42
In the United States, You have no expectation of privacy in public. Anything you can see from a public place, you can take a picture of, even if the "victim" is in their own home but has the blinds open. If you are standing on a public sidewalk or street, you would legally be able to take a picture with certain exceptions.
An exception to this would be: if ...
35
As per this question & answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here.
The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a ...
26
Taking the picture is one thing. There are also laws about what you can do with it: In the United States you cannot in general use a person's image for "commercial purposes" without their permission, but you can use it for "editorial purposes." The line between the two purposes can be very tricky, and is tied to the "Right of Publicity." Which is why you ...
19
If the photos are exact or "slavish" reproductions of flat (2D) art, then under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) the photos are not original, and have no copyrights of their own. If the art was not under copyright (for example published before 1924) then neither are the photos. If the art is still under copyright, the ...
13
The judgment linked to by the article says:
During the period from 5 October 2007 to 11 April 2008, Mr Ryneš installed and used a [continuously recording] camera system
located under the eaves of his family home. The camera was installed
in a fixed position and could not turn; it recorded the entrance to
his home, the public footpath and the ...
12
You acted illegally in assaulting your fellow student. When you are in public, a person can legally take your picture, and you are not allowed to assault a person because you do not like their legal actions. Any degree of force is excessive except in certain responses to illegal fource, and even the threat of force is excessive. You also have no right to ...
11
Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.”
In general, you can take photos of people; statues have even less privacy rights.
There are limitations mainly related to voyeurism and commercial use, which ...
11
For other jurisdictions, Wikimedia Commons has a list of countries and what you are allowed to do with pictures taken in public.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
To get details, click one of the country names and you will be taken a page which provides legal references for most countries.
8
For the point of view from another jurisdiction (Australia) see How do laws affect photography of non-humans in public when people may be in the frame?
To repeat:
In R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.”
In general, you can take photos of people when you are on public ...
8
What a lovely question!
Copyright law is clear: the author of a creative work owns the copyright unless it is work for hire. In this instance, the photographer is not doing work for hire so they own the copyright.
However, the photographer does not own a copy of the photograph – that is owned by the owner of the camera. The photographer cannot demand that ...
7
Will you be in legal trouble for child pornography? No.
The legal definition of child pornography generally requires things such as "sexually explicit conduct" or "lewd and lascivious display". Mere nudity does not rise to this standard; photographic documentation of suspected physical abuse comes nowhere near it.
Will you get in trouble for not ...
6
Assuming that the images are in fact released by the copyright holder under the CC_BY 2.0 license, and not under the CC_BY_NC or CC_BY_SA license, you are free to use the image on a book cover. That the book is erotic makes no difference.
You must attribute the cover image to the original creator, as specified in the license, unless the creator has ...
6
If you're talking about the United States, the celebrity will lose this case:
Being mildly embarrassed does not give rise to damages
The First Amendment allows us to gather and disseminate information, including photographic information;
The right to privacy does not cover the things you do in public, in front of cameras.
6
Costs
There are hundreds of jurisdictions in the world with various approaches to privacy in public places.
It is simply much cheaper for the publisher to avoid claims in the first place than to hire lawyers to deal with them. Even if the publisher has full legal standing to publish the faces, it would not always be able to recover costs from the failed ...
6
In general in the US, anyone may photograph anyone else if they are all in a public place, although in some states such a photo may not be used commercially without permission, which must often be paid for and may be refused.
It is unusual for police to photograph people on the street, but they might want to document who was present at a particular place and ...
5
Tinder's Terms of Service (TOS) is pretty clear:
Therefore, you agree not to:
• use the Service or any content contained in the Service for any
commercial purposes without our written consent.
• copy, modify, transmit, create any derivative works from, make use
of, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, images,
trademarks, trade ...
5
The situation described could lead to a suit for "Intrusion of solitude" or "invasion of seclusion" one of the torts classed under "Invasion of privacy" The state of Michigan recognizes this tort, and in Tobin v. Mich. Civil Serv. Comm‘n, 331 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Mich. 1982). the Michigan Supreme court said that the elements of this tort are:
(1) the ...
5
I assume these are digital photos that were electronically transferred (not prints physically delivered). If they were prints physically delivered, he owns those prints, since you used to own them but you unconditionally transferred ownership to him by giving them. No backsies under the law.
The photos are protected by copyright law, which means that the ...
5
The copies of the photo that you gave to him continue to be his. He is allowed to keep them, and there is probably no way that you could legally compel him to delete or destroy them. Unless the pictures can be classified as "hardcore pornography," they are within the ambit of First Amendment protection. I don't see -- and the article doesn't explain -- how ...
5
"The EU" is a lot of different jurisdictions, and laws vary between them. The following answer applies to the UK.
A: Alice is guilty of making and possessing indecent images of a child. The fact that the child was herself is irrelevant, as are her current feelings on the subject. The "making" offence was committed when she was under 18, so for that she ...
5
If this was anywhere in the United States, it was perfectly legal to post the photo.
The First Amendment allows people to freely share information, including pictures. People commonly believe that they have the authority to control who takes a picture of them and under what circumstances, but that is generally false. Anyone with a camera is generally free to ...
5
A car, or other useful object, is not generally a copyrighted work. There can, in come cases, be a copyright on the aesthetic aspects of the design, which might prohibit a different car maker from making a different car with a very similar appearance, But taking a picture of a car is not an infringement of copyright, and the photographer does not need ...
4
In the scenario you described, you were both right:
Police have no authority to demand that you leave a public space because you are photographing, nor does the government have the right to prevent you from photographing anything that is visible from a public space, including government facilities or employees.
However, the police would likely have ...
4
It is illegal to take or publish a picture of someone without his consent in France.
There are five exceptions :
people related to news events of public interest,
public information purposes (when right to inform the public is bigger than right to privacy),
people present in a public location when focus is not on them,
public figures during their public ...
4
Photographers own the copyright in their photos, in general the person who creates a work owns the copyright in their work. Otherwise, makers of cameras, chisels and typewriters would own all of the copyrights. Android is just another tool. Property owners don't hold copyright in works involving their property, though they may prohibit photography of their ...
4
Just because a person expects to lose a case may not stop them vexatiously suing you as a discouragement / punishment - if they can afford a big legal bill and you can't, just the threat of a big court case can be too much of a risk for a lot of people.
The UK courts in particular have been used for libel tourism as documented in Private Eye magazine - and ...
4
Generally, it's illegal. You are creating a derivative work and you are not allowed to do that without the permission of the copyright holder.
Some jurisdictions may have exceptions, such as fair use under US law. However, this generally protects uses that are intended to comment on or parody the work. It doesn't sound like that is the purpose of your ...
4
No one can give you a meaningful answer unless you specify what jurisdiction you're in. Assuming you're in the United States:
There's no liability for defamation.
The company using your picture isn't saying anything about you. Whatever you might feel the implications are, the reasonable reader would not view the ads and conclude that you are actually sick or ...
4
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is governed by Shari`ah law. See this work for an overview of Shari`ah as it relates to compensatory damages in personal injury cases. It is a principle under Ijma (a second-order source of Islamic law) that if one is insulted or emotionally injured by another party, you are entitled to be monetarily compensated. Sharia law in ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible