Le vendredi 12 mars 2010 06:48:22, Nathan Wajsman a écrit :
> Manuel's approach is very sensible. I do all the things he does, and in
> addition I have a small Blurb book (7x7 paperback) with a selection of my
> daily/weekly pictures from 2009 which I carry in the camera bag at all
> times, so that I can show anyone who asks what kind of photography I do.
That's what I carry too.
> The number of security cameras in Paris seems to be much less than in
> London, and limited to places where you would expect to see them.
The number is growing quickly, thanks to our überpresident, but we're nowhere
near the level of coverage of London. I think there are about 300 cameras
under the control of police forces for Paris. There are 20.000 more under
private control. And we have a special public service (CNIL) to overview the
legality of the system, with power to rule in case of privacy breach.
> And one small correction to what Manuel said about French law. Taking a
> picture of a stranger in a public place is not illegal; publishing the
> picture, even for non-commercial purposes, without the permission, is. I
> assume also that there must be some exceptions that allow reporters to
> photograph demonstrations and the like, surely they do not get permission
> from everyone before such pics are published in the newspaper.
Hum... it's much more complicated than that. To roughly draw the picture,
one's image is not protected by criminal laws or statutes, it's a civil
matter. So /per se/ it's not against the law to grab someone's picture,
because it won't involve the public attorney / prosecutor / whatever you call
it in english. *But* taking someone's picture is causing by itself a civil
damage that's ruled by repair of torts procedure. So, as always it boils down
to a question of proof. The burden of the proof is on the alleged victim. If
you don't make public the image, then there will never be a proof, and due
process in civil cases prevent the victim to get any police power to search it
for her : no proof, no case, end of the story. But de lege lata, you /should/
seek permission first, even for a private usage. De lege ferenda, the required
proof is said to be 'diabolical' as it can't be administred.
Now, as soon as the picture leaks in the public, you're in for hefty civil
damages if you can't oppose the proof of a licence to use your model image
granted by said model to the filed complaint.
The only exemption for 'journalists', which isn't really one as it benefits
anybody, is that you should not single out someone when reporting an event. If
you shoot a crowd, there must be quite a lot of people visible. But if you
only have a handful of characters in the frame, then you should seek
permission firsthand. Judges have considerable leeway to draw the line between
legit/unlawful here.
--
Manuel Viet
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|