SIGN UP

Permission To Publish Pictures ?

Avatar Image
Canary42 | 12:26 Sat 31st Aug 2019 | Law
15 Answers
Often when publishing my pics on the internet I blur out stranger's faces as I am unsure of GDPR rules in this respect. But the headline picture currently on this link (BBC do change them so may not be relevant by the time you refer to it) at least 10 people's faces are easily recognisable yet I'm sure no permission to publish was acquired. So can I no longer bother with anonymising pictures ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/49165624

Answers

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would have thought that if no loss was experienced from the publishing then anyone in a public place had no legal right to claim anything from being shown. Not that I know though. Be interesting to see an informed view.
whilst the image clearly shows at least one Manchester united player, there's nothing to say that the "crowd" in the background are real, or if they are really there at all. it could be a stock image, or the crowd could all be actors.
Photos of people are published all the time without their consent - those covert photos of famous people doing things they shouldn't with people they oughtn't - the one of Charles Saatchi half throttling Nigella Lawson comes to mind.
I think it is only necessary to blur faces if your photo is depicting an event, a happening, an occurrence which has nothing to do with that person, for example a robbery in progress where the photo not only shows the robber but innocent passers by.
GDPR only applies to companies collecting, using, storing, or accessing data from any European residents. I take it you’re not publishing them as a company?
Our local rag carries features almost every day with titles such as 'Can you spot yourself in the football crowd?', 'Can you spot your family on the beach?', 'Did our photographer see you at the fair', where the whole point is that the people in the images taken by their staff photographers, and then published both in print and online, must be recognisable. They're not worried about GDPR and I wouldn't be either.
Question Author
The link has changed so no longer appropriate.

Thanks for all the answers, I think I'm a lot clearer now.

I am unsure about the legal basis of pixelating
I suspect there may be imaginary rules - 'you cant do dat - there's a law against dat there is'

The copyright is in the photographer

I am not sure if they are ever reqd by law

The police have even pixelated the photofit of a wanted man
to generalised ridicule
// GDPR only applies.....//

no I think this applies to anyone to whom it er is subject
eek !
well I am registered under the current legislation and it applies to me
and for those not registered who come within its ambit, the ICO wd be happy to enforce it

so that is - those on the register and those off it who should be on the register

it is anyone who has personal data on a computer ( I think)
if in doubt register ....

There is or was a medical doctors information technology users group which I used to refer to incorrectly as SMEGMA
near but not exact
and I used to twit them because I ( not a member ) was registered and none of the club members were

they tired of the joke
‘The GDPR applies to processing carried out by organisations operating within the EU. It also applies to organisations outside the EU that offer goods or services to individuals in the EU.

The GDPR does not apply to certain activities including processing covered by the Law Enforcement Directive, processing for national security purposes and processing carried out by individuals purely for personal/household activities.’
https://www.dataselect.com/who-does-the-gdpr-apply-to/
Zacs
he is publishing them for chrissakes on the internet

"The GDPR does not apply to certain activities including processing covered by the Law Enforcement Directive, processing for national security purposes "
he isnt p'lice - nor a spook (MI5)
so he would be covered for certain activities ....

we in fact agree....
The GDPR (may) apply even to people who say 'I dont think the GDPR applies to me'
// I take it you’re not publishing them as a company?//

nope those others than companies are clearly covered
otherwise ......
Naughty.co.uk might employ a certain zacs to publish piccies as an individual wiv zacs saying 'oh yes yes this is personal to me!'
Even to an Aber it should be clear that this would not work - altho Z might make a penny or two

I am registered ( because I am a good boy and know the law and as a landlord have my tenants on a apputa, but I am also aware that even if they were paper records I would STILL have to register) and because of the degrees I hold (!!) I am deemed to be a thing subject to FOI regs ( more regs)
some of these comments are on whether generally people are subject to the GDPR even if they say they arent

and not about the need to pixelate

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Permission To Publish Pictures ?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.