don't want to hear about it.

  • #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,005
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Hi Chrissy,

    The artilce says (and I'm interpreting) that they were walking in public with the child in a baby stroller. There objection was that, in part, the person that took the picture could not be seen because he was using a long lens. They also maintain that the child would not have been photographed if it was not the child of a famous person. A child of an averag person would not have been photographed. There their child privacy was invaded even though he was photographed in a public place.

    Let's not forget who where talking about either, J.K. Rowlings is the RICHEST woman in the UNITED KINGDOM and the richest author in the WORLD. That buys a lot of clout. I personlly don't think someone in that position has any right to think that they or anyone around them have any right to privacy when they're in a public place. Obviously she couldn't sue them for taking her photo, so she sued them for taking the photo of her child. Laywers and celebrities; we'd be better off if we had no need for either.

    As for who cares. Apparently a lot of people do. Some paparazzi shots can earn over $200'000 while they're hot. I agree, that for that kind of money, some photographers would do anything. But that "candid" shot of Jack Nickolas scratching himself at the beach was probably worth 5-10'000.
    I currently spend a fair amount of time on Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/103236949470535942612

    my personal website (not very current I'm afraid): clupica and family
    my photogarphy : cwlupica - Photograher
    my photos on SmugMug. StudioLupica on SmugMug
    me on facebook: Charles Lupica
    My fan page on facebook: StudioLupica

  • #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cherry Creek, NV, USA
    Posts
    7,024
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Thanks for the update, MOD.

    I'm with Charles on this one (with ambivalence).
    The fact is that we have no expectation of privacy anywhere, any more --
    but apparently, the rich and powerful do.

    I wouldn't want anyone taking pictures of my children (if I had any) without my permission -- there are too many crazy people in the world. And that's why I do not take pictures of children without their parents' permission, and whenever possible, permission from the child as well.

    Think I'll stick with mustangs and deer.
    (I even have to have permission from the owners of domestic horses and livestock now. )
    "Images Of The Vanishing West"

    www.GreatBasinLife.com

  • #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cherry Creek, NV, USA
    Posts
    7,024
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    WHO GIVES A HOOT WHAT THEIR KIDS LOOK LIKE ANYWAY..
    Stalkers. Child abductors. Perverts .... and people who buy that gossip rag crap.

    This ruling has come about due to the irresponsible behavior of a few paparazzi, who
    endanger people's lives for the sake of a picture. It wouldn't happen if there wasn't a market.
    "Images Of The Vanishing West"

    www.GreatBasinLife.com


  •  

    Remove Ads

    Sponsored Links

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •