Commons:Country specific consent requirements

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:CSCR

This is part of the policy Photographs of identifiable people.

In a number of countries consent is needed for just taking a photograph of one or more identifiable people, to publish it and/or to use it commercially even if the person is in a public place. The following is a list of countries where consent is needed for one or more of the mentioned situations.
This list is incomplete: Just because a country isn't listed here, it does not reflect a fact that everyone is free to take/publish/commercially use pictures of people in public spaces in that country.

Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place (by country)
Country Take a picture Publish a picture Commercially1 use a published picture
Afghanistan No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Argentina No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Australia No (with exceptions) No (with exceptions) Yes
Austria No No (with exceptions) Yes
Belgium No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Brazil Yes Yes Yes
Canada Depends on province Yes (with exceptions) Yes
China No No Yes
Czech Republic Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Denmark No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Ethiopia No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Finland No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
France Yes (with exceptions) Yes Yes
Germany Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Greece No for journalism/editorial publication (Greek Constitution Article 14 "right to report"), or Yes with exceptions when the EU privacy law applies and is not counterbalanced by other laws (freedom of the press, freedom of the arts, freedom of speech, public places etc) No for journalism/editorial publication (Greek Constitution Article 14 "right to report"), or Yes with exceptions when the EU privacy law applies and is not counterbalanced by other laws (freedom of the press, freedom of the arts, freedom of speech, public places etc) Yes (with exceptions) when the EU privacy law applies and is not counterbalanced by other laws (freedom of the press, freedom of the arts, freedom of speech, public places etc)
Hungary Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
India No No (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Israel No Yes Yes
Italy No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Japan Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Libya No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Mexico No Yes Yes
Netherlands No No (with exceptions) No (with exceptions)
Norway No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Peru No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Poland No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Portugal No (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Russian Federation No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Slovakia Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Slovenia No No Yes
Spain Yes Yes Yes
Sweden No No Yes
Switzerland Yes Yes Yes
United Kingdom Depends on circumstances Depends on circumstances Depends on circumstances
United States No No Usually (although laws differ by state)
1: In this context "commercial use" is purely {{personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletion

Afghanistan[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (per above)
Per the Law Supporting the Rights of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers[1] article 38 (1) "[a] Person who takes photographs, films, portraits or records voice of a Person shall be prohibited from publishing, displaying or distributing the original or copy of picture, film or voice record of the said person".
Some exceptions lie in the same article, mainly if the photo is taken during a public event (1), related to public figures (1), of world known celebrities (1), or authorized by the public authorities (1) or the said person itself (2).

Argentina[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details and exceptions below)
Publication of personal photographs without consent is considered violation of privacy by the Argentine law. It is explicitly mentioned as a civil infraction in the Civil Code[2].
The Argentine Copyright Law (Law 11.723)[3] gives the following rules for commercial use of images of people:
A portrait photograph of a person may not be placed in commerce without their explicit consent or authorization. This consent can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity. Publication shall be free only for scientific, teaching or general cultural purposes or where it is related to facts or events of public interest or which have taken place in public.

Australia[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with some exceptions)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with some exceptions, see below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

It is generally OK to take photos of people in public without obtaining permission. "There is also currently no tort of invasion of privacy in Australia, but in ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) the High Court did not exclude the possibility that a tort of unjustified invasion of privacy may be established in the future. Based on this view, the Queensland District Court found in Grosse v Purvis (2003) that a tort of invasion of privacy had been made out on the facts and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, this case concerned a long history of harassment over many years and has limited application. As a result, taking photographs of people in public places is generally permitted."[4]

Exceptions might arise in cases where certain acts are done in what is technically public space, but "where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy" (eg a secluded part of a public beach): "it is an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment to photograph a person to provide sexual arousal or gratification if the person is undressed or engaged in a private act in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, and he or she has not consented to being filmed. A private act includes using the toilet, bathing and engaging in sexual activities not ordinarily done in public."[4]

More generally, subjects can prevent publication of "clearly degrading" photographs: "Injunctions can be obtained to halt the publication of photographs if the images are indecent, offensive or otherwise demean the subjects in them (Lincoln Hunt Australia v. Willesee (1986) 4 NSWLR 456 at p.464). The depiction has to be clearly degrading though, merely saying you were "embarrassed" or "uncomfortable" will be laughed out of court - Donnelly v Amalgamated TV Services (1998) NSWSC 509."[5]

The state of Queensland has legislation explicitly prohibiting recording of "private acts" in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy: Queensland Criminal Code S227A - Observations or recordings in breach of privacy. Such "circumstances" may arise either from the subject being in a private place (S227A(1)(b)(i)) or from the subject "engaging in a private act and the observation or visual recording is made for the purpose of observing or visually recording a private act" (S227A(1)(b)(ii)). "Private acts" are defined by the Queensland Supreme and District Courts Benchbook.[6] The Code includes as an example A person changing in a communal change room at a swimming pool may expect to be observed by another person who is also changing in the room but may not expect to be visually recorded.

Austria[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not normally require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not in principle require consent, though in many cases it does (see explanation below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
According to the Austrian Copyright Law[7][8] it is illegal to publish or distribute any picture taken of a person without permission if their legitimate interests are affected. Although you may be legally entitled to publish the picture if the person is not shown in a private situation and the picture is not used in a misleading or derogatory context or for publicity purposes, this would be illegal if the person successfully claims violation of their legitimate interests[9]. Therefore it is strongly recommended[10][11] to obtain permission from the person depicted in the photograph, unless their appearance is merely accidental and not incriminating or it is a Person des öffentlichen Lebens (public figure). It is not allowed to publish or distribute pictures which could reveal intimate life details or private information without interest for the public even if the photo was taken in a public space and shows people well known in the public sphere (e. g. Minister kissing a lady at the airport[11]).
In 2013, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) ruled that under certain circumstances, even just taking photos of people can violate their general personality rights. In that case, a person took a photo of a lawyer visiting their house and, when asked to explain the reason, responded that they took the photo "for amusement" (zur Belustigung). The court ruling did however affirm that cases where a person's presence on the photo is merely incidental can be considered differently.

Belgium[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[12] (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Referring to article 8 (privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights the Belgian Courts assume that no specific damage or prejudice has to be suffered in order to be entitled to object to the publication of one's own recognizable image.[13]
All acts of reproduction or communication to the public of a portrait without prior consent are considered illegal.
Article 10 of the Belgian Copyright act implies not the right to prevent beeing photographed.
Belgian jurisdiction and doctrine have recognized that public figures have to accept the publication of their image if the photograph is not taken in private circumstances and if the publication has no commercial purposes (e. g. advertising, merchandising).[14]
Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event.[15][13]
There are special rules and official recommendations if minors are involved.[13]

Brazil[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see explanation below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Article 5, sections V and X, of the Brazilian Constitution states that the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages to the image is ensured.[16][17]
The Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 deals with this matter in article 20 which has to be interpreted in the light of article 12 of the same codification[18] and the generally accepted doctrine, legalized by case law that specifically recognizes the image right as an autonomous personality right. This means, the right to own image is protected as such: Just taking someone's photo without his or her permission (in private or public space) can violate their image right and gives them a right to compensation for moral damage. Of course copying, reproducing, transfering, distributing, publishing or commercializing such a picture are illegal and anti-constitutional acts. Simultaneous prejudice to honour or reputation is not necessary. If the image is commercially exploited or used in a derogatory way, this will only aggrave the situation, but it is not a requirement for infraction complaint.[19][20]
Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[21]
  • public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life),
  • people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),
  • people related to news events of public interest (only if necessary and reasonably justified and if the reported facts are true).
Once taken or published lawfully without obtaining the permission from the person depicted, it is not allowed to re-use or publish the same picture again at a later time or in another context without consent.
The consent to publish or use a picture can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity.

Canada[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: ?
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Yes (with exceptions)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Yes

Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. established "that under Quebec law a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject." Exceptions include (i) a person of public interest (ii) an unknown person who is implicated in a public matter (iii) persons included incidentally.[22]

Whilst the Aubry case was decided under Quebec law, it was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court's approach in the case is generally thought to give guidance on Canadian legal views on these matters more generally.[23] For example, the court explicitly rejected the US legal approach in which a "socially useful purpose" can support publication of a photograph without subject consent.[24] British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan also have privacy legislation giving individuals the right to sue for privacy breaches; in other provinces, common law protection may apply.[25] In addition, the the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) provides privacy protection which requires consent for the taking or publication of photographs for commercial purposes.[25] "For all activities, whether commercial in nature or not, provincial and common law privacy protections limit the distribution of photographs. Distributing an identifiable image of a person without consent is likely to violate one or more of these privacy laws."[25]

China[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

According to the Chinese Civil Law Article 100[26] photos of regular people may not be used for profit (commercially) without consent.

Czech Republic[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent if the person is identifiable (with exceptions for legal official use, scientific use, artistic use and news reporting).
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions as per above; if the person consented to have his/her picture taken in context from which it was obvious the picture will be distributed, the consent for distribution under expectable conditions is presumed).
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions as per above).
The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated by the Civil Code no. 89/2012 Coll., Articles 84 to 90.[27]
No consent for taking and using pictures of a person is needed to protect or exercise other rights. Also, the consent is not needed for legal official purposes, or for images of public appearances in matters of public interest. (Art. 88)
Exception is granted also for appropriate use for scientific or artistic purposes and for press, radio, television, or similar news reporting. (Art. 89)
No exception may be used to disproportionately invade the person’s rights. (Art. 90)
Any consent given may be revoked at any time. (Art. 87 (1)) In that case, the subject may be liable for damages caused by the revocation. (Art. 87 (2))

Denmark[edit]

See also {{Denmark no consent}}
  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions) (see definition below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions) (as per above)

Although there is no specific law granting such right, court practice gives certain amount of protection to the right to own image.[14]. The governmental Danish Data Protection Agency, has made a declaration regarding publication on the Internet of pictures taken of persons in a public area[28]:

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

A portrait photograph is defined as a photograph, with the purpose of depicting one or more specific person(s).[28]

The exceptions is traditional (non-internet) news-media-distributions (TV and newspapers) as well as in a context with "distinctly expessions of opinions and subjective judgements [that demands the publics attention]".[29]

Ethiopia[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[30] (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Reproduction of the image does not require consent:[31]
  • for celebreties and politically exposed persons (public figures).[32]
  • for scientific, cultural or educational purposes.
  • for facts of public interest, public events and celebrations.[33]

Finland[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent in many cases
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent, if the use is promotional

There is no specific law about photographing people or publishing the images; some of the issues are very vaguely regulated.

Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent. Offices, factories etcetera and fenced yards of these are not regarded as public space, even when visible from outside, but are less protected than areas defined as private (homes, tents, private yards, dressing rooms etcetera).

Publishing pictures of a person in a public space may require consent, unless the person clearly is not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic. Photos of people who are of public interest (famous politicians, artists, sportsmen) and who are carrying out their public duties or going about their usual work may be published without consent.

An image of an identifiable person may not be used for promotion (in advertisements or similar), even if not identifiable for a stranger. Commercial use is not different from non-commercial use, neither in such cases nor otherwise.

France[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see explanation below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Article 9 of French Civil Code states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private life”.[34]
This is generally considered to include one's right to the own image, even if it is taken in a public space.[35][36]
According to case law and legal doctrine, photographs taken of (one or more) individuals require authorisation.[37] Just taking someone's photo without consent (in private or public space) can be considered as an invasion of privacy and gives them the right to claim for cessation of the wrongful conduct. Everyone is legally protected from unauthorised distribution, publication or commercialisation of a picture of himself. The permission has to be interpreted in a strict way (only to the extent expressly consented to by the subject).[36]
It is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[36]
  • public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life)[38],
  • people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals),
  • people who are present in a public location (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),
  • people related to news events of public interest or public information purposes.
Although it is usually considered to be superior, the right to one's privacy and own image is also not absolute and shall be balanced especially with the right to freedom of expression.[39] This can be of certain relevance for professional photographers and artists.[40]
There are special rules and criminal sanctions if minors are involved.[35][41]

Germany[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not normally require consent if done by individuals for personal use only. Collection, storage, processing and distribution by org, corp or public authorities is subject to data protection laws and requires consent with very few exceptions.
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[42], unless it is a Person der Zeitgeschichte (public figure)[43] (see other minor exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Apart from the already mentioned there is a small number of additional exceptions to the above statement.
Publishing or propagating the image does not normally require consent:
  • Picture of a landscape or locality where the person is an insignificant or coincidental element (Beiwerk).
  • Picture of a public assembly/convention, parade or similar event that includes a person (non-prominently).
  • If distribution or exhibition serves a higher artistic interest.
Also in these cases, it is not allowed to publish or distribute the picture without permission if this may affect the subject's legitimate interests.[43]

Greece[edit]

Greek case law regarding producing and publishing photography from a public place of police stations and identifiable faces of arrested defendants who are suspected of crimes when the defendant is a police officer: http://www.synigoros.gr/resources/docs/porisma_dimosiographos.pdf

According to the Greek Ombudsman, who cites a report by the DPA numbered 67/2002: "the journalistic research regarding the person who was arrested and the reporting of the press is protected by the freedom of the press clause of Article 14 of the Greek Constitution and it is irrelevant to the above reasosing" where "above reasoning" is: "the police forces are restricted in their publication of personal data of the arrested persons because these personal data are considered sensitive personal data based on the Article 2, Sentence B of the law 2472/1997 and therefore the processing of these data is governed by the Article 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence E, Case BB of the above law."

The Greek Constitutition (and the European ECHR European Convention on Human Rights) (As well as the United Nations documents on Human Rights) gives individuals the right to freedom of speech (freedom to transmit information and freedom to receive information), including the rights to report, freedom of the press, freedom of the arts (which is editorial use), etc. Individuals have a right to privacy which is cancelled when the freedoms to transmit and receive information are exercised in public places or with the consent. In practice, how an image is used and under what circumstances it was produced determines whether the Greek Constitution and the ECHR or the privacy law should come in more power. Journalistic and editorial use is irrelevant to the privacy law per the decision 67/2002 of the DPA.

According to Greek law regarding the "right to report" and freedom of speech, there is no restriction on the taking or publication of photographs of identifiable people in public places. Journalists and television regularly show identifiable people in the street without their consent.

However, the European Union has forced Greece to pass privacy laws, albeit those laws do not have an effect in public places or do not apply to photography there are many cases in which lawyers have attempted to use these privacy laws to force publishers destroy copies of books or newspapers or take money out of them.

The two laws of the "right to report" and "privacy" are in conflict. The constitution of Greece contains a clause that supports freedom of speech and the "right to personality development". Photographers have succesfully used the law of the "right to personality development" to publish their photographs and the Ombudsman of Greece has agreed that taking and publishing photographs is an act of "personality development" since the photographer-artist-journalist expresses his or her personality by exercising their freedom of speech by photography and publication, and they also develop their artistic or journalistic personalities in the same way. As such, the European Union privacy laws have been declared to be in conflict with the Greek Constitution regarding the "right to personality development".

The following is incomplete information and does not take into the "right to report", freedom of speech, and "right to personality development" laws and the Constitution of Greece:

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent if the judge decides that the privacy law applies. Does not require consent if the judge decides that the privacy law doesn't apply or is superseded by other laws. Does not require consent when done for reasons protected by the Article 14 of the Greek Constitution such as the journalistic freedom of the press According to DPA 67/2002 and the Greek Ombudsman report. Otherwise taking a photo or video of someone or drawing them in a painting may constitute an illegal act by itself according to Article 57 of the Greek Civil Code (57 ΑΚ, 57 Αστικός Κώδικας) even without any publication of the resulting photo, video or drawing when this production and use of the "image" of a person is not protected by other laws. The law assumes that consent has been provided silently if the depicted person has been paid for the photography session. The law also provides some exceptions for persons of contemporary history.[44] Furthermore, the law 2472/1997 also applies in many circumstances, even in photographing political rallies in public places or in photographing the police; Greece also requires photographers to obtain a government permit before photographing people participating in political protests in public places.[45]
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent if the judge decides that the privacy law applies. Does not require consent if the judge decides that the privacy law doesn't apply or is superseded by other laws. Does not require consent when done for reasons protected by the Article 14 of the Greek Constitution such as the journalistic freedom of the press According to DPA 67/2002 and the Greek Ombudsman report. Requires consent.[44] The publication of photographs of identifiable police officers beating civilians in public places may be against the law 2472/1997 and as such these images should be turned to the authorities for review.[45] The previous sentence regarding photos of policepersons beating civilians is wrong as per the 67/2002
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent.[44] (there was a case law regarding advertisement in which it was shown some cases may not require consent but it's not clear, search for the case of the political party which used the photos of people in its advertisement)

Case law regarding the application of the personal data privacy law of 1997 to published lists of alleged rich tax evaders: Journalist acquitted of charges of privacy breach: journalistic/editorial use of information, especially when in the public interest, is not a breach of privacy law. The same legal principles can be applied to photography, especially photography important in the public political discourse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20172516

Essay containing info about the boundaries of the right to privacy: The individual doesn't have an absolute right to privacy, if the individual has chosen to put himself in a social environment or position which is, for example, dominant or public, the rights of others (e.g. freedom of the press) are greater than the right to privacy. This is very relevant to public figures. Someone at a public event full of photographers and the press should expect no privacy and they know it before they decide to participate in the public event, e.g. as actors, dancers, speakers or audience.

According to the essay: The law 366 GPC says that the law of defamation doesn't apply if the statement is true. The same law recognizes that there is no intrusion of privacy when the private fact is related to public activities. Such a law would be relevant, for example, if a police officer beats someone inside a home during a search warrant search. An example described in the essay is that the press is allowed to expose private facts that prove someone who says an opinion in public contradicts his private life, e.g. someone protesting nudism in public while being a secretive nudist in private cannot expect privacy protections from the law if journalists discover his private nudism and expose him.

Hungary[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)
In Hungary, the right to the own image is guaranteed by the Civil code: the 1959. évi IV. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről[46] (until 2014.03.14.) and the 2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről[47] (from 2014.03.15.).
According to the law above, “It is required the consent of the person for taking or publishing of the image [or voice record] of a person”.
Exceptions:
  • public figures performing in their public functions or activities (not in private life),
  • people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals).

Israel[edit]

Hebrew and English

Italy[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[48] (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent:[49]
  • for celebreties and politically exposed persons (public figures).[50]
  • for public events or celebrations.[51]
  • for scientific, educational or cultural purposes.
In all of these cases, it is not allowed to publish or use images that may “harm the honour or reputation or also the public image of the depicted person”.

India[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with exceptions)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

In general you are free to take pictures for private use of other people in public areas under the Constitution of India (CoI) article 19, however publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.[52]

Japan[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

There is no law in Japan that formally defines "right of portrait", "right of publicity", or other related rights. However, with reference to Article XIII of the Constitution of Japan, a ruling by the Supreme Court has stated:

"Any person possesses the freedom to not have his/her feature or figure (hereafter 'feature etc.') photographed without his/her consent, as one of the freedoms guaranteed for the individual's personal life.
個人の私生活上の自由の一つとして、何人も、その承諾なしに、みだりにその容ぼう・姿態(以下「容ぼう等」という。)を撮影されない自由を有する"
Kyoto Fugakuren IncidentKeishu Vol. 23, No. 125 at 1625 (Supreme Court of Japan Grand Bench 1969)

This ruling deferred to name this right "the right of portrait (肖像権)", but this right is generally regarded as its Japanese equivalent.

According to an article by the Japan Professional Photographers Society,[53] the exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court is as follows:

  • The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
  • The content and method of expression is not unjust.

If and only if these two conditions are met, the feature etc. of an individual may be photographed or published without the person's consent. If a photograph is to be published or is made public in any way, the photographer must inform the subject the exact manner and purpose to publish and obtain explicit permission.[53] Other precedents have been compiled by H. Kawarazaki, Esq. and is cited here for reference.[54]

Libya[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968), Article 36:

A photographer may not show, publish or distribute a photograph unless the people depicted in the photograph have consented, unless the photograph is of a public event or of officials or persons enjoying public renown, or the public authorities have given permission for its publication for the general welfare. Notwithstanding the preceding, no photograph may be shown or circulated if doing so would result in detriment to the honour, reputation or social standing of the person depicted in the photograph.

Mexico[edit]

Information is available at the Personality rights in Mexico wiki entry at the University of Edinburgh Law School

Netherlands[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: May require consent (see explanation below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: May require consent (as per above)
Dutch law has a particular approach to the image right of the person portrayed (so called portretrecht or “portrait right”) which differs from most other countries.[55] The “portrait right” is seen as part, or derived from the author's (copy)right (auteursrechten). Therefore, there is no legal way to object to being photographed (provided there is no other violation of privacy[56]. In this context, Dutch courts apply the concept of “public figure”, who usually is expected to accept more public interest than others[57] since the image right of the person depicted does not exist before the picture is captured.
Articles 19-20 of the Dutch Copyright Act grant property-like protection to persons who have been portrayed on photos or other depictions, especially if they have commissioned their own portrait. If a portrait is made without having been commissioned by or on behalf of the person(s) portrayed, article 21 of the Dutch Copyright Act allows individuals to prevent the use (openbaarmaking, “disclosure”) of their portrait, if “a reasonable interest” to do so can be established.[58] In principle, it does not matter whether the photo was taken in a public or private space and whether there was a permission or consent to be photographed or not. The “reasonable interest” claimed as opposed to the publication (openbaarmaking) of the picture has to be balanced by the judge against the rights and interests invoked by the defendant, like press freedom or freedom of expression. Besides misuse, undesired advertising or damage to reputation, reasonable interests may be privacy concerns[56], but also commercial interests of the subject in order to merchandise his or her own picture by him or herself.[55]

Norway[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Article 45c[59] of the Norwegian Copyright Act states that photographs of a person may not be reproduced or shown publicly without consent of the person depicted, except
  • when the picture is of interest to the general public
  • when the picture of the person is less important than the main object of the photography
  • when the person in the picture is part of an assembly or parade in public or in events of interest to the general public
This protection applies during a person's lifetime and for 15 years after the year of their death.
Even if these exceptions are met, it is still illegal to publicize a photography if the photography is defamatory, derogatory, demeaning or in any other way tramples on the dignity or honor of the depicted.[60]
Consent given for publication only applies in its specific context. That is to say that if a person has allowed publication of their depiction in a newspaper article for instance, that does not mean they have given consent for that picture to be reproduced anywhere else.

Peru[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (unless for public figures acting in public)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details below)
The Constitution of Peru of 1993 is one of the few (besides Spain and Brazil) which explicitly mentions a fundamental right to own image (Article 2.7).[61]
In Article 15 of Peruvian Civil Code of 1984 the use of a person's image and voice is regulated as follows:
The profitable use[62] of a person's image or voice is not allowed without their explicit authorization (...). This consent is not required, if the use of the image or voice is justified by the notoriety of the person or their official position, facts of general importance or public interest, or scientific, educational or cultural purposes; neither is it required if the use of the image is related to facts or events of general interest celebrated in public. These exceptions do not apply where the use of the image or voice attempts against the affected person's honour, prestige or reputation.
As seen above, current civil law still uses the term “profitable use” (aprovechamiento[62]). Relevant post-1993 case law, as well, deals mainly with commercial image use like undesired advertising[63] etc., or defamation cases[64][65].
However, the constitutional Legislator made clear his intention to protect the right to the own image as such, not for commercial use only and without requiring to prove prejudice to honour or reputation (see Debates of Constitutional Commission[66]). Therefore, possible constitutional problems with applying civil law should lead us to assume that consent is required by Peruvian law for any reproduction or distribution of a person's picture, unless the exceptions mentioned above are present (particularly if it is a public figure acting in public). This is supported by Peruvian legal doctrine[67] and case law[64][63].

Poland[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[68] (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Publishing or using a picture of a person who has been payed to sit for their portrait: Does not require consent[68]
The Polish Civil Code mentions the right to the image as a personality right protected by civil law.[69]
Exceptions from the consent requirement are named in the Copyright Law[68]
“2. Consent is not required in the case of the publishing of the image:
1) of a commonly known person [public figure], if the picture was taken in connection with the exercise of their public function, in particular political, social, professional,
2) of a person, when he or she constitutes a part of a whole as in a gathering, landscape or public event.”
According to case law, “subsequent publications do not require consent (provided there was a consent to the first publication) provided that the original source is specified and no changes have been made.”[70]

Portugal[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (unless the subject expressly refuses to be photographed)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[71] (see exceptions below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
According to Article 79(2) of the Portuguese Civil Code, publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent:
  • for celebreties and politically exposed persons (public figures).[72]
  • for scientific, educational or cultural purposes.
  • for images of public locations or related to facts of public interest.[73]
In all of these cases, it is not allowed to publish or use images that may “harm the honour or reputation or simply the public image of the depicted person” (Article 79(3)).
Due to Portuguese criminal law regulation concerning privacy it is illegal to take a picture of a person who opposes to being photographed.[74][75]

Russian Federation[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent if such image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the the state's, society's or other public interest.
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent if such image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the the state's, society's or other public interest.
  • Publishing or using a picture of a person who has been payed to sit for their portrait: Does not require consent

The law makes no exceptions with regard to pictures of officials or persons enjoying public renown, consent is required even in that case. See Art. 152-1 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation (as added by the Federal Law № 231-FZ of Dec. 18, 2006). However, consent is not required if the image is used in the state's, society's or other public interest. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the term "public interest" was clarified:

"

Article 152 of the civil code of the Russian Federation specifies that the publication and further use of the image of a citizen is allowed only with consent from the citizen. Such consent is not needed in particular when the image is used in state, social or other public interests.

The term public interest should not refer to any interest of the public but rather to the need of the society to reveal and expose the threat posed to the democratic state governed by the rule of the law, civil society, public safety and environment.

The courts should distinguish between the information on facts (even the disputable ones) that positively influence the discussion of the matters concerning for example the execution of the duty of the officials and public figures in the society and the information on the details of the private life of a person not engaged in any public activity. Whilst in the former case the mass media perform the civil duty informing the citizens on the matters of public interest, in the latter case, however, they play no such role.

"

Slovakia[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not requires consent (with exceptions)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not requires consent (with exceptions)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Does not requires consent (with exceptions as per above)
The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated in the Constitution of Slovakia, the Criminal Code and the Civil Code. In resume: [57]
A person whose personal rights have been violated unjustifiably according to art. 13 of the Civil Code shall be able to request that the said violation be terminated and the consequences originating therefrom be eliminated, in order to obtain appropriate satisfaction. In those cases in which such satisfaction is insufficient, because the dignity and social standing of the affected person have been considerably diminished, the affected person may apply for compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

In general a consent isn't required, but if the depicted person feels that his/hers personal rights have been violated by having his/her photograph taken and/or published and/or commercially used may sue for infringement of basic human rights for privacy (thus a basic level of privacy is to be expected on public streets).

Spain[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see definition below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
In Spain, the right to the own image is guaranteed by Constitution (Sections 18.1 and 20.4).[76]
Civil law deals with this subject in the context of privacy legislation (Fundamental Law No. 1/1982).[77]
According to section 7.5 of the above law[78], “the taking, reproducing or publishing of the image of a person captured by photography or filming or any other means in places or moments of private life or outside these” is considered to be an “illegal intromission in private life”, unless in some specific cases. The same applies under section 7.6 of the mentioned law to the illegitimate “use of the name, the voice or the image of a person for publicity, commercial or similar purposes.”
The exceptions to the above statement are the following:
  • There is no illegal intromission:
    • In case of explicit consent of the concerned person (section 2.2).[79]
    • In case of predominant and relevant historical, scientific or cultural interests (section 8.1).
  • It is allowed to capture, reproduce and publish a picture without permission if the person depicted is a public figure[80] and the picture is taken in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody (section 8.2.a).[81]
  • It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).
Later commercial re-use of previously published news pictures or public figures' images (lawfully released without permission) is not allowed without the consent of the person(s) affected (see Sentence 231/88 of the Spanish Constitutional Court, dealing with the death of the star matador Paquirri).[82]
Special rules apply to minors and incapacitated persons. If they are under a legal disability, written consent from a legal representative is to be obtained in order to capture or publish or use their picture, and shall be submitted to the local Public Prosecutor's Office for approvement (section 3 of the above law).

Other regulations: Section 491.2 of the Spanish Penal Code penalizes the use of the image of the King or any of his ancestors or descendents, the Prince or Princess Consort, the Crown Prince, the Regent or any Member of the Regency in any way that can damage the prestige of the Crown.

Sweden[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent ([83]#5, see below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent ([84], see below)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent ([83]#3a, see below)

Taking a picture of a person in a public place is allowed as a general rule. Places exempt from this rule are courts of law or security-classed places. Publishing a picture of a person is generally allowed, as long as no abuse of personal integrity is involved. Within a journalistic framework (in a publication with a publisher accusable by law) even more freedom is allowed. Commercial use (i.e. in advertising) of a picture of a person taken in a public place will always require consent.[85]

Switzerland[edit]

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent[86] (see explanation below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Swiss civil law contains a general clause for protection of personality rights, which may be restricted only with the consent of the person affected.[86] This applies to the right to the own image, even if a picture is taken in a public space. In principle, any unauthorized picture which aims to depict the person as such is considered an infringement of personality rights (according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Court). Therefore, just taking a person's photograph is an offensive act and consent must be obtained from any person recognizably depicted as an individual, unless their appearance is merely accidental and has nothing to do with the purpose of the image. Consent can be given expressly (either written or verbal) or implied through actions. It is generally recognized by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied for pictures of public figures, at least when performing their public functions or activities (not necessarily also in private situations). Consent is also implied for people consciously and voluntarily exposed to the public in some kind of public event. As an exception, predominant and mostly public interests (e. g. public information, science) will allow an unauthorized picture to be admitted.[87]
The Swiss personality right to privacy does not protect financial interests. Therefore it makes no difference in terms of the right to one's own image if a picture is used commercially or in a non-profitable way.

United Kingdom[edit]

this section is a work in progress: draft for discussion, editing, improvement
  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: ?
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: ?
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: ?

Where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, taking and publishing of photographs without consent is likely to be an invasion of privacy,[88] unless there is a clear public interest at stake. This follows in large part from balancing Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act, which must be done on the merits of each case. Whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a difficult issue, and not simply a matter of public or private space. "It is not possible to draw a distinction in principle between, on the one hand, engaging in activity which is clearly part of a person's private recreation time intended to be enjoyed in the company of family and friends, and on the other, routine acts such as a walk down a street, a ride on a bus or a visit to the grocers to buy milk. It all depends on the circumstances."[89] An exemplary case is Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (2004), where a public figure was photographed outside a drug rehabilitation clinic.

A "reasonable expectation of privacy" may therefore apply even in public spaces, particularly for children: a UK court has held that a child's right to privacy was infringed when photographed on a public street together with his parents.[90] Another recent court case "upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there."[91] Beyond expectation of privacy, however, recent cases establish privacy rights for behaviour in public places that the subject does not want others to know about.

In addition, it has been established that even public figures can have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". "Stars like Michael Douglas and Princess Caroline of Monaco have established in Court that everyone, however famous, has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that photos of them in their private life should not be published unless there is a legitimate public interest in doing so. This does not just mean that they are entitled to privacy when they are in private places such as their home. It also extends to behaviour they would not want others to know about."[92] Examples include Von Hannover v Germany[93] (Princess Caroline), Douglas v Hello! Ltd (2005, Michael Douglas), Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (2004) and POI v The Person Known as “Lina” (2011).[94]

A decision by the ECHR suggests the mere taking of a photograph may also infringe privacy, but most cases involve publication so this area is less clear.[90]

Photography at public events is likely acceptable without subject consent.[90]

References[edit]

  1. World Intellectual Property Organization: Law Supporting the Rights of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers of Afghanistan
  2. Article 1071-bis of the Civil Code of Argentina: “He who arbitrarily interferes in someone else's life by publishing portrait pictures and correspondence, (...) will be forced to cease such activities, if he had not previously done so; and to pay the damages duly stipulated by the judge, according to circumstances. (...)”
  3. Ley de propiedad intelectual (Ley 11.723) (See Article 31)
  4. a b artslaw.com.au, Street photographer’s rights
  5. http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Your_right_to_take_photographs
  6. "Private act, for a person, means – (a) showering or bathing; or (b) using a toilet; or (c) another activity when the person is in a state of undress; or (d) intimate sexual activity that is not ordinarily done in public (s207A) “State of undress” for a person means – (a) the person is naked or the person’s genital or anal region is bare or, if the person is female, the person’s breasts are bare; or (b) the person is wearing only underwear; or (c) the person is wearing only some outer garments so that some of the person’s underwear is not covered by an outer garment (s20)" http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86174/sd-bb-131a-1-observations-or-recording-s-227a-1.pdf
  7. Austrian Copyright Law, section 78
  8. Legal comment and case-law referring to this rule
  9. See reference article: Simon Mair, Dürfen Bilder von Personen ohne deren Zustimmung in der Öffentlichkeit dargestellt werden?. Vienna, Austria, July 2009
  10. See information leaflet for professional photographers by Rechtsschutzverband der österreichischen Berufsfotografen (RSV)
  11. a b See reference article: Dr. Anderl, Mag. Grama, Vorsicht bei Veröffentlichung von Event-Fotos. Vienna, Austria, July 2008
  12. Article 10 of the Belgian Copyright Law of 30 June 1994: "Ni l'auteur, ni le propriétaire d'un portrait, ni tout autre possesseur ou détenteur d'un portrait n'a le droit de le reproduire ou de le communiquer au public sans l'assentiment de la personne représentée (...)". English paraphrase by Peggy Valcke and Eva Lievens (Media Law in Belgium. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands, 2011, page 65): “According to this article an author or owner of a portrait as well as any other person who has a portrait in his possession, does not have the right to reproduce it nor distribute it to the public without the consent of the person portrayed (...)”.
  13. a b c Legal information about image right provided at the official site of the Commune d'Ixelles, a municipality of the Brussels-Capital Region.
  14. a b See Questionaire concerning Legal Protection of a Person's Image, published in Internet by the International Federation of Journalists.
  15. See reference article by Marc Isgour: Dutroux a-t-il un droit à l'image ? published at DroitBelge.Net in April 2004 (dealing with image rights based on the example of Marc Dutroux)
  16. See English text of the Constitution of Brazil of 1988.
  17. Short overview in English language: Legal Information by Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance GALA (Summary of Brazilian Copyright Law, see page 2 - "Image Rights").
  18. English translations are given in Intellectual Property Rights in Brazil by Pinheiro Neto Advogados lawyers' office, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasília (See page 41-42 - "The Right to Image and Other Personality Rights").
  19. See Sentence RE nº 215.984-1-RJ of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court of 4-6-2002, referenced e.g. by Thiago Pacheco Cavalcanti: Direito fundamental à imagem: tutela jurídica e os seus limites. Caruaru, Brazil, September 2010 (Search for the word "ANEXO")
  20. The obvious contradiction to the rule provided by article 20 of Civil Code is resolved by observing the general prevalence of the right of privacy and publicity over press and artistic freedom and freedom of expression, applying reasonable criteria for weighing and evaluation of each case. (See W. Vendrusculo, cited below, page 113-119)
  21. For more details, see also: Weslei Vendrusculo: Direito à própria imagem e sua proteção jurídica. Curitiba, Brazil, 2008 (exhaustive juridical exposition) and Gustavo Henrique Schneider Nunes: O direito à liberdade de expressão e direito à imagem. Marília, Brazil, 2007
  22. Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc.
  23. "the tone of the Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue made it clear that the justices saw the issue as being broader than just the specific legislation..." http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/internet-law/legal-rights-in-a-photograph/
  24. Eric Swetsky, The Use of a Person's Photograph Without Their Consent, Marketing Magazine, August 1998
  25. a b c cippc.ca, COPYRIGHT AND PRIVACY IN PHOTOGRAPHY
  26. Chinese Civil Law article 100, Also here in English (search for Article 100): “The use of a citizen's portrait for profits without his consent shall be prohibited.”
  27. Czech Civil Code no. 89/2012 Coll.
  28. a b Datatilsynet: Billeder på internettet (in Danish)
  29. Kommentar til Datatilsynets afgørelse i Skælskørsagen (in Danish)
  30. The Ethiopian Civil Code states in Article 27 as a principle: “The photograph or the image of a person may not be exhibited in a public place nor reproduced nor offered for sale without the consent of such person”. (See reference link below)
  31. See Article 28. For all citations from the Ethiopian Civil Code see reference article by Fikadu Asfaw The Right to Privacy According To Ethiopian Law, published in February 2010 at Ethiopian Law Blog.
  32. Under Article 28 of the Ethiopian Civil Code the consent of the person concerned shall not be required “where the reproduction of his image is justified by the notoriety of such person or by the public office which he occupied.”
  33. “... where the reproduction of the image is made in connection with facts, events or ceremonies of public interest or which have taken place in public”, this means, not only if the person is depicted on the occasion.
  34. “Chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée”. (Art. 9 of French Civil Code)
  35. a b The right of one's own image in France (in French by French Wikipedia)
  36. a b c Le droit à l'image (French legal information site)
  37. See French case law regarding image rights (English summaries), esp. the case Brigitte Bardot/Beaverbrook, sentenced by Tribunal Grand Instance Seine in 1965.
  38. See French case law, case: Michel Leeb, sentenced by the French Supreme Court in 1990.
  39. See fr:Liberté d'expression in French Wikipedia.
  40. French comment on the Sentence of the Paris Court of Appeal of 5th November 2008 in the case of an artist's photograph of a perfectly recognizable person sitting on a public bench with her dog, titled “To Loose One's Head”.
  41. See French case law, see case: Miss X/Atlas, sentenced by the French Supreme Court in 1990.
  42. Section 22 of the German Artists' Copyright Act (KUG). The first sentence of the ruling provides: “Pictures are only allowed to be distributed or shown in public with the consent of the person depicted.”
  43. a b Section 23 of the KUG
  44. a b c http://greeklaws.com/pubs/uploads/2795.pdf
  45. a b http://elawyer.blogspot.gr/2009/12/blog-post_8090.html
  46. Civil code – Article 80.
  47. New civil code
  48. Italian's Copyright Law (Law 633/1941) provides in its Article 96: “The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent.”
  49. For all further citations see Article 97 of the Italian Copyright Law
  50. Under Article 97 of the Italian Copyright Law the consent of the person concerned shall not be required “where the reproduction of the image is justified by the notoriety [of the person] or the public functions performed.”
  51. “... if reproduction of the portrait is related to acts, events or ceremonies of public interest or performed in public spaces”, this means, not only if the person is depicted on the occasion.
  52. (2006-11). "Protection of celebrity rights - The Problems and the Solutions" (PDF). Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 11: 415-423. Retrieved on 2011-09-01.
  53. a b Yukio Kitamura, 肖像権・撮る側の問題点 ~二つの顔・プライバシー権とパブリシティ権~ (Portrait Rights: The Problem on the Photographer Side – Two Faces: Privacy and Publicity), Japan Professional Photographers Society 127, pp. 30–31
  54. Hiroshi Kawarazaki (2012-04-25), Infringement of Right of Portrait (肖像権の侵害)
  55. a b For more details, see the linked article on Dutch Wikipedia (in Dutch) or have a look at Chapter 11 (page 17-18) of the Report of the Netherlands ALAI Group on Copyright and Freedom of Expression (2006) in English language.
  56. a b Article 10 of the Dutch Constitution of 1983 recognises the right of everyone on respect for privacy. As an example, Dutch civil case law considered infringement of privacy the “picture of a couple walking arm in arm through park published by magazine”, objected by one of the depicted individuals (TORT Collection of Case Law and Legislation concerning Privacy, 2006. See Page 13.)
  57. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ec.europa
  58. See Dutch Copyright Act (English Translation)
  59. Article 45c of the Norwegian Copyright Act
  60. Article 390 of the Norwegian Penal Code
  61. Official English translation published by the Peruvian Congress: “Every person has the right: (...) 7. to his honor and reputation, to personal and family privacy as well as to his own voice and image.”
  62. a b Spanish term: aprovechamiento, in German this would be Verwertung.
  63. a b See Sentence 2162-97 of Lima Cassation Court, cited in: Raúl Chanamé Orbe: Hábeas Data y el Derecho Fundamental a la intimidad de la persona. Lima, Peru, May 2003 (this work deals with data protection and privacy in Peruvian post-1993 legislation), page 69-72.
  64. a b Sentence of Peruvian Constitutional Court 0446-2002-AA/TC from December 19, 2003
  65. Action for defamation (Mufarech case) invoking the constitutional right to image in 2010 (in a case of caricature)
  66. “En cuanto a la voz y la imagen, como rasgos distintivos de la persona, se reconoce la facultad de todo ser humano de disponer de su imagen y voz libremente, así como impedir su reproducción, empleo o exhibición sin su previo asentamiento. Si bien no se requiere de este asentamiento tratándose de personajes públicos sobre actividades de interés público o general, en el caso de particular este asentimiento es indispensable, aunque su honor no esté siendo vulnerado.” Taken from the Diary of Debates of Constitutional Commission of 25th January 1993 (cited from [1]). English translation: The right of ervery human being to prevent reproduction, use and exhibition of their image without previous consent is recognized. Although this consent is not required for public figures dealing with events of general or public interest, consent is indispensable for regular, private people, even if no harm to their honour and reputation is done by the picture.
  67. Enrique Bernales Ballesteros (La constitución de 1993. Análisis Comparado. 2nd Ed., Lima, Peru, October 1996, p. 107.) cites Francesco Messineo stating: “La propia imagen es protegida porque identifica al titular como ser humano; consecuentemente, éste tiene el derecho de prohibir su reproducción.” (“The own image is protected because it identifies its owner as a human being; therefore the owner is entitled to prevent the reproduction thereof.”) Citation taken from Dyrán Jorge Linares Rebaza: Acciones de Cobranza y Derechos Fundamentales. (search for "2. DERECHO A LA IMAGEN").
  68. a b c The Polish Copyright Law (prawo autorskie ustawa) provides in its article 81: “1. The publishing of an image requires the consent of the person represented on it. Unless explicitly provided otherwise, the consent is not required if the person obtained an agreed payment for posing.” (Translation from: TORT Collection of Case Law and Legislation concerning Privacy, 2006. See Page 19.)
  69. Article 23 of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny): “A man’s personal goods notably his health, liberty, reputation, freedom of conscience, family name, pseudonym, image, privacy of correspondence, inviolability of home and scientific, artistic, inventive or rationalising achievement, shall be protected by civil law independently of the civil protection contemplated by other provisions.” (Translation by: Z. Negbi, in: Dominik Lasok (Ed.), Polish Civil Law: The Polish Civil Code. Leyden, 1975)
  70. Holding cited from page 16 of the TORT Collection. This does not justify commercial re-use whithout specific consent for that purpose (see the case cited immediately before, on the same page).
  71. Article 79(1) of the Portuguese Civil Code provides: “The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent (...).”
  72. “The consent of the person concerned shall not be required where the reproduction of the image is justified by their notoriety or public functions performed (...).”
  73. “(...) if reproduction of the image is embedded in a picture of public locations or related to facts of public interest or performed in public spaces.”
  74. Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code provides: “Unlawful recording and photographing. 1. One who, without consent, a) records another person's words not intended for public knowledge (...) is punished with prison up to one year or a fine (...). 2. The same penalty applies to whom, against their will, a) photographs or films another person, even taking part in events in which their presence is lawful; or b) uses or permits to use such photographs or films, even if obtained lawfully.”
  75. In 2007, there was a case of a hobby photographer arrested by the police just for taking photos of kids at a funfair (they thought him to be a pedophile). Although the police justified this measure by claiming the missing parental consent to take photographs of their children, there is a general consensus among legal practitioners that the police was not acting legally. In this context, Marinho Pinto (today Bastonário of the Portuguese Bar Association) pointed out that “the only case it is not allowed to take photos is when there is an explicit refusal by the affected individuals. One has to actively oppose to beeing photographed by another person,” he said, referring to Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code.
  76. See the English text of Spanish Constitution of 1978 published by the Spanish Congress of Deputies.
  77. Ley Orgánica 1/1982, de 5 de mayo, de Protección Civil del Derecho al Honor, a la Intimidad Personal y Familiar y a la Propia Imagen (Fundamental Law of 5th May 1982 regarding Civil Law Protection of the right to honour, to personal and familiar intimacy and to the own image)
  78. See Spanish text under the given link.
  79. This consent can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity (section 2.3 of the above law).
  80. Legally defined as “persons who have been entrusted with a public function or who have a publicly known profession or notability”.
  81. Recent jurisprudence tends to restrict the admitted cases to those where public figures are participating in official acts or public events (considering ECHR judgment in the case Von Hannover vs. Germany). See reference article: Ana Maria Castro Castro, Is it permissible to publicly display photographs of individuals without their consent? Santiago de Compostela, Spain, August 2009
  82. See reference article: Gisela María Pérez Fuentes, Evolución doctrinal, legislativa y jurisprudencial de los derechos de la personalidad y el daño moral en España. Mexico City, August 2004 (Search for "Paquirri"). The Spanish Sentence is also extensively analized and cited in: Raúl Chanamé Orbe: Hábeas Data y el Derecho Fundamental a la intimidad de la persona. Lima, Peru, May 2003, page 50-56.
  83. a b "Tio frågor om lag och rätt". Sfoto.se. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
  84. "Publicering på Internet". Datainspektionen.se. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
  85. "Lag (1978:800) om namn och bild i reklam". Riksdagen.se. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
  86. a b Article 28 of Swiss Civil Code states: “Everyone whose personality is being harmed unlawfully is entitled to protect himself by suing anyone in court who participates in the harmful act. A harmful act against personality is unlawful if not justified by consent of the harmed person or by predominant private or public interest or by Law”.
  87. See Swiss answers in IFJ Questionaire concerning Legal Protection of a Person's Image.
  88. Technically the UK has no right to privacy. However the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to changes in this area: "many legal commentators have observed that the influence of Article 8 of the Convention has caused the courts in the UK to broaden the scope of the cause of action for breach of confidence. In its broader form – now referred to as “misuse of private information” – this cause of action might be said to be coming close to conferring a right to privacy." findlaw.co.uk, Right to privacy
  89. Hugh Tomlinson QC, 26 April 2011, Privacy law: what's the way ahead?
  90. a b c UK Photographers Rights v2
  91. http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking
  92. Nicola Solomon, 14 May 2008, PRIVACY LAWS ARE SNAPPING AT PHOTOGRAPHERS' HEELS
  93. The Human Rights Act puts the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, which means ECHR cases are relevant guidance.
  94. http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/caselaw-poi-v-the-person-known-as-lina-anonymity-and-blackmail/