cfimages wrote:hsinhai78 wrote:rowland wrote:The phrase "no reasonable expectation of privacy" comes to mind.
The doctrine that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy does apply on taking photos in the MRT - although the TRTC could still exercise their right to ban photography or the publishing of photography done on their premises.
What makes this blog illegal IMHO is that rather than photos of a street scene (i.e. a public place) being published, the faces of individual people are published. The focus does not seem to be on showing a public place but women.
Hence the doctrine you mentioned cannot be applied in this case.
It's only illegal if they sell the photos commercially ie for advertising. Blogs, news reports, magazine articles etc are all legal uses.
You are mistaken. It is not where the photos are taken but rather what is being published. I guarantee any civil suit brought against the photographer by one of the women who are featured in the close-up photos of legs and butt will be successful. These women have their faces exposed and are singled out rather than being on the photo coincidentally - this is not exercising the right to take pictures of a public place.
If any of these girls was the subject of a news story, i.e. a criminal suspect or celebrity of some sort she could be singled out and her image be published for reasons of public interest on blogs or in newspapers.
There is an assumption of privacy even in public places, people will not and should not expect to have a photographer drool over their legs and buttocks and take close-ups and publish them. This is even more so the case with the underage high school girls.
But of course you can say "Oh screw what Xinhai says, I'll do it anyways". Keep us updated about how your case vs. a 15 year old school girls develops though.