No. In the US if you take a picture of me in a public setting, you own that photo and all rights that go with it. Unless you do something so distasteful and unwarranted that I can claim material harm, I have no recourse against what you choose to do with that picture. See, for example, the paparazzi.
My expectation is that if someone takes a photo of me, I maintain some level of control over that photo. That is NOT the current situation.
No. At least in the US you have no rights to photos taken of you in a public place except for certain specific situations. For examples, photos used for commercial purposes (e.g. ads, marketing materials) in which you are clearly recognizable (not part of a crowd shot) require model releases. However if I take a photo of you on the street and publish it in a personal blog, article, etc. you basically have no recourse. If you hold your breath and turn purple, I might take it down to make you go away but I have no obligation to do so.
In the US, you do have certain rights to your image. I cannot use an identifiable photograph of you for marketing or advertising without your permission. (That's why, for example, a lot of conference registrations require you to affirmatively agree that photos or videos of you may be used for marketing purposes.)
But pretty much any other use of a photo in a public place is fair game if it doesn't misrepresent you in some way.
Not for all purposes, no. You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public, and they would be able to recover damages from you for doing so.
That's ridiculous. Unless we are in a private place (like your own home, a private club, etc..)
For example, if we are in a public park, and I take your picture even against your explicit wishes, as long as I do not make any commercial profit off of it, I am pretty much free to publish it in any way I want (flicr, etc.).
If I want to sell it or profit from it in some way, you certainly have some rights. But, basically, if you are in a public place you have no privacy rights against someone taking a picture of you and publishing it.
Yes, that's why I mentioned the publication of the photo for some commercial purposes, eg advertising. Nobody is disputing your right to take pictures in public.
That may be the case in the US, but here in Germany I could sue you if you made that picture public. Here people have the right to decide whether pictures of them can be made public or not (with some exceptions).
In the US, maybe. In the UK, definitely. In Germany, not so much.
Mind you, in Germany you're also not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent (with some exceptions). You could actually sue people who post pictures of you on Facebook without your permission.
You have no expectation of privacy in any public place, period. Photographers have always had the right to take your picture without your permission, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. It sounds like your complaint amounts to this: everyone will be a photographer once this becomes popular.
Depends on the jurisdiction I suppose. In Austria, and I believe also Germany and maybe Switzerland, I do have a "right to my own image". That means I'm allowed to control the publication and use of an image if me, with some exceptions (i.e., if I'm not the main motive of the image but just a member of a crowd).
Contrary to popular belief, everyone is allowed to take picture of you, as long as you are in public space. They only need your authorization to use the picture.
There's established precedent in the United States that photos of you aren't "yours." Any other circumstance means that journalists and others can't expose bad behavior without getting litigated.
I think you are allowed to take photos in public as well. Even surreptitiously, in most jurisdictions. Though like anything else, I am not sure how systematic that can be.
It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected.
As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.
I don't read that as "no one can take my photo", though. Certainly that language should protect me from people invading my private space to take photos of me, but if I'm out and about in public, I should have no expectation that no photos will be taken of me, and I would feel very wrong asking someone to delete a photo of me in a public place. I would consider that to be infringing on their rights.
I get that photos of people can be a lot more harmful than a casual photographer might assume, but I would never accede to a request from a random stranger to delete a photograph that they just happened to be in. If someone requested that I not take a photo of them, I personally would comply out of a sense of politeness, but I don't believe anyone has a legal or moral obligation to comply when in public.
(But yes, I know, this is just my opinion and preference, just like yours is yours.)
An individual out in public doesn't necessarily have a right to privacy, however there's been many cases where an individual has a right not to be photographed - in many countries this is ignored for celebrities, however I know France doesn't tolerate it; IIRC no newspaper or magazine in France is allowed to publish unsolicited photographs (taken within France) also I believe paparazzi from other countries can be arrested on re-entry to France if they took a photo in France and left to sell it overseas.
Also, there was a recent case of a man being fined £100 back home in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_ea... He took her photo without permission, and in most circumstances it would probably have been a slap on the wrist and told to delete the photo, however she was in a compromised position at the time which is why the police pressed for a fine.
I remember reading of a similar case in Canada. A man took a photograph of a girl (IIRC I think she was like 17 and in her bikini at the time) without her permission, she called the police and he was taken in. I believe the police took his cameras memory card as evidence pending trial. I don't think anything was done except the photo was deleted, but I believe the outcome would have been a lot different if he'd known she was 17 when he took the photo.
So yes, individuals in public have a right to not be photographed.
In most countries you have no right not to be photographed (by anyone) when in public (by definition being in public is not being in private). I fully support this with the exception of the homeless (and I think it does somewhat support the right to cover your face in public if you wish).
My expectation is that if someone takes a photo of me, I maintain some level of control over that photo. That is NOT the current situation.
reply