Ambiguous new contract clause 4.11

[Cryptoprocta]

I still feel like we need a lot more guidance on this issue.

IMO, "except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists" is way too vague.

Who decides what is 'legitimate' - the man in the Clapham omnibus?

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, TeeCee said:

Martin, still referring to my first point about a face itself being the data, not the meta tags or names contained within.

Following quote is interesting from an RPS blog I found - http://www.rps.org/special-interest-groups/contemporary/blogs/2018/february/gdpr-and-street-photography

 

 

A person’s face is considered as biometric information or data. 

Written by a non-lawyer.

From the comments:

Ivor

01 March 2018

 

hi, I have communicated with the ICO about this. they say:

"The GDPR allows member states to introduce exemptions/derogations. These will be set out in the Data Protection Bill - it's likely there will be a similar exemption for personal data processed for the purposes of "journalism, literature and art" but as the Bill has not yet been approved and adopted by Parliament, we can't yet confirm what those exemptions will be.

In relation to street portraits of individuals; these will not be 'biometric' data. "

[TeeCee]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Written by a non-lawyer.

From the comments:

Ivor

01 March 2018

 

hi, I have communicated with the ICO about this. they say:

"The GDPR allows member states to introduce exemptions/derogations. These will be set out in the Data Protection Bill - it's likely there will be a similar exemption for personal data processed for the purposes of "journalism, literature and art" but as the Bill has not yet been approved and adopted by Parliament, we can't yet confirm what those exemptions will be.

In relation to street portraits of individuals; these will not be 'biometric' data. "

Thanks for that!