Category: World Author : Steven Hodson Posted: February 6, 2009
Tags : europe, photographers, privacy
Here we go folks down that slippery slope of stupidity once more.
It appears that the European Court of Human Rights has now ruled that the taking of a pictures without the explicit consent of the person being photographed is a violation of that person’s right of privacy – even if it is taken in a public and even if it is never used. This decision was the result of a court case involving a newborn baby who was put into a sterile unit when born. At that point as a part of a commercial service provided by the hospital they took a photograph of the baby.
The child’s parents in turn objected and demanded that the hospital hand over the negatives. the hospital refused and when the Greek courts refused to hear the case it went before the European Court of Human rights.
"The Court reiterated that the concept of private life was a broad one which encompassed the right to identity," said an ECHR press release about the ruling. "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," it said.
The ECHR said that the taking of the photograph breached the child’s right to a private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the Greek courts had failed to uphold that right.
Source: Out-Law.com
This doesn’t bode well folks for all those photographers out there who bless us with some of the greatest pieces of art imaginable.
![[Video] Wanna see Ted Williams the golden voiced homeless man’s first commercial?](http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2011/01/Screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-2.08.06-PM-100x100.png)
![[Video] A rap about how bad Hotmail sucks](http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2011/02/hotmail-sucks-100x100.jpg)
Feb 6, 2009
Henri-Cartier Bresson isn't rolling in his grave, he's spinning so fast he's hovering.
Feb 7, 2009
This is nothing new. It's been that way for decades. You just need to get permission from those you're photographing first. Look at Nachtway's photographs. The people being photographed know he's taking the picture.
Feb 7, 2009
This spells a sad day for unposed, candid street photography.
Feb 7, 2009
Why you have nothing to worry about.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=candid&w=all
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=candid
It's still healthy and strong. Lot's of people still active.
Feb 7, 2009
one word “CCTV”
Feb 8, 2009
There is nothing to worry about. This is a non story. It appears that it is a single case of a minor being photographed in a pravagte location for commercial use without the permision of the parents. It is also not stated if this rulling is only for the case in front of them (and may not be used for precident) or more generally.
Without the whole judgement any comment is meaninless.
In most parts of Europe, as inthe US there is not restriction on photography of street scenes. Taking picutres of indivuduals for commercial purposes [other than news reporting] usually requires a model release. For minors you usually require the permision of the parents. Restrictions may also be made if the location is private property.
I have only once been stopped from taking photos in public. (It appeared I was unwittingly taking photos of the un marked back entrance of a major bank just as a bullion shipment was due to arrive! )
Feb 8, 2009
Please ignore my comment: No More Voyuer Pornography??? NOOOOOOoOOOOOoOOOO!!! lolz
Feb 14, 2009
Wouldn't this legislation also prevent surveillance cameras that cover public spaces?