Law regarding photographing people (right of image) in France

[Alex Benjamin]

Posted this in the recent Vivian Maier thread, but it was too much off topic. Giving it its own thread instead.

Here's the complete text regarding rights of image of adults in France, from the French government website. There is a separate section regarding minors.


It is necessary to have your written consent to use an image where you are recognizable (dissemination, publication, reproduction or marketing).

The image can be a photo or a video.

In the case of an image taken in a private place, your authorization is required if you are recognizable: holidays, family event, sporting, cultural event...

In the case of an image taken in public place, your permission is required if you are isolated and recognizable.

The image can be distributed via the press, television, a website, a social network...

In practice, the photographer/videographer should get your written agreement before you broadcast your image.

He cannot be satisfied with your consent to be photographed or filmed.

Your agreement must be precise : on what medium is the image broadcast? For what purpose? For how long?

Your consent is also required if your image is reused for a purpose other than 1era diffusion.

However, the right to the image is limited by the right to information, on right to freedom of expression and the artistic and cultural freedom.

Thus, your approval is not required to broadcast certain images provided that your dignity is respected and your image is not used in a commercial purpose.

For example:

• Picture of a group or street scene in a public place if no person is individualized and within the limits of the right to information.
• Picture of a news event or a public demonstration within the limits of the right to information and artistic creation.
• Picture of a public figure in the performance of his duties if the purpose of the image is to inform (an elected official, for example).
• Picture illustrating a historical subject.

 

[Dali]

And?

 

[ic-racer]

...dissemination, publication, reproduction or marketing...

So, for most people out taking pictures for personal enjoyment, all that can be ignored.

 

[bernard_L]

And?

Indeed, as seen from Philadelphia, this will hardly affect you.

• In an issue of the magazine Réponses Photo, 2011, special issue #12, an article by a legal expert describes the then-prevailing interpretation of the law: very restrictive, with a random street scene being rated risk 4/5.
• Last September, I discussed this issue with a photographer at a show, and he explained that the jurisprudence had evolved to a more balanced interpretation.
• The post by Alex Benjamin clarifies and confirms that. I consider this as a welcome clarification for anyone photographing street scenes in France.

 

[Dali]

Bernard, everyone in whatever country has to abide by the law. Nothing different in France I guess, so what is the purpose here? That it is restrictive? So what?

 

[bernard_L]

Bernard, everyone in whatever country has to abide by the law. Nothing different in France I guess, so what is the purpose here? That it is restrictive? So what?

At risk of being fastidious. The point is that French law concerning droit à l'image was among the most restrictive, possibly the most restrictive in the western hemisphere. A concern for visitors from abroad and for natives equally. In the OP the key part is:

However, the right to the image is limited by the right to information, on right to freedom of expression and the artistic and cultural freedom.

Thus, your approval is not required to broadcast certain images provided that your dignity is respected and your image is not used in a commercial purpose.

This was not how the letter of the law was interpreted 10 yrs ago by legal experts.

Now, the right to the image is checked by/ balanced against other rights. And this statement of principle is delineated / illustrated in the examples.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

These French rules are open to too much interpretation which is bad law. We have similar problems in the USA with the "fair use" of copyrighted material. No one is sure where the lines really are.

 

[Dali]

Bernard, once you remind us the law, what is next? Be honest and give your recommendation: No more photography in public places as long as individuals cold be identified, this is it? As Alan said, French laws are not clear enough to definite a limit so I don't see the point to elaborate or if you want, you can open a thread regarding laws in Germany, in Italy, in UK, in Spain, in Canada, in Egypt, etc. Then what if you cannot draw any conclusion?

 

[titrisol]

Interesting, thanks !

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So, for most people out taking pictures for personal enjoyment, all that can be ignored.

Not quite. If you print your photo, frame it and hang it on the wall, no problem.

If you post it on your Instagram, that's dissemination, so problem.

The point is that French law concerning droit à l'image was among the most restrictive, possibly the most restrictive in the western hemisphere.

The law in Quebec is pretty much the same following the Aubry judgment. That said, I believe Greek law is even more restrictive (I would need to check to make sure I'm right on this).

Bernard, once you remind us the law, what is next? Be honest and give your recommendation: No more photography in public places as long as individuals cold be identified, this is it? As Alan said, French laws are not clear enough to definite a limit so I don't see the point to elaborate or if you want, you can open a thread regarding laws in Germany, in Italy, in UK, in Spain, in Canada, in Egypt, etc. Then what if you cannot draw any conclusion?

Honestly, I really don't see what's unclear about the law. It's pretty straightforward:

If you're a photojournalist, get consent or don't put anybody at the forefront that is not part of the news story;

If you're an amateur photographer, or just a tourist shooting images to bore your family with during long winter evenings, go ahead. Just don't post them on the Web.

In other words, the law isn't there to prevent the taking of image, it's there to regulate the usage of the image. There's nothing even remotely vague or unclear about that.

What happens if you do post it on the Web? Probably nothing. I you took the time to go through the page I linked, you would have seen that the first recommendation they give for people who see their faces in someone's picture on the Web without their consent is to ask the photo to be taken down. So, unlikely to happen at this point, but the development of face-recognition AI, and its availability to the common folk, will soon make it so that anyone can do a search on the Web to see if their face appears without consent. Or to see if their teenage daughter's face doesn't appear on somebody else's body on a Russian porn site or Bulgarian mail-order bride scheme or Canadian body-lotion add. That's also why the law exists.

I've traveled a lot in France and have on my Instagram photos of Marseille, amongst other places, in which people are recognizable. Should one of these people contact me to ask the photo to be taken down, I would. The ones I really like I hang on my wall.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that, Alex. It still leaves room for interpretation as far as I can see. For instance using your quote:"If you post it on your Instagram, that's dissemination, so problem" Would dissemination apply to say this site's Gallery?

What happens in the case of minors when say you take a holiday snap of your child primarily but in the scene there are other children that he/she has made friends with on holiday at say a resort, hotel or simply were so close that excluding them is impossible. It sounds OK to hang such a photo on your wall or place in your album but not to share it with others over the internet in case that results in dissemination i.e. this is a definite risk if for any reason that picture was shared and found its way to further sharing. I take it that dissemination is the "crime" and applies whether the photo-taker makes any commercial gain or not?
Presumably in the event of a few individuals in a street scene depicting a bigger event with many more such as a demonstration and being recognisable simply as they were at the front, that's a problem unless you obtain their written permission should that photo be placed on our Gallery?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Some observations from a US lawyer:

1. The text in the first post is an English translation of (I assume) a French summary of the statute. Much of the ambiguity, I assume, comes from the paraphrase and translation. The original statute, obviously, is in French. And French statutes do not look like the translated part above.

Assuming the translated summary is accurate,

2. The statute appears to create an exception for artistic works. That creates conflict, because art is sold in commerce and commercial uses are covered. I have no idea how the statute itself balances those interests, or how French courts sort that out. (Note that France is a civil law state, and court decisions are not binding precedents as they are in England and the US.)

3. If you are an American or Canadian or Kiwi not living in France, then I wouldn't worry: French authorities lack jurisdiction to prosecute you outside France. (I don't know whether nationals of other EU members might have greater exposure.) So if you are vacationing in Paris for a week and you shoot killer street photos, don't worry about getting model releases. (And if you are stopped in the act, say you are an artist, shooting works of artistic expression.)

My guess is that this statute gets enforced mostly against overzealous paparazzi. If I lived in France, I would take greater care. Sadly, I do not.

 

[Arthurwg]

Regardless of legality, people in France can be more reluctant than most to be photographed in public. What would HCB say?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Is my picture below illegal because it's on the web? In France? There are recognizable people although the picture wasn't taken with any one individual in mind. Could that woman on the left sue me? How about the guy on the right? It was taken inside the Louvre of Mona Lisa painting in the back, not on the street, adding more legal confusion. CAn I put a photo print in an album at home but not show it on Photrio or Facebook? How does one gauge the law?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Is my picture below illegal because it's on the web? In France?

Interpol will be paying you a visit. Soon.

 

[pentaxuser]

Assuming that the Balloon Man just posted in the Gallery by bluechromis was taken in France I wonder what the rules would make of its dissemination on Photrio It's interesting from that point of view especially if the taker was not related to the little girl

I presume for instance that if it was taken by a local newspaper photog and printed in said paper as representing the town's annual carnival then said newspaper's photog would have to get the written permission of both the balloon man and little girl's parent/ guardian who was with her?

pentaxuser

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thanks for that, Alex. It still leaves room for interpretation as far as I can see. For instance using your quote:"If you post it on your Instagram, that's dissemination, so problem" Would dissemination apply to say this site's Gallery?

What happens in the case of minors when say you take a holiday snap of your child primarily but in the scene there are other children that he/she has made friends with on holiday at say a resort, hotel or simply were so close that excluding them is impossible. It sounds OK to hang such a photo on your wall or place in your album but not to share it with others over the internet in case that results in dissemination i.e. this is a definite risk if for any reason that picture was shared and found its way to further sharing. I take it that dissemination is the "crime" and applies whether the photo-taker makes any commercial gain or not?
Presumably in the event of a few individuals in a street scene depicting a bigger event with many more such as a demonstration and being recognisable simply as they were at the front, that's a problem unless you obtain their written permission should that photo be placed on our Gallery?

Thanks

pentaxuser

As @Rolleiflexible pointed out in his very relevant post (his No. 3), problem with "dissemination" on the Web is one of jurisdiction. At that point, to me, what is a legal issue in France becomes an ethical issue on the Web, especially if we are talking about minors.

To bounce off your example, say I live in France with my teenage daughter, you come to visit with your daughter, they make friends on the beach, we both take pictures, of them and the other boys and girls playing in the sand. We all get to know each other, so there is a form of trust involved. You get back home, post your photos on Facebook, tag me and the other parents with a "Hey! Guys! Remember that day?". I, and the others, probably wouldn't mind, although it would have been nice if you had asked "Mind if I put these on my Facebook?" beforehand (I always do in cases when children are involved, and I know the parents, force of habit). That said, if one parent writes back and says "Can you please put that down, I don't like having my kid's photo on the Internet", you probably would, if you're a decent person.

Same goes, as far as I'm concerned, for the guy I shot exercising on a beach in Marseille — a photo I posted hereon Photrio. Should he visit this site, run into his photo and write me asking me to take it down, I would. Question of ethics, not law, even though he has a legal right to do so in France.

What I don't know is, should I refuse to do so, can he still sue me and have me in legal trouble the next time I visit France. We would need a French lawyer to answer that...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I presume for instance that if it was taken by a local newspaper photog and printed in said paper as representing the town's annual carnival then said newspaper's photog would have to get the written permission of both the balloon man and little girl's parent/ guardian who was with her?

In France, as in Quebec, if we're talking about a newspaper publication, yes in both cases:

Written consent from the parents or guardians in the case of the little girl because she is a minor.

Written consent from the balloon man because the context of the photo doesn't make it clear it's in a public space (could be in someone's backyard for all we know) and that it is a news-worthy event.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Is my picture below illegal because it's on the web? In France? There are recognizable people although the picture wasn't taken with any one individual in mind. Could that woman on the left sue me? How about the guy on the right? It was taken inside the Louvre of Mona Lisa painting in the back, not on the street, adding more legal confusion. CAn I put a photo print in an album at home but not show it on Photrio or Facebook? How does one gauge the law?

If you lived in France, people in the photo could probably sue you. Since you're an American living in the US, there's basically nothing they can do. French courts have no jurisdiction here and they can't sue you in US courts because our laws protect the right of photographers to publish photos of people without permission if the photos are for personal expression/art, or for editorial/journalism purposes.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The statute appears to create an exception for artistic works. That creates conflict, because art is sold in commerce and commercial uses are covered. I have no idea how the statute itself balances those interests, or how French courts sort that out.

Won't dive too deep into this because it would take us into political grounds, but there is an inherent conflict between the concepts of free speech (a domain to which artistic expression belongs) and of individual rights that creates many legal conundrums in countries which have both written in their constitution some way or another. History shows they are not always compatible.

 

[pentaxuser]

In France, as in Quebec, if we're talking about a newspaper publication, yes in both cases:

Written consent from the parents or guardians in the case of the little girl because she is a minor.

Written consent from the balloon man because the context of the photo doesn't make it clear it's in a public space (could be in someone's backyard for all we know) and that it is a news-worthy event.

Thanks that explanation

pentaxuser

 

[VinceInMT]

This issue is so complex and fraught with details that it makes me happy that I rarely include people in my images. However, I do occasionally and have posted a half dozen in the gallery here. Some people get anxious over what is photographed and I’ve noticed that they go as far as to blur out the license plates on their vehicles In photos, like Google does in STreet View. But I get it. If someone just happened to be shown in a location that was not where they might have claimed to be at the time, that could be a problem.

 

[ic-racer]

Not quite. If you print your photo, frame it and hang it on the wall, no problem.

If you post it on your Instagram, that's dissemination, so problem.

What is instagram? How does it handle the paper print? Is it like a bulletin board?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

What is instagram? How does it handle the paper print? Is it like a bulletin board?

It's a peer-to-peer marketing platform. Very popular among your grandkids.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Interpol will be paying you a visit. Soon.

I've always been wanted by Interpol. So cosmopolitan.