anything placed on the internet for 'public' viewing is not considered private. now just because the other party knew his photo was being taken does not imply consent.
consent is when the other party agrees to have his picture taken. that is he says yes, you can take a picture
so, how does the newspaper get away with it? well in the case of public figures, consent is implied because they are in the public arena and photos are allowed to be taken. photos of criminals are also allowed, after they have been tried and convicted because they 'waive' their rights to be photographed.
people who are not tried and convicted often have their face distorted to cover their identity.
so in the case of the person you took the photo of, you did not have his expressed consent to take the photo. nor did you have the right to then publicly advertise his face on the internet.
31/07/2007
insert text here...cuz i dont know what to say