Hi, > It appears that if the photograph is newsworthy, then it would be > publishable. > Therefore, if the person is doing something newsworthy, then > photographing them would be permissable.
Photographing them appears to be fine. It's publishing the photos without permission that appears to be not fine. But either way, it kind of depends on what 'newsworthy' means. There are enough people buying newspapers (I use the word loosely!) and magazines to suggest that any grungy photo of a celeb at the supermarket is newsworthy. Even if a good, clear, unambiguous definition of 'newsworthy' exists, it still does not address the aspect this type of law that I dislike most, which is that some of the greatest photographs of all are those of ordinary people doing ordinary things. Things which are not newsworthy under any definition I can think of. It would become illegal to publish these without the subject's permission. > I have never thought that the media should have the right to dog > someones heels just because that person happen to have a little > higher profile than most people. I believe that in most cases these people have the higher profile precisely because they've got into bed with the media in the first place, of their own free will. They seem to think that the media are their free personal publicists. At least until it no longer suits them. > I suspect the media may feel bitter because they have had their wings > clipped, but really, don't you think people should have the right to > freedom from harassment? I do indeed, but I don't agree that this is the way to do it. I note also that these are the same people who most assiduously court publicity when they have something to sell. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. -- Cheers, Bob
