Talk:Photography and the law

Photographers copyright in Denmark

Photographers copyright" https://www.clauslillevang.dk;

The Danish photographer Claus Lillevang teaches other photographers copyright. Claus Lillevang also teaches at the drone education in privacy December 2019

Defending this article

Erm yes - okay. Well, I'm not especially wedded to this article (basically I created it to find a place for some content which didn't belong on another page) but I also feel that there is not reason eplictely why laws relating to public photography are any more or less deserving of an article about alcohol laws, etc. --Neo (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the speedy deletion request. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Would this article be an appropriate place to address copyright issues -- that is, the ownership of photographs? I'm thinking of the kinds of topic represented by the following posts from BoingBoing: Condo association vs photographers; No cameras, copyright-protected area. Wbakker2 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Potentially - its still a very new article so there will be some natural evolution of the direction it takes. I'd like to avoid going into issues relating to completed works as I'm sure that those are covered elsewhere, but in terms of laws relating to the taking of photographs then that's definitely something I personally would be interested in reading about here. --Neo (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a NYPD document which has instructions of a common sense nature about photography in New York city, recognizing that the many tourists are unlikely to be terrorists and should not be harassed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Videotaping / Wiretapping

It seems now there are a few accounts of people being arrested for filming through wiretap laws in the United States

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/120607Wiretapping.htm

Should probably be added somewhere.

To do

1. UK copyright - criticism of the law 2. UK copyright - odd implications of the law 3. UK copyright - originality requirement for photographs - implications regarding photography generally, as well as photographic reproductions of artistic works - do you get a copyright in a photgraph of a painting?

4. US section - fix this up.

I can do 1-3. I am not competent to do 4. Arpitt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good list. I would add: there's also a problem with referring to "UK law". There is technically no such thing - the law of England and Wales is one thing; the law of Scotland another and the law of Northern Ireland again another. Copyright law will be similar (if not identical) but tort law (and in particular privacy) potentially very different. LeContexte (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Legality of recording by civilians

That article seems to logically be a subset of this article, and it has little material. I think a merger is best.

Also, there should be more coverage of this UK law: Counter-Terrorism Act 2008#Photographs of police officers in public places, and its use and abuse by the police and community support officers. Fences and windows (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Has this been done? If so, maybe the tag on the article can be removed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Street photography#Invasion of privacy in the United States

There should only be a summary of the issue on the page Street photography; most of the material should be worked into this article. Fences and windows (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Has this been done? If so, maybe the tag on the article can be removed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research

As I've just noted elsewhere, Photography and the law#United Kingdom is, to be frank (having just read the sources that I used to expand Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ), piss-poor, since it's really Wikipedia editors' firsthand interpretation of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (cited as the source in most cases) rather than the rather different analysis of U.K. case and statute law that is available in actual sources. This is a complex and subtle subject, and from what I've read so far, the text here is an inaccurate summary of the law. Uncle G (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From Street photography

This was suggested for a merge here from Street photography. I'm cleaning out the article of original research and how-tos, and so here's the suggested text:

“ In 1890, Samuel Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis published The Right to Privacy, which made their case for recognition of invasion of privacy as a legal tort.

Fifteen years later, in the case Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Company, a Georgia court was the first to rule on the balance between the right to privacy over freedom of the press, when it found that Mr. Pavesich had been wronged by the appearance of an unauthorized advertisement in which his photograph appeared. The court at that time ruled that commercial usage did not have the same press protections as other forms of use.

Earlier, in 1893, the case Corliss v. Walker had set the related precedent that non-commercial use, in this case an unauthorized biography, was indeed an example where press freedom's inherent public interest could not be overruled by the right to privacy. These two cases along with the aforementioned "The Right to Privacy" have become the basis for almost all US law with respect to the balance between freedom of expression and individual privacy.

In 2006, a New York trial court issued a ruling in a case involving Philip-Lorca diCorcia, who had set up elaborate strobe rigs on a New York City street corner and had photographed people walking down the street, including Emo Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew who objected on religious grounds to diCorcia's publishing in an artistic exhibition a photograph taken of him without his permission. The photo's subject argued that his privacy and religious rights had been violated by both the taking and publishing of the photograph of him. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the photograph taken of Nussenzweig on a street is art - not commerce - and therefore is protected by the First Amendment.

Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische ruled that the photo of Nussenzweig—a head shot showing him sporting a scraggly white beard, a black hat and a black coat—was art, even though the photographer sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each. The judge ruled that New York courts have "recognized that art can be sold, at least in limited editions, and still retain its artistic character. . . . First Amendment protection of art is not limited to only starving artists. A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used for trade purposes." See Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. Judge Gische's ruling was appealed by Mr. Nussenzweig.

On March 20, 2007, an appellate panel of five judges unanimously agreed with the trial court judge that the lawsuit against diCorcia should be dismissed but not because the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. See Nussenzweig v. diCorcia The judges as a group were able only to agree that the case wasn’t filed quickly enough by Mr. Nussenzweig—that the statute of limitations for filing a privacy lawsuit had run prior to the time Nussenzweig filed his lawsuit. The judges could not agree on whether the court had to decide Mr. Nussenzweig’s privacy and First Amendment claims. One of the five judges, Judge Tom, however, wrote a concurring opinion for himself and Judge Malone to express views (but not the court’s view) on the privacy and First Amendment issues.

In Judge Tom’s and Malone’s view “The sale of an individual's image in a limited edition of 10 photographic prints for an aggregate of some $240,000 is a far cry from the use of a person's likeness . . . . that Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 were enacted to redress. . . . The publication of [Mr. Nussenzweig’s] portrait in both the popular press and art media confirms that the image is "a matter of legitimate public interest to readers" so as to bring its use within the newsworthiness exception to the privacy statute. . . . Thus, the inclusion of the photograph in a catalog sold in connection with an exhibition of the artist's work does not render its use commercial, as [Mr. Nussenzweig] suggests . . . . If the image is a matter of public interest, it is immaterial whether that interest is satisfied by viewing the original in a museum, art gallery or private dwelling or by perusing a reproduction in an art magazine or other publication.”

Judge Tom also wrote “That profit may be derived from the sale of art does not diminish the constitutional protection afforded. As noted in Bery v City of New York (97 F 3d 689, 696 [2d Cir 1996], cert denied 520 US 1251 [1997]), "paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures . . . always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it, and as such are entitled to full First Amendment protection." The public expression of those ideas and concepts is fully protected by the First Amendment, irrespective of whether an artist or speaker derives income from such expression (see e.g. Riley v National Fedn. of the Blind of N. Carolina, 487 US 781, 801 [1988]; Time, Inc. v Hill, 385 US 374, 397 [1967]; Hoepker 200 F Supp 2d at 350).

Judge Tom’s opinion also disagreed with Mr. Nussenzweig’s argument “the courts must strike a balance between [one person’s] right to freedom of expression and [another’s] right to freedom of religion. . . . [and that the trial] Court's decision to withhold the protection afforded by the privacy statute amounts to state action infringing on his right to practice his religion.”

Some other restrictions on photography exist in the US, but most have to do with either commercial use of a space, such as forbidding photography inside a private building, or national security, such as restrictions on airport security areas or military installations.

”

I couldn't figure out a good way to work this in, so here it is. Do as you need with it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

References

UK copyright

I think the current text is misleading by claiming a blanket copyright of 70 years after the death of the photographer. The transitional provisions and savings of the 1988 Act states:

"Duration of copyright in existing works

12.—

(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in existingworks.

The question which provision applies to a work shall be determined by reference to the facts immediately before commencement; and expressions used in this paragraph which were defined for the purposes of the 1956 Act have the same meaning as in that Act.

(2) Copyright in the following descriptions of work continues to subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1956 Act—

...

(c) published photographs and photographs taken before 1st June 1957;"

The terms of the 1956 Act are 50 years after the end of the year of publication, or 50 years after the end of the year of death of the photographer when unpublished. Therefore any published photograph that existed on the date the 1988 Act became law - i.e. 1 August 1989 - is copyrighted for 50 years after the end of the year of publication, while any unpublished photograph taken before 1 June 1957 is copyrighted for 50 years after the end of the year of the photographer's death. It is only unpublished photographs taken from 1 June 1957 onwards that are covered by 70 years after the end of the year of the photographer's death.

In practical terms this means that any photograph published on or before 31 December 1959 is now in the public domain (1960 photographs will be protected until the end of this year, and so on), as is the work of any photographer who died before 1 June 1957 (the unpublished work of anyone dying between 1 June & 31 December 1957 will be protected until 31 December 2027, and so on). Nick Cooper (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Panoramafreiheit" article

Resolved

 – No consensus for merge over a year later.

Looks like thre right thing to do. 9carney (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This has more to do with copyright then photography and Freedom of Panorama is a term extensively used in the copyright area.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge tag and marking this no consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

ASBOs

The taking of photographs of illegal activity - such as people doing graffiti - could be argued to be encouraging that activity and so is illegal. Or at least the photographer can get an ASBO for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.66.69 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious info, needs sourcing

The section "United States", subsection "Public property", contains several unsourced statements about what is illegal where, some of which seem dubious to me. One that I know is wrong is "Photography and videography are also prohibited in the U.S. Capitol", see [1] and [2] which imply that photography is in fact allowed in the U.S. Capitol, except in the Senate/House chambers and the "Exhibition Hall". So that statement needs to be more specific. 71.231.76.242 (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but...

Just looking at the title, I would expect this article to contain, at the very least, a detailed analysis of some occasionally thorny topics: Is photography protected under U.S. law by the First Amendment, under what circumstances would a ban on photography be acceptible/proper/"right", how the internet impacts photographers and photography (e.g. a photographer publishes his/her work that is legal in his/her country on the internet, only to learn that those same photos are illegal and/or indecent in another country; should that photographer face criminal charges or other sanctions from that country?), etc. To their credit, many Wikipedians have tried to make this article into something along those lines. However, the article still reads like a personal essay, is filled with unsourced original research, and makes only a token effort to add a non-US/non-UK perspective to it. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not qualified to work on this, but it seems like the almost-two-year-old request for an expert to take a look at it isn't working. Is there any way to force the issue--like, maybe once again putting a Request for Deletion at the top of the article to determine if there is even a real need for this article to exist? Scarletsmith (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Easier to identify WP:OR and other bad bits and remove, than to supply bits that we wish were present. Deleting the whole article on any of these grounds would be silly, almost as silly as making an empty threat to do that. So, to start off, which bad bits do you think should go? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Jim, I think it’s easy to take swipes, but without meaningful comment on what’s missing, it’s hard to determine what’s in need of attention from an “expert”. Just within the US, it’s a broad issue encompassing the right to take photographs, the right to sell them under certain conditions, privacy rights of those photographed, protection of the photographer’s intellectual property, when and under what conditions permits may legally be required, and probably many others. One example that comes to mind is the seemingly ubiquitous requirement of photo contests that the photographer grant the sponsor unlimited rights of use while providing indemnity for any action, no matter how frivolous, that may arise from use of the photo.

Many of the questions, such as what is protected under the First Amendment, are unsettled. And interpretation of some laws is unclear. For example, many agencies in the US require permits for “commercial” photography without defining commercial or describing how enforcement personnel determine when the photography is “commercial”; in some cases, the laws do not even accurately reflect the original intent (see the rule for California State Parks for a specific example). The courts of course ultimately interpret such laws, but few citations are issued, charges are often dropped, and even when they are not, few photographers can justify the time, effort, and expense to seek such interpretation. An article in the Tennessee Law Review in 2010 analyzed some of these issues, and ended with more questions than answers.

I think it’s important to distinguish between material that’s WP:OR and material that’s simply unsourced. Some of the latter can of course also be the former, and as Jim said, we need to remove it when we recognize it.

The article, especially the lead, needs cleanup, but it’s not obvious where attention from a subject-matter expert is needed. Absent a better description, I’m almost inclined to remove the tag as void for vagueness. JeffConrad (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

California State Parks/US National Parks

I’ve added the citation of Title 14, § 4316 of the California Code of Regulations with some misgivings, because the law, despite its ostensible unambiguity, does not at all reflect its intent (which was to regulate large-scale, potentially disruptive activities; it is not clear that the intent was to even include still photography). Nonetheless, the law reads as it reads, most DPR staff tend to so interpret it (and few have ever seen the rulemaking history), so it probably accurately describes policy. We could include some citations of the rulemaking file (without getting too creative with interpretation), but this probably would get us into WP:OR.

The situation isn’t as unusual as it may seem; the regulations in Palo Alto, California are similarly at odds with intent stated at the commission meeting at which the regulations were adopted. I suspect investigation would find similar histories elsewhere (i.e., the authors of laws assumed that “commercial” was equivalent to “large-scale and disruptive”), but I have neither the time nor the interest in doing so, and even if I did, I’m not sure what we could do with the information. And in any event, a challenge to a law that did not reflect its intent would undoubtedly require the assistance of a judge.

Public Law 106-206, enacted in May, 2000, bars the Secretary of the Interior from requiring permits for still photography that doesn’t involve models or props, but does not mention commercial advertising, so the interpretations of “model” and “prop” remain to be seen. A new rule was proposed in 2007, but it was not issued; the NPS indicate that they still plan to issue such a rule, but don’t have a time frame. A glance at the NPS web site indicates they seem to favor the wording of Pub. L. 106-206, but as nearly as I can tell, 36 CFR 5.5(b) remains the controlling law. I don’t see what we can do except cite the authoritative sources and let the reader make the interpretation. JeffConrad (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Digitalizing copyrighted photos

The article says "As such, scanning old family photographs to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright."

I think this depends on the country. For example, in The Netherlands this wouldn't be an infringement of copyright, because you can make one copy of works of art (e.g. music, movies, photographs) for personal use. Of course, if you would distribute the copied photo, this would be a different case. Thus the country should be mentioned in the above statement. --( The previous unsigned comment was added by the user Van der Hoorn )

The above line is already in the 'United Kingdom' section. --Neil (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada

It’s good to have some information about Canada, but I think we need more reliable source, preferably citing decisional or statutory law, for the statement that Canadian police have no authority to prohibit photography in public places or to delete photos taken in public places. I don’t question the statement’s accuracy—I simply think we should have a more authoritative source than the statement of a police spokesman—that doesn’t cite any authority. I suspect such a source is readily available, but I’m not familiar with Canadian law, so I can’t be of much help. If such a source is added, the current reference could still support a statement that police readily acknowledge this limitation. JeffConrad (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Private property in the US

I’ve expanded and tried to clarify some aspects of photography on private property in the US. I’ve used a few vague words such as sometimes and many because laws vary among jurisdictions. Krages’s guide is an excellent general reference, but it simply cannot cover every state and local law and related jurisprudence. For example, entry onto private property in California without the owner’s permission is not always an offense. Moreover, California does not criminalize trespass on private property, though it leaves the option to do so open to local jurisdictions; consequently, the legal situation is determined by local law (Penal code § 602 et seq.). Complicating matters even further, the Unruh Civil rights act (Civil Code § 51 et seq.) may grant some rights of access even in the face of local trespass laws; I’m not aware of any relevant jurisprudence related to photography.

We certainly can’t deal with the general situation in this much detail, and I think to arbitrarily cover one state would be to give disproportionate weight. Perhaps we could make some mention that state and local laws vary without becoming a “how-to”, though offhand, I’m not sure how to support such a statement, except perhaps to put some of what I’ve said above in a note. JeffConrad (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor summary

The topic is too complex to be summarised in just a few lines / pages (especially on a global scale). Many specific issues have already been raised, but there are a two fundamental points that do need to be urgently addressed: this topic covers such a wide range of legal and moral issues that a single page summary cannot ever be authoritative or even form a reasonable introduction to the topic; secondly, there is no such thing as 'UK law' (already explained). Mark sted (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Crucial Point: Intention

I believe the aspect of intention may be underserved in this article and discussion (i.e. that it is legally and otherwise significantDJC (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology needs updating

This article uses the term "filming" in contexts where modern digital imaging techniques might also apply (or might not depending on the laws in question). The article should be cleaned up to indicate whether the law in question applies to any type of image recording or just film-based technologies. In other words, is it only filming that's prohibited in a given case or would videotaping or a digital motion video recording be prohibited as well? (I realize non-technical people may be use words like video, videotape, and film interchangeable without realizing they mean different things, but an article such as this needs to use correct terminology!) 64.183.245.131 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Photographing architecture etc.

Once a building is built it is part of the public realm. There is absolutely no restriction on photographing it, as the UK infringement of copyright section states. The owner can impose restrictions on photography from within their own site, but they cannot control photography from the public street, from the air etc. If that were the case Google would be in serious trouble, and Wikipedia has been campaigning against a EU proposal to bring exactly that sort of restriction into force. I'm sure the same applies to works of art displayed in a public space, certainly to public sculpture, murals etc. as for illustrating an 'out of copyright' building, pure nonsense. I hope someone has the time and confidence to revise this section. ProfDEH (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This Daily Mail article claims "The restrictions are already in place in several EU countries, such as Belgium and France, where it is illegal to publish a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night as its light installation is protected by copyright." Admittedly that regards the light installation and not the building. Are we sure that no country has a restriction on photographing public buildings? If not then I am happy to remove that from the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The section is about the UK not Europe in general, and it is definitely not illegal. Have a look at Freedom of panorama. ProfDEH (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice it was in the UK section. I've removed the info about architecture. If we have specific info as to "works of art displayed in a public space" then we can either remove that or improve the language for it.-07:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Could this article be more usefully organised?

I expected to find in this article dealing with the major (and minor) legal issues facing photographers, their subjects and the owners of property in photographs. Instead it jumps straight into the UK situation.

Admittedly the subject is huge.

For worldwide readers in English, do other editors agree that this article could be more usefully set out under headings of privacy, consent, property, security, rights to freedom expression etc. with relevant examples, and then the country-specific laws and situations?

Wiki commons already provides a table giving the legal requirement for gaining consent from photography subjects by country[3] which I will incorporate in the article.

Happy to assist with reformatting the article if others agree this is a way to go.

JamesMcArdle 06:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds as though you have a great idea about the way to proceed. Be bold, and I'll watch your back. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Lopifalko, but I have been stymied by the effort it takes to find laws relating to privacy/public photography in other countries, usually requiring laborious translation (it's no good relying just on news reports). The article Freedom of panorama provides a workable and sensible framework, with a better overview and a map which I think would be essential here. This article is of vital interest to photographers and travellers and should be a better reference than it currently is, but I am afraid it's going to require input from editors from each country mentioned, providing citations from legislation of each that are currently mostly absent.Jamesmcardle^(talk) 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A wishy-washy article

Sorry, but this article doesn't IMHO even begin to really tackle the subject. There are other, very important aspects of the legality of photography in various jurisdictions, which seem here to be almost ignored. To cite the USA and the UK, and then a selection of diverse other countries, focussing on the (no doubt very important) rights of individual privacy seems to me to be missing the point - there used to be, and I'm sure there still are, countries where the photographing of specific, for most westerners totally innocuous subjects (railways, industrial facilities, government buildings) could land the photographer in jail, or worse. Maelli (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Terminology

Okay, so in the US legal issues section because it is stating, “in many places it is illegal to film the private parts without their permission.” First off, I believe the legal term is genitalia, so let’s not sugarcoat it. Second of all, it isn’t just illegal is most it is illegal in all areas of the US to film someone’s gentialia without their consent, it is common knowledge, I will edit, but if anyone believes otherwise feel free to revert my edits Erfson (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Inserting table "Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place (by country)" would be useful, but...

The table on WM Commons "Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place (by country)" would be very helpful to insert into this article. However, copying the markup and inserting it does not bring up the table - does anyone know how to do this? I'm stumped! Thank you Jamesmcardle^(talk) 00:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Use/Publication of Pictures

The article seems to cover taking photographs in the United States pretty well but, if publication was addressed I couldn't find it. If taking the photograph is legal does that automatically mean publication is legal? If so, I suggest that fact be stated in the article. If the laws are different for publishing photographs than for taking photographs this needs to be explained. foobar (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

These questions have now become part of a dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_August_24#24_August_2019 foobar (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)