Law regarding photographing people (right of image) in France

[BrianShaw]

The right of free speech in the US Constitution allows one to publish what they want. ... That's the point I was making.

Technically, and possibly more correctly... aren't you really referring to PRESS rather than speech?

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press protects the right to gather information and report it to others. This vital freedom helps protect democracy.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

 

[VinceInMT]

Technically, and possibly more correctly... aren't you really referring to PRESS rather than speech?

Speech, press, association, assembly, I think they get lumped under "expression." Photography gets dropped into that since it wasn't around when the Founders crafted that language.

 

[chuckroast]

Speech, press, association, assembly, I think they get lumped under "expression." Photography gets dropped into that since it wasn't around when the Founders crafted that language.

I think the US Constitution is unusual in this regard. It presumes these freedoms as natural rights (i.e., Inherent to being alive) and government's role as being an agent to protect their free exercise. In many other nations, government is seen as the grantor of rights. This sort of profoundly affects what your default "free expression" might look like.

All of which is to say that what is protected "expression" varies a fair bit, even within the Anglosphere or the larger sphere of democratic nations.

 

[CMoore]

Just as a point of interest, French citizens also have an absolute right to having Sundays off. That means that if they work on Sundays they are entitled to extra pay, which in some cases can mean double-time.

Where is the Like Button.?

These pictures where in the spectators could be seen, that were used in the book on the Tour de France for which I committed the photography, took weeks of deliberation, negotiations, going back and forth between the publisher and the editor, and finally I had to do a lot of retouching and altering before these were approved for publication.
It costed me an arm and a leg.

So much that I refused the commission the next year...

When carefully interpretering the legal regulations in France, these pictures could have passed to the publication without all this hassle (it is a large mass happening), but the publishing house wanted to be sure and safe.

Tour De France

Holy Cow and no offense.
To somebody ... me ... from the usa, this is hard to digest.
No right or wrong here, we all get used to "freedoms" that we have.
There are, just to name a few, drug laws and homeless laws that i much envy and admire in some other countries.

Are photographs of said party unencumbered for commercial use? I don't know.

I think that is always where the line is drawn.
I can publish a photo of you in my street photography book with no restrictions.
But i cannot use the same photo of you in an advertisement for my business.

I cannot photo you and your ... devilishly handsome ... family in your front yard, toss it into an ad campaign and say you guys are 3 generations of happy John Deere Tractor purchasers without a release

 

[chuckroast]

I cannot photo you and your ... devilishly handsome ... family in your front yard,

You've been peeking - I though I saw someone skulking in the bushes ...

 

[takilmaboxer]

Many years ago i saw a big Mapplethorpe exhibit with a separate viewing room for the controversial shots. My first thought was "porn" and my second thought was "why would anyone pose for a shot like that?" That was long before today's Internet. Mapplethorpe's models gave permission (he was one of them) and I suppose today's Nude Netizens do too. But maybe not in France

 

[chuckroast]

Many years ago i saw a big Mapplethorpe exhibit with a separate viewing room for the controversial shots. My first thought was "porn" and my second thought was "why would anyone pose for a shot like that?" That was long before today's Internet. Mapplethorpe's models gave permission (he was one of them) and I suppose today's Nude Netizens do too. But maybe not in France

It's a pitch perfect example of what happens when art gets put into the service of socio-political agenda. The art recedes and the agenda dominates. Mapplethorpe was a capable photographer, but this stuff was horrid. It was just provocation for its own sake in arts drag.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

These pictures where in the spectators could be seen, that were used in the book on the Tour de France for which I committed the photography, took weeks of deliberation, negotiations, going back and forth between the publisher and the editor, and finally I had to do a lot of retouching and altering before these were approved for publication.
It costed me an arm and a leg.

So much that I refused the commission the next year...

When carefully interpretering the legal regulations in France, these pictures could have passed to the publication without all this hassle (it is a large mass happening), but the publishing house wanted to be sure and safe.

Tour De France

I often watch "real-life" or current affairs TV shows from France on TV5 Monde. It's always disconcerting to see shots in which over half the people on screen have their face blurred so they cannot be identified.

 

[MattKing]

It's a pitch perfect example of what happens when art gets put into the service of socio-political agenda. The art recedes and the agenda dominates. Mapplethorpe was a capable photographer, but this stuff was horrid. It was just provocation for its own sake in arts drag.

You weren't Mapplethorpe's target audience.
A vast number of others were. And a huge number of them appreciated them, even if they were disturbed by them.
And we understand that you don't like the changes to the world that his work contributed to.
Which is absolutely your privilege.
But in my moderator's guise, I would remind you that those non-photographic related changes to the world are off topic for this site.
Including the role that Mapplethorpe played in the wonderful music (and writings) of Patti Smith - who I personally would be keen to discuss, if that subject wasn't off topic as well!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You weren't Mapplethorpe's target audience.
A vast number of others were. And a huge number of them appreciated them, even if they were disturbed by them.
And we understand that you don't like the changes to the world that his work contributed to.
Which is absolutely your privilege.

I hope I'm not offtopic by saying that I think Mapplethorpe's work is sui generis, and provocative, and disturbing at times, and I love it for all of those reasons. (Especially his works printed in platinum, which are astonishing.) And I think it is great that people are still debating him, decades after his passing. I am always surprised when people take issue with his work. But then Sally Mann got arrested for photographing her kids so why should I be surprised?

 

[chuckroast]

And we understand that you don't like the changes to the world that his work contributed to.
Which is absolutely your privilege.

I have no such objection. My objection was his injection of agenda and pretending it was art. That's always my objection when this happens, irrespective of content.

Let me provide a different example. How would you judge the merits of a talented photographer whose (very good) output was overtly racist? I see this no differently. It's using the protection of art to flog an agenda (literally, as it turns out, in Mapplethorpe's case

 

[MattKing]

Let me provide a different example. How would you judge the merits of a talented photographer whose (very good) output was overtly racist? I see this no differently. It's using the protection of art to flog an agenda (literally, as it turns out, in Mapplethorpe's case

I'm happy to reject the Art on the basis of the content of the agenda. Just as I respect that people who support the agenda may appreciate the Art.
The quality of the Art shouldn't insulate it from any consequences that might be attached to the agenda. And those who value Art, should at least try to understand how an objectionable (to them) message influences their appreciation of that Art.
Photography is a communicative Art, so if one uses it to communicate things that are objected to by some, one needs to accept the fact that their Art will be objected to.
Also, one of the measures of the quality of any piece of Art is how well it communicates its message - or agenda, if you prefer. I celebrate photography that effectively supports an agenda.

 

[Rrrgcy]

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...

The OP French cite IS ”Legal trouble” as in criminal (the embedded OP link):

* “Photographing or filming someone in a private place or transmitting their image, without their consent, is punishable by one year in prison and €45,000 of fine. Publishing the photo or video without the person's consent is punishable by one year in prison and €15,000 of fine.”

If you end up having legal trouble in France & it’s addressed w the Schengen Area rules you may be barred entry. And not just France. Say you want to take that Viking Cruise around Italy and you fly into Rome. Your wife can proceed through customs border controls but the CBP Carabinieri will secondary you, confirm your identity, tell you you have an issue w France and turn you around - no Italian soup for you.

(An American flying into Italy recently was turned back because when he was in the Army stationed in Germany in the 1970’s, he and some buds traveled to France on leave and had some sort of “problem” (probably stole some chips from a gas station) - 50 years later his French problem excluded him from entry to Italy - and would to every Schengen area country. This was on TV the other month on one of those factual reality port of entry smuggling shows. So it happens.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

I never saw HBC publish anything on the internet, so he would have been clear of that part of the law. As far as his books, then he did not have a problem publishing, today would be a different story since he would need releases from those who could be clearly identified.

 

[Dali]

today would be a different story since he would need releases from those who could be clearly identified.

Which is unlikely but it is also not a given that the judge will rule in favor of the plaintiff (if any).

 

[VinceInMT]

I have no such objection. My objection was his injection of agenda and pretending it was art. That's always my objection when this happens, irrespective of content.

Are you saying that art should be devoid of an agenda or, as Matt says, “message,” or just his agenda?

Most of my own “art,” is devoid of agenda/message whether it is photography or drawing or painting or mosaic but I have injected a “message” on occasion. I spent about 9 month from the fall of 2022 to late-spring 2023 working on a series of 7 drawings on the theme of “abandonment.” For all but one I used my own photographs as reference and showed various “things” abandoned or cast off. The final drawing (and these are all 15”x22” and done by stippling, several million dots each) I used a photo of a local building that I transformed into a derelict one and added faceless homeless people. The series had a 3 month show at the Northcutt-Steele gallery and were later submitted to our local contemporary art museum as possibilities in their annual auction (which closes these weekend.) The only piece that was accepted was that last one and at the opening reception one of the jurors told me that the main reason it was accepted was that it was one of the few submissions that had social commentary.

 

[chuckroast]

Are you saying that art should be devoid of an agenda or, as Matt says, “message,” or just his agenda?

Most of my own “art,” is devoid of agenda/message whether it is photography or drawing or painting or mosaic but I have injected a “message” on occasion. I spent about 9 month from the fall of 2022 to late-spring 2023 working on a series of 7 drawings on the theme of “abandonment.” For all but one I used my own photographs as reference and showed various “things” abandoned or cast off. The final drawing (and these are all 15”x22” and done by stippling, several million dots each) I used a photo of a local building that I transformed into a derelict one and added faceless homeless people. The series had a 3 month show at the Northcutt-Steele gallery and were later submitted to our local contemporary art museum as possibilities in their annual auction (which closes these weekend.) The only piece that was accepted was that last one and at the opening reception one of the jurors told me that the main reason it was accepted was that it was one of the few submissions that had social commentary.

Clearly, artists who inject agenda can make good art. But it's a matter of how overt it is. It's one thing to have a point of view - say Salgado - and quite another to beat people over the head with it - Mapplethorpe.

As a different example, Vivian Maier captured her time and place brilliantly without having to resort to the pulpit thumping one sees all too often. Did she have some larger agenda? Perhaps. Maybe. We'll probably never fully know. But, the work stands on its own feet absent knowing any of that.

For me, it comes down to whether or not the artist is primarily interested in creating art or flogging propaganda.

I am sensitive to this because so many of the arts and humanities have been hijacked by socio-political agenda to the detriment of the art itself. It ruins art because art is supposed be first for the artist not a religious tract trying to get converts. When artists go down this path, they will - sooner or later - start pandering to their audience instead of, you know, creating art...

 

[VinceInMT]

Clearly, artists who inject agenda can make good art. But it's a matter of how overt it is. It's one thing to have a point of view - say Salgado - and quite another to beat people over the head with it - Mapplethorpe.

As a different example, Vivian Maier captured her time and place brilliantly without having to resort to the pulpit thumping one sees all too often. Did she have some larger agenda? Perhaps. Maybe. We'll probably never fully know. But, the work stands on its own feet absent knowing any of that.

For me, it comes down to whether or not the artist is primarily interested in creating art or flogging propaganda.

I am sensitive to this because so many of the arts and humanities have been hijacked by socio-political agenda to the detriment of the art itself. It ruins art because art is supposed be first for the artist not a religious tract trying to get converts. When artists go down this path, they will - sooner or later - start pandering to their audience instead of, you know, creating art...

Some of this depends on the background of the artist. I follow some (political) artists who live under conditions that not many of us would chose and their art just reflects their world. I also think about feminist art, especially from the 70s, that reacted to a male dominated society (and art world.) Some of my favorite art are the screen prints from the Soviet Union from the 1930s, definitely with an agenda. I don’t need to accept or agree with the agendas to judge whether, to me, it’s good art or not.

When you said “It ruins art because art is supposed be first for the artist not a religious tract trying to get converts.” it reminded me of the days I spent in Florence, Italy in ‘22. Most everything I viewed there was religious propaganda of one sort or another and even though I abhor proselytizing of that type (something for the “Pet Peeve” thread), I was able to look at both the art and the message and see how well they worked together, particularly in the context of the time they were created (and who footed the bill.)

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Clearly, artists who inject agenda can make good art. But it's a matter of how overt it is. It's one thing to have a point of view - say Salgado - and quite another to beat people over the head with it - Mapplethorpe.

If anything, I think you have it backward. I think Mapplethorpe was showing us his world. He lived in a demimonde in NYC and his work gives us a view into it. I don’t see his work as proselytizing or advocating for his world. He was an artist, creating from the fabric of the world he inhabited. He wasn’t trying to lure you into it. In fact, his group would never have let you into it.

Salgado, on the other hand, is a documentarian who chooses which subjects to document. His works are not organic — they do not flow naturally from the world he occupies. He picks another world to document. He has a point to make and he makes it masterfully.

I love both artists. But I prefer Mapplethorpe. There is an authenticity that screams off the page with his work. It might sound like shrieks at times. But he commands his space like no other.

 

[chuckroast]

Some of this depends on the background of the artist. I follow some (political) artists who live under conditions that not many of us would chose and their art just reflects their world. I also think about feminist art, especially from the 70s, that reacted to a male dominated society (and art world.) Some of my favorite art are the screen prints from the Soviet Union from the 1930s, definitely with an agenda. I don’t need to accept or agree with the agendas to judge whether, to me, it’s good art or not.

When you said “It ruins art because art is supposed be first for the artist not a religious tract trying to get converts.” it reminded me of the days I spent in Florence, Italy in ‘22. Most everything I viewed there was religious propaganda of one sort or another and even though I abhor proselytizing of that type (something for the “Pet Peeve” thread), I was able to look at both the art and the message and see how well they worked together, particularly in the context of the time they were created (and who footed the bill.)

Yes, but the Florentine artists were not propagandizing to the public seeking conversions. I rather suspect they saw their work as an act of religious worship and duty. It's a rather different target audience than, say, convincing the peasant to increase wheat output through "inspirational" art.

Some of the greatest art in history was absolutely driven by religious intent, but I don't see it as "proselytizing" but much moreso as a celebration of the artist's faith and beliefs - something that informs all art.

I do not object to artists having a worldview - we all do, it's part of being human - it's the thumping over the head I don't like. I don't think there is a magic line for this, either. It exists on some continuum.

I fully acknowledge that I am not entirely consistent in this. Who was it that said "A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds"? Yes! That's my excuse...

 

[warden]

I have no such objection. My objection was his injection of agenda and pretending it was art. That's always my objection when this happens, irrespective of content.

The "That's not art" argument was front and center in Cincinnati where I lived and saw Mapplethorpe's The Perfect Moment as the city divided over it.

The two questions on the cover of Cincinnati magazine are fascinating for me to see now. My friends and I were all in art school at the time, and we couldn't wait to get out of there.

When Art Fought the Law and the Art Won

The Mapplethorpe obscenity trial changed perceptions of public funding of art and shaped the city of Cincinnati

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[VinceInMT]

Yes, but the Florentine artists were not propagandizing to the public seeking conversions. I rather suspect they saw their work as an act of religious worship and duty. It's a rather different target audience than, say, convincing the peasant to increase wheat output through "inspirational" art.

Some of the greatest art in history was absolutely driven by religious intent, but I don't see it as "proselytizing" but much moreso as a celebration of the artist's faith and beliefs - something that informs all art.
….

I find much of that religious art having a similar intent to the Soviet art I mentioned in that they both serve as reminders of who’s in charge and, in many images, the consequences of getting out of line.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I agree that most of Mapplethorpe's work was art, and I appreciated it as such, but the issue for me was being able to identify people in the photographs. And, that in today's Internet world, people routinely post content on the Net that include identifiable faces who were not asked for photo permission. I've seen shots of people doing prurient things at frat parties with 50 identifiable faces in the background. Are such images censored in France? Do the young people whose faces appear even care, in the modern world?
I routinely hassle anyone pointing a camera at me in a public place, but that's just me.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

“All art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art.”

George Orwell

 

[MattKing]

“All art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art.”

George Orwell

I always liked "Down and Out in Paris and London". In particular, his comments on so called "good" restaurants.