..actually, just as point of interest and going back to the ‘pool’ and them respecting the request from William and Kate to not print pictures of their children unless given specific permission and how they’ve stuck to that etc...I did think...( ...as with schools etc...)...that permission to even photograph a child, let alone have the photograph printed publicly anywhere would not be legal anyway...but I looked up how it was for celebrities/royalty etc...
... because of some privacy invasions with some celebrities, JK Rowling was one with her son...but there seem to be quite a few successful celebrity lawsuits which led to a landmark ruling to protect children of the well known....
‘This precedent means that celebrity parents now have extra power to control how the images of their children appear in the UK media: all children are protected in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. What constitutes being “reasonable” is debatable – so there may still be litigation about this in the future.’
..and this part references Royal children particularly...
‘Even so, it is not only the children of celebrities who benefit from this ruling. Picture editors would be foolhardy to ignore it. So it doesn’t matter whether the photographs are of royal children such as Prince George and Princess Charlotte or simply of Jack and Jill throwing snowballs or splashing in the sea. Where the children have a reasonable expectation of privacy and there is no parental consent then pictures which include the children’s faces cannot be published unless their faces are pixellated. This will also put a stop to the media “scraping” children’s photographs from social media sites following disasters or other high-profile events.’...
...it’s interesting because I hadn’t known how printing photos of children worked for them...
https://theconversation.com/freedom-...k-ruling-51062
23-02-2021, 01:25 PM
Hybrid Mode
