40
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 ...
34
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 ...
25
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 ...
18
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 ...
14
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
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.
10
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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
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 ...
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
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 ...
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 ...
3
The default answer is NO, but you would have to check the terms&conditions of Meetup.com.
For a simpler example, just look at the bottom of this page: "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". That means that you can copy pictures from this site to your Facebook page, if you acknowledge the photographer and link back ...
3
OK, the prohibition on commercial use stems from either:
The tort of passing off; this is a private civil matter between the model and the publisher, or
Breach of s18 of the Australian Consumer Law which involve misleading or deceptive conduct; this is a public civil matter with strict liability (i.e. intention or negligence is irrelevant) between the ...
3
'Is it legal?' could mean one of two things.
Does it break the criminal law; could I be arrested?
There is no law criminalising photography or filming in a private place (assuming you're not doing something amounting to harrassment, or making something inherently illegal like child pornography). The act of filming per se is therefore not illegal in a ...
3
You can take pictures of any buildings if you are in a public place, and can freely use such photographs without consent of a owner or designer of that building. [Japan Copyright Act, art. 46]
BTW, external appearance of buildings in U.S. Armed Forces facilities are NOT confidential under US-Japan Security Treaty and related statutes enacted in Japan.
3
In the UK, no offence is committed, however many public locations cite the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason to stop people taking pictures.
DPA does not mention this topic at all, and is a red herring (however informing the location of this is unlikely to help, I have discovered)
In fact, in the UK, the only laws that appear to exist cover either ...
3
In the US, does a person photographing private property (houses, farms etc.) while standing on public ground (road, park etc.) commit any offence?
No.
In general, while standing on public land, it is legal for your eyes to glance onto everything around you. You cannot be arrested and imprisoned for allowing your gaze to pass over your neighbours lawn. It ...
3
A CC0 license granted by party A only waives their rights, and not those of unrelated party B (i.e. Marvel).
And while Marvel might have granted the cosplayer a limited right to depict their persona's, that almost certainly does not constitute a sublicensable right. This is especially the case if the rights are implicitly granted (by Marvel not acting).
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
