RSS
EU Court Says Simply Taking Someone's Photo Can Violate Their Civil Rights
from the who-did-what-now? dept
I'm definitely a big supporter of privacy rights, but sometimes it seems that big time privacy rights supporters go too far. The latest is that an EU court on human rights has declared that simply taking someone's photograph can be a violation of their privacy. In the past, laws in Europe have said that you can't necessarily publish a photo of someone without their permission, but merely taking the photo was allowed. No longer. In the press release about the decision, the court explained its reasoning:
"The Court reiterated that the concept of private life was a broad one which encompassed the right to identity. It stressed that a person's image revealed his or her unique characteristics and constituted one of the chief attributes of his or her personality. The Court added that effective protection of the right to control one's image presupposed, in the present circumstances, obtaining the consent of the person concerned when the picture was being taken and not just when it came to possible publication."Now, I could potentially understand such reasoning in private settings, but the statements above don't seem to limit the issue to private settings. The situation in the case itself also highlights what's a gray area between public and private. It involved a hospital that photographed a newborn baby -- as it does with all newborn babies. The parents protested and demanded the negatives, claiming that the photograph violated their baby's privacy rights -- and the court agreed. What's troubling is the implications of such a ruling, that you simply cannot photograph anyone without their official approval. This will almost certainly lead to new lawsuits, and even begins to raise some other questions. If it's a violation of someone's privacy rights to photograph them, at what point is it a violation of their rights just to see them?
48 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- EU Official Who Resigned Over ACTA Details Why ACTA Is Dangerous; While His Replacement Seems Unlikely To Care
- Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'
- European Parliament President Criticizes ACTA
- If The Internet Is Treated Just Like The Offline World, We'd Never Have Ridiculous Laws Like SOPA/PIPA
- Trustwave Admits It Issued A Certificate To Allow Company To Run Man-In-The-Middle Attacks
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Considering this decision was made by lawyers, why am I not shocked by this?
"at what point is it a violation of their rights just to see them?"
I remember back in the late 80s when the radical women's right movement considered a guy staring at a woman to be guilty of a hate crime.
And I seem to remember the UK banning non-parents from public parks because they might look at children.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mixed feelings
This right, however, should also be forfeit in a public setting, or security cameras, etc, would be useless. Whether a room in a postnatal ward is a private setting is debatable, but I would say it is. It is secure, not just anyone can wander in, and even doctors are supposed to knock before entering when the door is closed. That creates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Death to Tourism
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Death to surveilance society?
If you take a picture of me running a red light, then you've violated my privacy!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like they didn't think this one through.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Honey! get those people away from the fountain. I want a picture!
Maybe some in Europe will form the European Camara Association.
The ECA reminds you: Cameras don't take pictures of babies; people take pictures of babies.
It sounds like the couple bringing the suit are afraid of government reaching too far into their lives. Maybe they should have though things through to the next logical step.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Or would those siblings lose such rights because their characteristics would no longer be unique?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
C'mon
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Extremely bad lawyer-ing here.
Now had the the photo been taken outdoors in sunlight, it would have been another matter. The owner of the Sun would have majority standing in this case.
What's really, really sad about what I have just written, is that there will be a lawyer or two out there that will actually agree with this argument.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The best part...
You wouldn't want to violate their civil rights by taking photos of them doing authoritarian scaremongering. Funny how that worked out...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Death to Tourism
Well, you guys are certainly ahead of us in that regard.... At least we let people into the country before abusing them of their dignity and rights. You wouldn't believe how many people return from a US holiday swearing never to return thanks to the treatment they get at the hands of the TSA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Death to surveilance society?
They have "security" cameras all over England now file a complaint to have your image removed from the film.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Death to Tourism
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
right up there with copyright
Way to go EU, just ensured that nobody can even take a photo of absolutely anything legally (since there might be a random shadow of a person in the photo).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
And in some cultures, steal someone's soul. Gotta be careful out there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"As a commercial service operated by the hospital his photograph was taken" and "he Court added that effective protection of the right to control one’s image presupposed, in the present circumstances..."
It sounds like the Court restricted the effect of the ruling somewhat so it didn't rule that ALL pictures taken in public are now a violation of someone's privacy. The picture was taken as a commercial service - without asking the parents. THAT seems to be the problem.
If it was just a holiday snapshot that happened to catch the baby in the frame, or for ID purposes, then the Court might have ruled otherwise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
1. Go the the UK
2. Walk around the tourist attractions
3. Sue the pants off anybody who catches me in a photo of said tourist attraction.
...horrible, horrible decision.
More thoughts: How about if a News camera "photographs" someone? The tape might not make it off the cutting room floor, but it sounds like from this ruling that if they taped you it would be in violation of your rights.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Likely to be a narrow decision
But the wording "in the present circumstances" seems significant. The hospital had a commercial service supplying photographs of all newborns. They sent a commercial photographer into a sterile room to photograph the newborn child. They took photographs of a minor child without the parents permission. These are problematic circumstances and it appears that the parents couldn't get a court to deal with these circumstances, so they took the route of going to the ECHR on a procedural and substantive privacy issue.
Before rushing to judgment or extending this to tourists taking photos in public, the entire ruling should be read (it's available only in French). This wasn't a photo taken in a public place.
If it turns out that the ECHR ruling is being interpreted and implemented broadly to forbid taking photographs in open public places, I'll gladly join in the condemnation. But these things aren't always what they seem at first blush.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mixed feelings
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Likely to be a narrow decision
*crickets*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Blown out of proportion
The baby was not in a public place walking around, it was held under duress and its picture taken for COMMERICAL gain without its or its gaurdians consent. When the parents requested the copies, the hospital, along with a greek court REFUSED it.
At a restaurant i like to eat at they have old photos hanging on the walls, one booth i sit at has a large photo of some civil soldiers before going off to battle. One of the soldiers faces has a clear expression of utter despondance, Did this man know he was going to be brooding over someone's chicken strips for all time? DO you think he would have agreed to it if he knew? He wasn't given the option, and now he is forced to stare out his death stare for all time.
But to get back on point, yes if i am walking around town and you take a picture of me, and then REFUSE to destroy it or get my consent to publish it, you have very much so violated my civil rights.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Death to Tourism
Like the European Parliament elections? Or are you thinking of something more direct? If so, please supply us with your idea of a system that would equally benefit all 27 member nations in a more direct way that currently implemented...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blown out of proportion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
this begs the question
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The best part...
George Orwell wrote 1984 because he understood where Europeans were capable of going and he was right.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Point of Information
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No more Paparazzi
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
He started out the comment by saying that it was not about public pictures (ignoring the insult to Techdirt readers)...
"The baby was not in a public place walking around, it was held under duress and its picture taken for COMMERICAL gain without its or its gaurdians consent. When the parents requested the copies, the hospital, along with a greek court REFUSED it."
...and then ended his comment by stating that public pictures violate his rights.
"But to get back on point, yes if i am walking around town and you take a picture of me, and then REFUSE to destroy it or get my consent to publish it, you have very much so violated my civil rights."
He made it down that slippery slope and kept going. News reporting must suck in EU.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Is it an invasion of privacy to write down somebody's name and say I saw them at the mall? Aren't I tracking their whereabouts?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blown out of proportion
Violated your right to what? Maintaining privacy in a public place? Why should you be granted any such right? Or if not that, then what right would that violate?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Blown out of proportion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Don't read this
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Simply way around that in the States...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Likely to be a narrow decision
http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf
Ever since I read it I have felt quite guilty about doing the simple act of mowing my lawn.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Protecting of privacy
Hospitals owe duties of care to their patients, and a newborn in their care is not a person in a public place.
A person in either a positon of authority, or with a duty of care, to that newborn has a relationship with them quite different from a passerby who might take a photo of someone sitting in public.
And it is not unreasonable to insist that the situation not be used for any purpose that the parents of the newborn may reasonably disagree with (who knows why the don't want their child photographed and we don't need to know, it wasn't neccessary to care for the childs health and safety).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Piccies
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Protecting of privacy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't UK the surveillance capital of the world
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
photographing en masse
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Of couse security cameras won't be illegal. Because thats what they are for, security of ones personal property. You can't say you want your privacy when your in someone's private business.
The point of the story is you just can't go up to someone out walking with their family and start snapping photo's of them. I think it's for your safety and the safety of the person taking the picture. I don't know about you but if I had some wierdo following me taking pictures I can't be responsible if I just decide to shove his camera in his you no what because he is invading my private space. I have small kids also. Would you like it if someone who could be a pervert starts snapping photos of your children even though you tell them to stop? I dont think so.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So i wont to take some pictures of him with hes other girl friend.
Now is this illegal?
Can he sue me if he gets hes hands on the pictures?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment