Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F+Mar 13 2005, 10:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Mar 13 2005, 10:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM
She was performing though.# Not just hanging out.
I have a nifty little book called "The Journalist's Legal Guide" and while I'm no lawyer by any stretch, I found a couple things that seem relevant.
Public Performances
# Similar rules apply to reviews of public performances.# A person who enters the public arena invites public comment.# But the comment must be fair.# The public acts of a person can be criticized but the comment cannot extend to the private life of any individual
|
That has to do with defamation/libel -- if someone does a public performance you're allowed to say anything you like about the performance without having to worry about being sued
Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM
The Defence of Consent
# It is rare that anyone would consent to be defamed, but it can happen.# The defence of consent is rooted in the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria (that to which a person consents cannot be considered an injury).# The principle is that anyone who knowingly and voluntarily exposes himself to a danger, should be thought to have assumed the potential consequences.
|
Again referring to protection of the right to comment where someone has said "Go ahead and say anything you want about me"
And the bar for proving consent will always be high, and will almost always need to be explicit
<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM
General Issues in Privacy
# Can you take someone's picture and use it as you wish?# There are few laws dealing with visual invasions of privacy other than what's noted in the provincial Privacy Acts.# The common law is also spotty in this area.
# Generally, you can take anybody's picture without their permission.# The crucial question, though, is whether you need consent to publish it.# For day-to-day news reporting, where a person is photographed as part of an event or in a public place, consent isn't needed.# And despite popular misconceptions, it's no different with children or minors and the consent of the parent is not needed.
|
Now that's relevant, but then I wasn't saying she has a legal right to sue the paper (I admit that using the word 'consent' probably made it seem so).
The sentement among many was, "She was in public, so she shouldn't be complaining" and I was just saying she has a moral, if not legal, right to be p*ssed that someone just wandered in took her picture without asking and published it.
If you saw some guy on the street walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, they're on a public street so he's legally entitled to do it"? [/b][/quote]
She's got no leg to stand on is the moral of the story so I guess we are on the same page.
"Comment" can include photographs. It doesn't just mean criticism spelled out in words.
She may have a moral right to be p*ssed. Tough break lady.
As for the guy walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls -- I would do something about it. That doesn't mean though that what he's doing is illegal (although this book is 10 years old and things may have changed).
The scenario is kind of irrelevant though, don't you think? A guy taking pictures of young girls is one thing. A newspaper photographer taking pictures of a performance (of any kind) by an adult a public place is something else entirely.