Right to privacy for Princess Caroline of Monaco

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by TP, Jun 24, 2004.

  1. TP

    TP Guest

    TP, Jun 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. TP

    AW Guest

    Not if you snap them in public!
    AW, Jun 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. TP

    Matt Clara Guest

    Isn't that what the article's saying, that the court has decreed that this
    is not the case, or, at the very least, that the tabloids cannot publish
    Matt Clara, Jun 24, 2004
  4. TP

    TP Guest

    Exactly, Matt. This case has huge significance across most of Europe,
    because the remit of the European Court of Human Rights extends beyond
    any mere national Court.

    Previously, only in France were privacy laws established which
    restricted the freedom of photographers working from public land and
    public rights of way. This case extends the right of privacy across
    all European countries who are signatories to the European Convention
    on Human Rights, notably Germany, where the alleged infringement of
    Princess Caroline's privacy took place.

    The highest German court had already found in favour of the
    photographers. This ruling means that the German court's decision has
    been sidelined, and that an explicit right of privacy now exists
    across most of Europe.

    These are dark days for people photographers.
    TP, Jun 24, 2004
  5. "Photos appearing in the tabloid press were often taken in a climate of
    "continual harassment which induced in the person concerned a very strong
    "sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution,

    I don't know exactly what photo's they took and where, but it may be possible
    that this is not so much about the pictures, as it is about the behaviour of
    the photografers. Stalking is not allowed in many countries.

    Somehow, this text doesn't seem compatible with the Dutch laws w.r.t.
    portrets. So either, there are some european directives that the Dutch
    government (and probably the German government as well) failed to implement
    in the local law, or they used a far more general privacy law that doesn't
    have anything to do with photos and may have a big influence on the press
    as a whole (if publishing pictures invades her privacy, writings may be bad
    as well).

    (disclaimer: IANAL)
    Philip Homburg, Jun 25, 2004
  6. TP

    AW Guest

    I don't think so! It might be dark days for a certain kind of photographers.

    Honestly: what kind of photographer one is to believe that photos taken of
    Caroline at the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling
    down are of particular importance to the public in a democratic state?

    Furthermore, the Court bases it's arguments on former already existing case

    Here some quotations:

    "[...] protection of private life has to be balanced against the freedom of
    expression [...]
    the Court reiterates thet the freedom of expression constitutes one of the
    essential foundations of a democratic society.[...]"

    The press' duty is to "impart information and ideas on all kind of matters
    of public interest [...]"

    "The present case does not concern the dissemination of "ideas", but of
    images containing very personal or even intimate "information" (note the
    quotes!) about an individual.[...]

    In the cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private
    life against the freedom of expression it has always stressed the
    contribution made by photos or articles in the press to a debate of general
    interest. [...] the use of certain terms in relation to an individual's
    private life was not "justified by considerations of public concern" and
    that those terms did not "[bear] on a matter of general importance".[...]

    The Court points out [...] that in the present case the photos [...] show
    her in scenes from her daily life [...] .

    The photos illustrate a series of articles with such anodyne titles as "Pure
    happyness", "Caroline... a woman returning to life". "Out and about with
    Princess Caroline in Paris" and "The kiss: they are not hiding

    The Court also notes that [...] she does not exercise any function within or
    on behalf of the State of Monaco or one of its institutions.[...]

    The Court considers that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between
    reporting facts [...] capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic
    society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions [...] and
    reporting details of the private life of an individual who, moreover [...]
    does not exercise official functions.[...]

    The situation here does not come within the sphere of any political or
    public debate because the published photos and accompanying commentaries
    relate exclusively to details of the applicant's private life.[...] "

    [...] The photos'"[...] of which the sole purpose was to satisfy the
    curosity of a particular readership [...] cannot be deemed to contribute to
    any debate of general interest to society [...] (photos taken of Caroline at
    the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling down a.o.)

    "[...] The interest of the general public and the press is based solely on
    her membership of a reigning family whereas she herself does not exercise
    any official functions.[...] "

    The Court considers "that the decisive factor in balancing the protection of
    private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution
    that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest
    [...] in the instant case [...] they made no such contribution [...] the
    public does not have a legitimate interest in knowing where [Caroline] is
    and how she behaves generally in her private life[...] .
    AW, Jun 25, 2004
  7. TP

    Matt Clara Guest

    So then it's ok for me to fly to Germany and follow the princess around the
    streets taking her photo at every turn and then sell them to the tabloids?
    'Cause I kinda got the idea that wasn't ok from the article.

    Please quit top-posting.
    Matt Clara, Jun 25, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.