Using my face on their Website & I didn't give permission.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Chipperclown said:

 

Its under R.I.P.A I believe. It's the law so a complete minefield. So legally you can do some things that's most consider strange and socially awkward!

 

For example record video footage in a public space etc of the public etc.

RIPA doesn't apply to a private individual....

[WirralBoy]

Devon & Cornwall Police have this to say; snipped from their website :-

 

[quote]

It is not illegal to take photographs or video footage in public places unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people's children. However if you take photos of other people's children and it is reported to us we may treat this as suspicious behaviour and depending on the circumstances would create an incident log.

 

If you are taking photographs from private land, you need to have the land owner's permission.

Taking of a photo of a person where they can expect privacy (inside their home or garden) is likely to cause a breach of privacy laws. It would be appropriate and would avoid unnecessary complications if you ask the person for permission.

 

The taking of photographs of an individual without their consent is a civil matter.

[unquote]

 

Publishing a photo of someone is something else.

It generally depends on who owns the copyright of the photo.

That will usually be the person who took it.

 

Using Images with Identifiable People

The rules about using images with recognizable people come down to two considerations:

• Did the person in the photo have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
• How is the image being used?                                                                                                    

[eggsarascal]

8 minutes ago, WirralBoy said:

Devon & Cornwall Police have this to say; snipped from their website :-

 

[quote]

It is not illegal to take photographs or video footage in public places unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people's children. However if you take photos of other people's children and it is reported to us we may treat this as suspicious behaviour and depending on the circumstances would create an incident log.

 

If you are taking photographs from private land, you need to have the land owner's permission.

Taking of a photo of a person where they can expect privacy (inside their home or garden) is likely to cause a breach of privacy laws. It would be appropriate and would avoid unnecessary complications if you ask the person for permission.

 

The taking of photographs of an individual without their consent is a civil matter.

[unquote]

 

Publishing a photo of someone is something else.

It generally depends on who owns the copyright of the photo.

That will usually be the person who took it.

 

Using Images with Identifiable People

The rules about using images with recognizable people come down to two considerations:

• Did the person in the photo have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
• How is the image being used?                                                                                                    

Is it recognizable, or recognisable?

[pleasant]

Recognisable....unless you're a yank.

[eggsarascal]

9 minutes ago, pleasant said:

Recognisable....unless you're a yank.

Poor show by whoever wrote it then.

[GarethM]

Sadly the English language now allows both these days, a lot of words have become accepted to be interchangeable.

 

Rise of the internet and American TV I guess.

[WirralBoy]

Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries list both spellings.

Either is acceptable English.

 

The Cambridge dictionary does expand, as follows :-

 

recognizable

adjective

(UK -  usually recognisable)

[pleasant]

38 minutes ago, WirralBoy said:

Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries list both spellings.

Either is acceptable English.

 

The Cambridge dictionary does expand, as follows :-

 

recognizable

adjective

(UK -  usually recognisable)

Yes, of course it will state acceptable English, because they speak English in America, and like you have already stated UK English it is Recognisable (no Zee or Zed -UK)

 

Sidewalk is English, but not UK English.

 

 

[openspaceman]

2 hours ago, pleasant said:

Sidewalk is English, but not UK English.

off on a tangent but sidewalk makes more sense than footway to me.

[Mick Dempsey]

9 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

off on a tangent but sidewalk makes more sense than footway to me.

Pavement surely?