Ran across this item on another forum. I thought that the street photographers might be interested.
I would be surprised if this held up as a precedent, as it would seem to imply an end to photojournalism and would greatly undermine freedom of speech. So I think I'm just going to continue shooting street candids till I hear more.
Edit: OK, I looked into this a bit more. Here's another version of the story, which has a link to the actual court decision (French only, I'm afraid). It is indeed a broad assertion that photos are not acceptable without permission, even if the photos are never published. However, I still find it difficult to believe that this decision is going to be taken seriously...it would mean that all surveillance cameras are illegal, for starters. The language of the decision comes dangerously close to saying that taking pictures is akin to stealing souls.
I would be surprised if this held up as a precedent, as it would seem to imply an end to photojournalism and would greatly undermine freedom of speech. So I think I'm just going to continue shooting street candids till I hear more.
Edit: OK, I looked into this a bit more. Here's another version of the story, which has a link to the actual court decision (French only, I'm afraid). It is indeed a broad assertion that photos are not acceptable without permission, even if the photos are never published. However, I still find it difficult to believe that this decision is going to be taken seriously...it would mean that all surveillance cameras are illegal, for starters. The language of the decision comes dangerously close to saying that taking pictures is akin to stealing souls.
I'm moving this to TBP.
Richard,
Thanks for digging a little deeper. So, in the new version, as I read, it does not actually effect the law...just a ruling in a case. Big difference. We will have to wait and see what the long range effects on photography are.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Thanks for digging a little deeper. So, in the new version, as I read, it does not actually effect the law...just a ruling in a case. Big difference. We will have to wait and see what the long range effects on photography are.
Yes, I believe that's correct. This decision may be appealed to the entire court. In any event, it does not automatically become law in EU countries, though legislators and judges in member countries are expected to take the court's decisions into account when drafting and interpreting local laws. Despite the abstract philosophical justification, the decision also specifically referred to the circumstances of the particular case--parents of a newborn in an incubator objected to a photographer taking pics of their kid. So I would not expect this decision to have any major consequences for a long time, if ever.
I wondered about this kind of development in a thread a l-o-n-g time ago. That was in relation to trophy hunting by snapping tourists in the third world.
I think it's good that the assumption that people in public places can be used with total freedom by photographers for any purpose they like is being scrutinised by their 'victims'.
It must be stressful for the locals at some tourist destinations to be under unremitting assault by tourists' cameras. And without it profiting them a dime since in many cases the camera wielders have a philosophical position against contributing anything in return for what they take. These same people would not permit themselves to stare prolongedly at the locals, but they feel ok about using a camera to do it.
If you're taking shots of people melding together in groups or crowds as a part of the scene then I can see no problem. But if you deliberately sample one particular individual or small group and photograph them without their permission, before or after, I think there might be a problem with that. (And surveillance cameras, sports and events photographers etc don't do the latter.) No great future photographs will be lost by not simply walking away from the scene. Great photographs are so partly because of the photographer's sympathy for the subject. A snatch mentality probably won't catch any greatness.
Having said that, there have been examples of the law digging itself into a hole, and this might be one.
I agree with Richard. This is too broad based and will probably not stand.
Some confusion also arises from the fact that the court ruling stems from an instance in which the baby's picture was taken while in hospital.
I know of no one who would argue there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital setting therefore there is standing to demand no pictures be taken without consent.
Makes very little sense to me as the case was of a baby who's picture was taken in the hospital to advertise for a commercial service?
I would have thought in Greece, you would need a release as well to have a person's picture used for commercial service advertisement.
Why this would all of a sudden imply to people in public makes little sense to me. I can imaging all those touristy places in EU. You'd have to wait a long time to not have any people in the background or risk getting in legal trouble for stealing their image.
Comments
I would be surprised if this held up as a precedent, as it would seem to imply an end to photojournalism and would greatly undermine freedom of speech. So I think I'm just going to continue shooting street candids till I hear more.
Edit: OK, I looked into this a bit more. Here's another version of the story, which has a link to the actual court decision (French only, I'm afraid). It is indeed a broad assertion that photos are not acceptable without permission, even if the photos are never published. However, I still find it difficult to believe that this decision is going to be taken seriously...it would mean that all surveillance cameras are illegal, for starters. The language of the decision comes dangerously close to saying that taking pictures is akin to stealing souls.
I'm moving this to TBP.
Richard,
Thanks for digging a little deeper. So, in the new version, as I read, it does not actually effect the law...just a ruling in a case. Big difference. We will have to wait and see what the long range effects on photography are.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
Yes, I believe that's correct. This decision may be appealed to the entire court. In any event, it does not automatically become law in EU countries, though legislators and judges in member countries are expected to take the court's decisions into account when drafting and interpreting local laws. Despite the abstract philosophical justification, the decision also specifically referred to the circumstances of the particular case--parents of a newborn in an incubator objected to a photographer taking pics of their kid. So I would not expect this decision to have any major consequences for a long time, if ever.
I think it's good that the assumption that people in public places can be used with total freedom by photographers for any purpose they like is being scrutinised by their 'victims'.
It must be stressful for the locals at some tourist destinations to be under unremitting assault by tourists' cameras. And without it profiting them a dime since in many cases the camera wielders have a philosophical position against contributing anything in return for what they take. These same people would not permit themselves to stare prolongedly at the locals, but they feel ok about using a camera to do it.
If you're taking shots of people melding together in groups or crowds as a part of the scene then I can see no problem. But if you deliberately sample one particular individual or small group and photograph them without their permission, before or after, I think there might be a problem with that. (And surveillance cameras, sports and events photographers etc don't do the latter.) No great future photographs will be lost by not simply walking away from the scene. Great photographs are so partly because of the photographer's sympathy for the subject. A snatch mentality probably won't catch any greatness.
Having said that, there have been examples of the law digging itself into a hole, and this might be one.
Neil
:soapbox I know!! hehe
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Some confusion also arises from the fact that the court ruling stems from an instance in which the baby's picture was taken while in hospital.
I know of no one who would argue there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital setting therefore there is standing to demand no pictures be taken without consent.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I would have thought in Greece, you would need a release as well to have a person's picture used for commercial service advertisement.
Why this would all of a sudden imply to people in public makes little sense to me. I can imaging all those touristy places in EU. You'd have to wait a long time to not have any people in the background or risk getting in legal trouble for stealing their image.