Posting photos that show other peaple

[skieur]

I believe LaFoto has posted on this very subject and from what I remember if you are under German law you may Not publish any photo of anyone without their permission. She did not say whether or not you could photograph someone from the back and get by with it.

mike

That is not the way I read German case law at all. The German justice system is trying to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of journalist photographers. Perhaps oversimplifying it, if comes down to, if the person was in a public place there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and photography and publishing is allowed without permission. The exception is if the photo can be construed as derogatory in nature toward the individual. An influential case in Germany in 1999 made this distinction.

skieur

 

[Seefutlung]

cumi-

Laws are different from country to country ... place to place. In Germany, I read in this forum, that you cannot publish a photo without that person's permission. In the US it is quite different ... if you are in a public place (a public street or public park) then you lose your right to privacy ... making you free game for photographers. In the US your image can be published for any reason, but it cannot be used for commercial enterprises and/or a product endorsement without your permission. Additionally, the image cannot misrepresent the person.

I imagine things will be different in Austria. I would google Austrian Free Speech Laws for a start. Your policeman may be right.

Gary

 

[skieur]

cumi-

Laws are different from country to country ... place to place.
Gary

The laws are really very similar in North America and Britain because of treaties related to copyright and the rights of journalists. The only difference in the European Union is that legally they are trying to decide whether in some situations such as receiving medical care at an accident scene there is a reasonable expectation of privacy despite being in a public place. Nevertheless permission is not necessary to take photos of people in public places in Europe in most situations.

skieur

 

[jstuedle]

Is France not an exception? I was under the impression even the news programs fuzz out the faces of all private individuals in there broadcasts.

 

[Garbz]

That is beside the point. Our news programs shoot from the neck down only when taking shots of public people walking by, or from the back or another non recognisable way.

The problem with taking photos of the general public at least in Australia, all your rights are overwritten if the person in the shot is currently under witness protection, child protection, or involved in some form of a specific trial (not sure what this last one was). For a news program who would do shots like these possibly every night maybe even multiple times, the chances of eventually photographing who may be covered by the above is much higher than individual photographers.

 

[skieur]

Is France not an exception? I was under the impression even the news programs fuzz out the faces of all private individuals in there broadcasts.

France has a different justice system, so there are some legal battles going on there over interpretation, what is subject to copyright or design protection, and how privacy and public rights should be balanced. As in Québec, to a certain extent, case law does not always set a precedent.

skieur

 

[skieur]

That is beside the point. Our news programs shoot from the neck down only when taking shots of public people walking by, or from the back or another non recognisable way.

Well with reference to television programs, I should tell you that I gave a workshop on rights including copyright involved in video to television producers from Canada and Australia.

I divided them up into six groups and gave them each, a situation to discuss and determine whether it violated photo rights and/or copyright or not.

There was not one correct answer from any group and I should point out that the situations I chose, were based precisely on the laws as written and half did violate the law and half did not.

My obvious point (I hope) is that don't assume that television people necessarily know the laws either.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

lol very good point. Was my assumption still valid though, that this is done more to ensure not to violate special cases I mentioned? Because other than that I would be fully within my right to post pictures of whoever I want in public where they can not except reasonable privacy if I don't use it to endorse a product (commercial purposes), or I don't identify them personally.

Actually this may be a grey area. Australia has no federal laws that govern these points, and since the legal system is built on case law the laws may actually be different between the states. The above I believe apply to New South Wales and Queensland though.

 

[skieur]

Garbz, as it stands now, in Australia, you can take photos of anyone in a public place without their permission and publish it as long as it is not used to endorse a product (advertising) as you mentioned.

The Attorneys General of the various parts of Australia have submitted a legislative discussion paper as to whether restrictions should be placed on this right. The Journalist Organization has submitted a strong paper suggesting that any changes would severely restrict the freedom of the press in Australia.

The likelihood is that the status quo will remain.

skieur

 

[Newfive]

The purity laws in German speaking nations have many limits on what can and cannot be shown. There are many websites on this matter and a lot of information to try and decipher.

USA has most relaxed laws on this, its called second amendment, free speech. You can also search for “photographers rights” and you will find this document handy if your approached by security or police officer while taking pictures. You must know these limitation yourself so read it and learn it… then live it.

European countries have completely different laws on taking photo of people or persons. Law enforcement and high security zones are on the not allowed list. If you plan on going to these countries to do photography work, get informed on their laws speak to an international attorney or contact “State Dept.” before leaving.

 

[skieur]

I should add that when talking about taking photos of people in public places I am talking in general terms. There are of course what amount to common sense exceptions.

Sticking a camera practically in someone's face or preventing them from moving where they want to go because of your camera might be considered harassment or assault and get you into trouble. Trying to take inappropriate photos might land you with a public mischief charge. Setting up a tripod that interferes with pedestrians is not permitted in many cities.
Loitering may be a charge too, depending on the location you use for shooting, how long you stay there, and the perceived effect of your presence as in scaring away customers etc.

So if you are doing street photography, plan it well and always be aware of your surroundings and in some areas your safety.

skieur

 

[skieur]

The purity laws in German speaking nations have many limits on what can and cannot be shown. There are many websites on this matter and a lot of information to try and decipher.

USA has most relaxed laws on this, its called second amendment, free speech. You can also search for “photographers rights” and you will find this document handy if your approached by security or police officer while taking pictures. You must know these limitation yourself so read it and learn it… then live it.

European countries have completely different laws on taking photo of people or persons. Law enforcement and high security zones are on the not allowed list. If you plan on going to these countries to do photography work, get informed on their laws speak to an international attorney or contact “State Dept.” before leaving.

I don't know what you are referring to. Purity laws relate to German beer.
Freedom of the press is part of every democracy even in Europe and there is very little difference between laws governing photojournalism in the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia and those of the European Union. Those laws extend to other photographers taking photos in a public place.
I think of "Stern" and other german tabloids that have certainly used these freedoms to bring all kinds of news events to the public.

skieur

 

[skieur]

I should note also that in the European Union, celebrities are going to court to fight harassement by the papparzi when they are out in public, with mixed success. Some photos are being allowed and some not. Shots of the celebrity alone are allowed. Shots with his/her family have been not permitted in some countries and allowed in others. At issue for celebrities in Europe is whether the definition of privacy should be different for them than for that of the general public because of constant harassment.

European courts are trying to control the papparzi and the harassment of celebrities while at the same time retaining the freedom of the photojournalists to take photos of people in public places.

skieur

 

[Newfive]

Uggg... Sorry on the purity thing... was also looking at brewing items as well.... Constitution laws concerning people, places and government items.

 

[kombizz]

NEVER & NEVER publish it for money, or trophy.
just SHARE it.