“The mother of Hugh Grant’s baby has received a high court undertaking from a picture agency not to pursue or harass her, in a ruling that could give celebrities new protection against paparazzi photographers.”
The Guardian, 18th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Liberal societies tend to view the retention of citizens’ private information by an arm of the state, without individuals’ consent, with suspicion. Last week, the High Court ruled that the automatic retention of photographs taken on arrest – even where the there is no prosecution, or the person is acquitted – for at least six years was an unlawful interference with the right to respect for private life of Article 8 of the ECHR, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The statutory discretion for the police to retain custody photographs obtained from criminal suspects who were subsequently not proceeded against or acquitted did not extend to the retention of photographs taken from all suspects for a substantial and potentially indefinite period, in breach of their right to privacy.”
WLR Daily, 22nd June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A man has been jailed for a day and fined £750 for contempt after taking a picture of two defendants inside a Cornwall court.”
BBC News, 20th April 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
G v de Visser (Case C-292/10); [2012] WLR (D) 87
“Where it was impossible to locate the whereabouts of a defendant, European Union law did not preclude the issue of judgment by default in circumstances where the document instituting proceedings had been served by public notice under national law, provided that the court seised of the matter had first satisfied itself that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith had been undertaken to trace the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Photographs that are digitally manipulated using imaging software can be original enough to qualify for copyright protection, the Patents County Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 19th January 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“If you lose your mobile phone with highly confidential and private information on it, all may not be lost. The unscrupulous finder may be prevented from blurting its contents all over the web, even if the identity of that person is unknown to you or the court. It requires considerable input of computer expertise, but it is possible, as this case (cleverly taken in the Technology and Construction Court) illustrates.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th Janaury 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A woman who had sexually explicit self-portraits uploaded onto the internet after her mobile phone was stolen has won a landmark legal judgement forbidding anyone from sharing the photos online.”
The Independent, 10th January 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Lawyers say Joel Mattsson, who was wrongly stopped by police from taking photographs at a public event in a town centre, has been compensated.”
Daily Telegraph, 12th December 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Hot on the heels of announcements regarding the television broadcast of sentencing decisions, technology raises another controversy. This time a teenager, Paul Thomson, was convicted for contempt in Luton Crown Court and given a two month sentence. The offence was taking a photo inside court on his Blackberry mobile phone.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 29th September 2011
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“A teenager has been jailed for two months for taking a photograph of a court room from the public gallery during proceedings.”
BBC News, 26th September 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“As a number of recent cases have made clear, the filming of policing activity in public places is a vital method of holding police to account. But there have been continuing tensions between the police and photographers over filming police activity. In January 2010 there was a protest in Trafalgar Square by photographers against the use of terrorism laws to stop and search photographers. A campaign called ‘I’m a photographer, not a terrorist’ was launched to protect the rights of those taking photographs in public places.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st August 2011
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has forced a magazine to apologise for printing an altered photograph of the Duchess of Cambridge.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th August 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“In the wake of the recent violence in cities across England, the police have been releasing photographs of individuals in an appeal to the public for assistance in identifying them and bringing them to justice.”
The Guardian, 11th August 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“L’Oréal has been forced to pull ad campaigns featuring Pretty Woman star Julia Roberts and supermodel Christy Turlington, after the advertising watchdog upheld complaints by Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson that the images were overly airbrushed.”
The Guardian, 27th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Facebook will be asked to explain whether it considered the impact new technology that recognises faces in photos would have on users’ privacy before introducing the feature, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th June 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
“Attorney general argues pictures of murder trial defendant ‘posing with a gun’ created risk of prejudice in court case.”
The Guardian, 2nd February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Parents should be free to photograph their children in nativity plays, the Information Commissioner has said.”
BBC News, 8th December 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Joshua Rozenberg investigates how the police, the courts and those responsible for protecting personal data strike a balance between the need to safeguard civil liberties and the police’s responsibility to prevent crime. Are there enough safeguards to protect the public from being unfairly linked with criminals? Is maintaining public order being used as an excuse to engineer a surveillance society? Or are the authorities simply taking the minimum steps to ensure a determined and well-organised minority of protesters bent on disruption do not wreck the lives of the law-abiding majority?”
BBC Law in Action, 8th June 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“More than 5,000 security guards in London’s financial district have been instructed by police to report people taking photographs, recording footage or even making sketches near buildings, the Guardian has learned. City of London police’s previously unseen advice singles out people who may appear to be ‘legitimate tourists’ to prevent reconnaissance by al-Qaida. The document, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, helps explain a number of recent cases in which photographers have been stopped and searched by police using section 44 of the Terrorism Act, after first being approached by security guards.”
The Guardian, 13th May 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024