Forum - View topicAnswerman - Is It Really Illegal To Take Pictures Of People Without Permission?
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ushio
Posts: 636 |
|
|||
|
In New York always keep curtains or blinds closed you can be filmed legally otherwise https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/for-arts-sake-photoing-neighbors-with-zoom-lens-not-a-privacy-invasion/
|
||||
|
||||
|
Emma Iveli
Posts: 679 Location: Hobo with internet |
|
|||
|
I was wondering about Street View, then it's explained it's fine if you're taking wide shots of scenery... so it is legal there... good to know.
|
||||
|
||||
Agent355
 Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||
And I thought someone secretly taking a close-up of a stranger on the subway was creepy. That is way creepier, Especially considering that in New York City if you are unable to install working vents in a bathroom you have to ensure it has a working window by building code. Lots of old buildings without proper air conditioning (some buildings are so old, they don't even have enough electrical power to support air conditioners!)=people keeping lots of windows open in the summer, especially bathroom windows, to air them out...I know it's probably illegal to take pictures of people in the bathroom, but who knows what intrepid artists think they can get away with! I think I'd rather go with Japan's stance on this issue. |
||||
|
||||
residentgrigo
 Posts: 2586 Location: Germany |
|
|||
|
I had legal classes and university courses on German copyright law and at least here it´s always possible to take pictures with people in them as long as they are an "accessory". Meaning that the landmark or whatever you are photographing needs to be in focus for others in the shot to become legal white noise. You can also take photos of people going about their job (as fishermen) as long as what is shown is a routine activity. This part is a bit convoluted though.
Attending public events as let´s say the infamous Oktoberfest or a museum opening will further lead to waving away the rights to your picture. So you could show in a newspaper on the front page while in focus in such cases. This regularly happens if protestors look especially photogenic. You could lastly take a voyeur shot of a celebrity and be legally in the wrong, so publishing/taking the shot is a crime if the victim sues. Yet the photographer would also hold the copyright of the questionable photo, as the law this all relies on is older than anyone alive. Taking pictures used to be a hard undertaking back in the day and needed heavy legal protection. Last edited by residentgrigo on Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
MarshalBanana
 Posts: 5507 |
|
|||
|
I think any shot where you appear as part of the scenery is fine, but if you are a focal point of the picture, then it would only be polite to ask the person.
|
||||
|
||||
|
NOGI48
Posts: 72 |
|
|||
|
Well that explains why every TV show has everyone face blurred. But with international news they NEVER have there face hidden.
|
||||
|
||||
PurpleWarrior13
 Posts: 2034 |
|
|||
|
I think there's a law in California that protects celebrities' children from being photographed by paparazzi. This is a huge down side of being famous. Paparazzi will stop at nothing to get juicy shots, even peeping into hotel rooms. Also never nude sunbathe or go skinny dipping at any resort. TMZ will find you.
|
||||
|
||||
Puniyo
 Posts: 271 |
|
|||
|
I went to school for journalism and I'm still very hazy on the laws in the UK.
What I gathered from school is that you're allowed to take photos (and use/publish) of a public area, and if someone's caught in the photo, too bad. You only need permission for videos - either from the owner of the area, or the individual featured (if it's like an interview or something). But generally I think the rule is 'It's fine until the person tells you to stop'. |
||||
|
||||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 7580 Location: Wales |
|
|||
Street View automatically blurs faces anyway. |
||||
|
||||
Juno016
 Posts: 2425 |
|
|||
Unfortunately, it's not perfect at it, since it doesn't always recognize faces from certain angles. I found myself outside my apartment on street view in Japan, but because I had my head tilted, it didn't get blurred. Eventually, they replaced it, so I no longer have to worry about it, but I had students approach me about it (since the eikaiwa I worked at was nearby). |
||||
|
||||
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5936 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
It is not the photographers you need to be worried about, but rather the people with telescopes. People watching is a thing in NYC, or anyplace that has a lot of buildings close together. They will be watching you everyday, and will probably know more about you than you know yourself, cause you are part of their entertainment and voyeurism. |
||||
|
||||
|
#Verso.Sciolto
|
|
|||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||
|
I feel this comes down to introversion versus extroversion as well. The people of Japan, by and large, are highly introverted, whereas the people of the United States tend to be highly extroverted. The introverted will care much more about their privacy than the extroverted will.
There is a certain arcade game made in the United States with a built-in camera that will take a picture of the player if certain accomplishments are made. There is no option to turn the camera off short of disconnecting the camera. In fact, this question was addressed to the creators of the game at a convention by someone who didn't like having his picture taken. The creators were thrown for a loop and said, "Um, well, I guess you can tape a piece of paper over it if it bothers you that much." I feel this is a pretty good example of how having your picture taken in the United States is taken for granted and how there are plenty of people who don't understand that some people DON'T want to have their pictures taken.
Ah, I remember that incident last year in which George Clooney's house was repeatedly broken into because of his then-newborn child. He built fences and increased security, but the reporters kept breaking in, and it only stopped when he threatened legal action, as what they were doing was trespassing. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group