There go my plans to return to Paris.
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.
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.
In America at least, it's the US Constitution and Congress that rules. It's not a matter of individual rights or of free speech that rules. The constitution provides for patents and copyright protection. So free rights in the Bill of Rights don't have precedence. The Consitution protects patents and copyrights and the Congress writes the rules regarding them.
Under US Constitution Article I, section 8, it reads, “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
In America at least, it's the US Constitution and Congress that rules. It's not a matter of individual rights or of free speech that rules. The constitution provides for patents and copyright protection. So free rights in the Bill of Rights don't have precedence. The Consitution protects patents and copyrights and the Congress writes the rules regarding them.
Under US Constitution Article I, section 8, it reads, “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Alan, this is a subject that's been beaten to death, on Photrio and elsewhere.
You conflate a number of different legal ideas. Among them:
1. The US Constitution and the Copyright Act ensure that you own the works you create.
2. The First Amendment guarantees your right to speech, within certain defined limits.
3. People have implied rights of privacy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, notwithstanding the utterer's copyright in his words, or his right to utter them under the First Amendment.
4. People have common-law tort claims for defamation if an utterer's exercise of her First Amendment rights falsely injures them.
5. The Government may seek to enjoin your speech, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, if you try to disclose government secrets.
Art. I, sec. 8 simply confers a property right in the writings and creative works that you publish. It confers no rights to speech.
...
2. The First Amendment guarantees your right to speech, within certain defined limits.
...
Honestly, I really don't see what's unclear about the law. It's pretty straightforward:
Not as straightforward as you think. When I read "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.", I find it a bit vague. Who knows what is the right of information, the right of freedom of expression and the artistic and cultural freedom in France, where they start and where they end? Are these rights clearly defined or do they depend themself on other rights?
Wonder why I don't want to go to France...
Not as straightforward as you think. When I read "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.", I find it a bit vague. Who knows what is the right of information, the right of freedom of expression and the artistic and cultural freedom in France, where they start and where they end? Are these rights clearly defined or do they depend themself on other rights?
Wonder why I don't want to go to France...
Alan, this is a subject that's been beaten to death, on Photrio and elsewhere.
You conflate a number of different legal ideas. Among them:
1. The US Constitution and the Copyright Act ensure that you own the works you create.
2. The First Amendment guarantees your right to speech, within certain defined limits.
3. People have implied rights of privacy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, notwithstanding the utterer's copyright in his words, or his right to utter them under the First Amendment.
4. People have common-law tort claims for defamation if an utterer's exercise of her First Amendment rights falsely injures them.
5. The Government may seek to enjoin your speech, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, if you try to disclose government secrets.
Art. I, sec. 8 simply confers a property right in the writings and creative works that you publish. It confers no rights to speech.
If you had checked the website, you would have realized that this is not the text of law but a description of what the law is about.
The legal text is more specific, but to a point. Just as anywhere else: if you think everybody reads the second amendment of the US constitution the same way, you haven't been following. Won't dive more into this because of, well, politics, but I'll just say that if laws were clear — or rather, the concepts that they are trying to legally circumscribe —, you wouldn't need the Supreme court to interpret them.
Speaking of restrictions, when I was in the US Army in the early-70s I was stationed in Germany. Due to the nature of my job and my security clearance I was told that I was not allowed to travel to Berlin or anywhere else behind the Iron Curtain while I was over there. That’s was disappointing because American Express ran tours for military folks specifically for people interested in photography that would do something like 3 Soviet cities in 5 days and they were quite inexpensive. However, the unit I was in did have to travel to Crete for an exercise and I was turned loose on the island for about 10 days but told to stay there. I wasn’t going to be $37.50 away from Athens and not go so I snuck off and did. I shot 43 rolls of film during that trip. Of course, I couldn’t show the Athens images around much.
When I became a civilian again I was told that I had a 7-year travel restriction on me and not to leave the country. I did make a few trips to Canada without incident and I think statute of limitations is long expired.
If you had checked the website, you would have realized that this is not the text of law but a description of what the law is about.
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.
But say I am having a BBQ in my backyard that abuts a public street and thus my guests are in plain view with no reasonable expectation of privacy. Are photographs of said party unencumbered for commercial use? I don't know.
The right of free speech in the US Constitution allows one to publish what they want. However, copyright law in the Constitution and by Congressional legislation limits those rights if your publishing violates the copyright and patent laws. That's the point I was making.
So, what does this thread try to demonstrate practically speaking (this is what interests most of us here)?
I'll let Sanders chime in to correct me if I'm mis-stating this, but US law still grants you control over your image for commercial usage (i.e. putting your face or likeness in an advertisement for a product, where it could reasonably be presumed by your presence that you are endorsing the product/service). If your likeness is used in an art gallery or other artistic venue (a book of photographs, for example), then your consent is not required to photograph you. There are some obvious exceptions to this - nude photography being one example. You would think that the consent would be implied, because the subject of the photograph is in a studio, taking off their clothes in front of another person who they are aware has a camera pointed at them, but you still need to get written consent and release of use from the model before using the images 100% of the time, in part because there are a fair amount of shady photographers out there who do take photos of naked people and then sell them to pornographic magazines/websites that may well endorse interests that the subject does not want to endorse.But in the context we're talking about here, it's murky. In reading these various threads, it seems that placing yourself in a public setting in the US grants implicit consent to use your image, even commercially, if I understand what others have written here.
So the only question is what the boundary between public and private might me. As @MattKing pointed out in the other thread, you can't stand in public place and photograph into a private space like a bedroom. But say I am having a BBQ in my backyard that abuts a public street and thus my guests are in plain view with no reasonable expectation of privacy. Are photographs of said party unencumbered for commercial use? I don't know.
Just ask the mods.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?