回复59楼:本来如果镜头对小粉红的猥琐行为一闪而过,并非摄影主体的话,这个话题根本没有讨论的必要,因为这里的关键是这些人在背景中是否“可以被识别”。
但是性质从小粉红舔着大脸从远处走入镜头开始变了。因为小粉红变得“可以单独识别”。 但是,即便是如此,英国法律也无明文规定在无对象许可的情况下不能摄像或者摄影。这是一个灰色地带,也没有明确所谓的“image right",也就是肖像权。在这个情况下,只要你不是用于犯罪或者恐怖用途,哪怕此人将录像公开作为商业用途,换句话说用来赚钱,也不能证明属于“滥用隐私信息”,因为根据罪刑法定原則,法无明文规定,不为罪;法无明文规定,不处罚。而不是小粉红和一部分法盲所相信的,法有明文规定,方不为罪。
摘录一下网上找的的资料(注意了,是引用啊):
There is nothing in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that prohibits people from taking photos in a public place. Provided you are not harassing anyone, taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed and most likely will qualify for the household exemption under Article 2(2)(c) of the GDPR.
By virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 everybody has a right to a respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. The Court has held that “wrongful disclosure of private information” and “misuse of private information” would breach an individual’s right to respect for their private life, and, in certain circumstances, publication of an image of the relevant individual would amount to the misuse of private information.
Though it is unlikely that publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task in a public place (i.e. going to the shops) would amount to misuse of private information, the key question is whether the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the image.