tofu

yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the street with ton of people at the background, can you sue the photographer 侵犯私隱?

tofu

"""Tofu, the woman got a case there because the film was shot by a Cathay employee"""
this is exactly what i mean, so it is only 唔尊重客人

"""It's like airforce flying on your private premises, which is allowed without asking for your permission of any kind. """"
Airforce does not need a permission to fly on my private property because I don't own the sky.  we only own the property up to certain height, not all over to the moon.  Airline only need to get permission from the gov't to fly over her country, not to get permission from each individual owner.

"""Some persons/professions have special authority to carry their duty in the public needless to acquire individual's consent."""
i believe you are taking CIA/FBI, not just a regular person, news reporter or photographer,
if the tv news showed how crowned is the night market and you see yourself  overthere, can you sue the tv station 侵犯私隱
if i shoot a pic at the qe park and post it on my blog, can any of the background persons sue me 侵犯私隱  i doubt it

it became an issue, because it was done by cx employee

tofu

"""You're not the only one. Many people don't know about this fact, if you own a real estate property (say a single house), actually you truly own the face area extends to the center of the earth, and up to as high as to the heaven!""""
I don't think so, otherwise, everyone  can ask the airline to pay for a fee.

"""Base on press reporting purpose, for example, if they want to 採訪/訪問 you in person, they have to get your permission so as to post your true face and voice and name on any of the media""""
if this is the case, all the suspects can just simply say no to the reporters rather than hide and run la.

"""don't you see some people being interviewed have their faces censored and voice treated and with a fake nick name?"""
this is just an special arrangement bet'n the two parties in order to protect the guest.

"""if at the time they videoing you (say on a busy street) they also recorded some bystanders walking at your back, their faces (no matter are clear or blurry) also being seen, there is no 侵犯私隱 involved."""
if this is the case, the cx staff can argue that s/he just recording his/her colleague, but the woman was running in front of the camera wor.

tofu

learn from your style.  if you can find a point to argue back, you will.  if not, you will just skip it.  kind of like mr. t.
i will believe it unless someone can show me why my example cannot go along with your theory.

but anyway, i just see this issue on yahoo.com  & fox news, seems like it becomes really big now.  

the fox reporter mentioned "there is no right of privacy in the middle of the airport.".  now, you can hear some professional options la, hope you can accept it, even though it is not the same as yours.


actually that woman only got free upgrade for one fright.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ ... 6978&ch=8033027

tofu

the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.
the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.