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 ...


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 ...


10

False statements are generally protected by the First Amendment. If the video was an obvious gag or work of fiction, in which a reasonable person would understand that you were not truly endorsed, your false statement would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment. But many false statements are not protected, typically because of their negative ...


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

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

You need to make sure you are not infringing upon the copyrights of the music owners. There might be other things you need to do. But at a minimum you will need to have agreements with the music owners that specify the timing and amount of the payments they will receive for allowing you to distribute their music. And any other ancillary terms you or they ...


5

is it plausibly the case that ownership of an original photograph would be awarded to the subject (or the subject's heirs) because the subject did not consent to the making of the photograph? No The photograph belongs to the person who owned the photographic plate. Copyright in the image belonged (it has long ago entered the public domain) to the ...


4

In the U.S. this is a notoriously perilous area of the law, particularly because the laws regarding recording vary so much between the states. A good source for this question is the RCFP. To give you an example: In Pennsylvania it is a felony to record "oral communication" in any circumstance in which the speaker would be justified in expecting it to not ...


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

As long as you are not claiming to be this celebrity, which would be impersonation, then you are not doing anything wrong or illegal. Since it is your own name, you can use it.


3

In Washington, the tort is defined at RCW 63.60.050: Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, on or in goods, merchandise, or products entered into commerce in this state, or for purposes of advertising products, merchandise, goods, or services, or for ...


3

Copyright and Model Releases are separate legal concepts Copyright belongs to the "author" of a "literary" work - the person(s) who first fixed the the work in permanent form (or possibly not - copyright in spoken words is possible in some jurisdictions). For a product of multiple authors (like a film) they are each an author for the purposes of copyright. ...


3

Copyright vests in the photographer that takes the photograph, or their employer. If the subject of a photograph does not own copyright over the photograph, then they can't bring a claim of copyright infringement against you. The DMCA safe harbors only protect you against copyright infringement claims. Further, personality rights are recognised at state ...


3

The person or company could sue you for defamation, and would have to show that they were harmed by your statement (which would not be in the realm of per se defamatory statements). Since this is a civil matter, they would not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt: documenting a drop in sales subsequent to the defamation would do it. See this article for ...


3

Yes. Content not created by a user is not protected by Section 230, and if the platform agents or employees begin to substantively edit content, the platform becomes a co-author rather than merely a platform for that content.


2

An answer for Australia; applicable statues are very specific so most of what is allowed flows from common law. There are a number of issues: Different rules apply to images and audio, These apply irrespective of the nature of the space (public or private), Warrants and other law-enforcement laws may make this permissible. Photographs and Video Starting ...


2

In a sheet of music there are several creative actions involved, and therefore several authors with copyright claims, and any of them can be in the public domain or not according to their date of death and (specially in the US) date of publication. The composer. Beware that the work of the composer is just the score he wrote. The arrangements. Beware that ...


2

According to US law (and I believe similarly in most areas), commercial use is defined as: According to 18 USCS § 31, term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended The important ...


2

The "right of publicity" or "personality rights" is what's relevant. How you might pursue this depends on where you live. In Washington, RCW 63.30 forbids such action – see RCW 63.60.050 Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, on or in goods, ...


2

Your presence in an image doesn't give you automatic property rights to the image. Copyright is held by the person who took the picture (or whoever they work for). However, there are also personality rights, whereby a person has to have permission of the subject whose image they are commercially exploiting (and this is a matter of highly variable state-level ...


2

You could run into these problems: Copyright in the picture: you would need to own the copyright (e.g. by taking the photo yourself), have permission of the copyright holder or use a photo in the public domain. Trademark in the face: a sufficiently famous person can have trademark in their appearance. If so, you cannot use it in such a way that a person ...


2

The items you listed aren't a problem at all. Read some articles about various companies in Wikipedia. How can you NOT mention a company's title and products in an article about that company? The answer to your second question - "If I do make a mistake, may a company sue me?" - is YES. It's even possible that they could sue you even though you do NOT make a ...


2

Copyright You can paint a picture of anyone you like, real or fictitious, however, you cannot copy another copyrighted work to do so. In the example of Leonardo diCaprio you are free to paint him from memory or from a sitting or from photographs you have taken - you are not permitted to paint him by relying on a still or moving image that you do not hold ...


1

Are there legal implications to lying about that, or is this action protected by the First Amendment? Why do you think that lying - publishing false facts - is protected by the First Amendment? Speech is protected, yes; the factual content of that speech is the responsibility of the individual. If that speech is slanderous or libelous, it may still be ...


1

Even if the use of the picture of John Doe is not actionable, because of a law such as the Washington law quoted in another answer (and note that such laws vary by state in the US) or because of First Amendment protections (in the US)such a book or poster might be considered defamatory. John Doe is, as described, almost surely a public figure, which means ...


1

The right-of-publicity (as it is called under US law) under California law lasts 70 years after the persons death, which still protects Einstein and prevents commercial use of his likeness. Civ 3344.1(g) (https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344-1.html) However, Mozart died in 1791 so use of his "likeness" would be beyond the statutory period ...


1

Probably yes. There is a common law form of intellectual property called a right of publicity, which basically means that no one is entitled to use your identity or image commercially without your consent. It was originally developed to protect models whose images were used in commercial advertising without their consent and without compensation. There are ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible