Can Someone Take a Picture of Me Without My Consent at Work

Legal status of photography, including intellectual property and privacy laws

A "No Photography" sign, commonly placed in properties where taking photographs is illegal or objected to past the owner (though in some jurisdictions, this is not a legal requirement)

The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted past civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

Reactions to photography differ betwixt societies, and fifty-fifty where there are no official restrictions in that location may be objections to photographing people or places. Reactions may range from complaints to violence for photography which is not illegal.

Australia [edit]

General [edit]

Australia'south laws in relation to this thing are like to that of the United states of america.^[1] In Australia you lot can by and large photograph annihilation or anyone in a public place without permission assuming that it isn't being used in an otherwise illegal way such as defamation and does not comprise copyrighted textile.^{[ clarification needed ]} Furthermore photographing in a place where people would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy such as in a public restroom may likewise be illegal.^[1]

Private property [edit]

While ane tin mostly photograph private property and the people inside it if the photographer is not within the premises of the private property and cannot be asked to end or delete the images, the owner can restrict recording whilst the photographer is on the private belongings.^{[ commendation needed ]} Failure to comply with orders to terminate recording on the individual property is not a criminal offence although information technology may be confronting the terms or policy of archway and the photographer may exist asked to go out; if they refuse to leave, they may exist liable for trespassing.^{[ citation needed ]}

Publishing and rights [edit]

The photographer more often than not has full rights of the images meaning they tin can too publish it to something similar social media without permission from the people in the epitome. Although there are exceptions in the post-obit scenarios.

• A breach of the Privacy human action 1988
• Was taken while trespassing on private property^{[ citation needed ]}
• A alienation of duty, such as sharing confidential information^[two]

A photographer tin can generally also non be forced to prove or delete the images unless the photographic practices were at breach of the law.^[3]

Commercial purposes [edit]

If you are seeking to photograph for commercial purposes you may be required to gain permission from anyone who was involved in the moving picture or photograph. Commercial purposes usually means that you are photographing for financial gain or to promote goods or services.^[4]

Uk [edit]

Legal restrictions on photography [edit]

Mass photo gathering in the United kingdom.

Mass photo gathering in the UK.

In the United Kingdom there are no laws forbidding photography of individual property from a public place.^[v] Photography is not restricted on land if the landowner has given permission to be on the land or the photographer has legal right to access, for example Byways Open to All Traffic or a public right of fashion or an area of open access land. The Metropolitan Police force state in their own advice "Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photo in public places and police accept no power to terminate them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel". The IAC, Film and Video Institute recommends that 1 follows instruction given by police as there may be a reason/reasons for not filming, ignorance of said constabulary(s) notwithstanding.^[6] An exception is an surface area that has prohibitions detailed within anti terrorism legislation. Civil proceeding can exist taken if a person is filmed without consent, and privacy laws be to protect a person where they tin expect privacy.^{[7] [8]} Two public locations in the Uk, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, accept a specific provision confronting photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor^{[9] [10]} or the Squares' Management Team and paying a fee,^[11] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Regal Parks^[12] or on any National Trust land.^[xiii]

Persistent and aggressive photography of a unmarried individual may come up under the legal definition of harassment.^[14]

It is contempt of court to have a photograph in any court of law of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building or the precincts of the court.^[fifteen] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.^{[sixteen] [17]} The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to foreclose the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in depression brow "moving picture papers".^[18]

Photography of sure discipline affair is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of children under 18, or what looks like pornography of under-18s. In that location is no police force prohibiting photographing children in public spaces.

Anti-terrorism law [edit]

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a fellow member of the military machine, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind probable to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. In that location is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse; however, the burden of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO in 2009 cited Department 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to forestall a member of the public photographing him. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.^[xix] However, in January 2010 the terminate-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Courtroom of Human being Rights.

While the Act does non prohibit photography, critics have alleged that powers granted to police under Section 44 have been misused to foreclose lawful public photography.^[20] Notable instances have included the investigation of a schoolboy,^[21] a Member of Parliament^[22] and a BBC photographer.^{[23] [24]} The scope of these powers has since been reduced, and guidance effectually them issued to discourage their use in relation to photography, following litigation in the European Court of Human being Rights.^[25]

Following a prolonged entrada, including a series of demonstrations past photographers dealt with by police officers and PCSOs, the Metropolitan Law was forced to effect updated legal advice which confirms that "Members of the public and the media practice not demand a allow to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to terminate them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel" and that "The ability to stop and search someone nether Section 44 of the Terrorism Deed 2000 no longer exists."^[26]

It is an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to accept a photograph of a kind probable to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable alibi. This offence (and possibly, only not necessarily the s. 58(a) offence) covers just a photograph as described in due south. two(iii)(b) of the Terrorism Human activity 2006. Equally such, it must be of a kind probable to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an deed of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to wait at the surrounding circumstances. The photo must contain data of such a nature every bit to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an human action of terrorism. Information technology must phone call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist human activity. The defence force may evidence a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the committee or preparation of an act of terrorism, fifty-fifty if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.^[27]

Copyright [edit]

Copyright tin can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an prototype is produced or from which an epitome by whatsoever means be produced, and which is not function of a moving picture.^[28] Whilst photographs are classified equally creative works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on creative merit.^[28] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer – the person who creates information technology,^[29] by default.^[thirty] However, where a photograph is taken past an employee in the course of employment, the first possessor of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the reverse.^[31]

Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the lensman from direct copying of his/her piece of work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his/her work, where a substantial part of his/her work has been copied.

Copyright in a photograph lasts for seventy years from the finish of the year in which the photographer dies.^[32] A issue of this lengthy catamenia of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market place value, simply significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, fifty-fifty when the original photographer cannot exist traced (a trouble known every bit copyright orphan), has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, information technology will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to re-create them.^[33] When someone dies the rights will have transferred to someone else, perhaps through testamentary deposition (a volition) or past inheritance. If there was no will, or if the photographer has not specified where the rights in the material should get, then the normal rules of inheritance will utilise (although these rules are non specific to copyright and legal advice should be sought).^[34] Scanning erstwhile family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal employ is prima facie an infringement of copyright.

Certain photographs may not be protected past copyright. Section 171(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Human action 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public involvement. For case, patent diagrams are held to be in the public domain, and are thus non subject to copyright.

Infringement [edit]

"No photographs" sticker. Designed for persons at conferences who exercise not want whatsoever digital likeness of them taken, including video, photography, audio, etc.

Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph tin can be performed through copying the photograph. This is considering the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph.^[35] For at that place to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial role of the photograph.^[36] A photograph tin besides exist a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in some other work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic piece of work, such every bit a sculpture, painting or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works.

However, the field of study thing of a photograph is non necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records example,^{[37] [38]} a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an anthology cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A lensman from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the paper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself – it was too temporary to be a collage, and could non be categorised every bit any other form of creative work.

Richard Arnold has criticized the protection of photographs in this manner on two grounds.^[39] Firstly, information technology is argued that photographs should not exist protected as creative works, merely should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of form as a event of a photo being taken.^{[n ane]} It is argued that protection of photographs every bit artistic works is dissonant, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, information technology is more similar to a film, or sound, recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann described photography every bit an art of disclosure, equally opposed to an fine art of inclusion.^[40] Secondly, information technology is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results.^[39] Subject area matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject field matter of a photograph is protected fifty-fifty when it is non deserving of protection. For copyright to subsist in photographs equally artistic works, the photographs must exist original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgment.^[39] That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. Substantially, past this, Arnold is arguing that whilst the subject matter of some photographs may deserve protection, it is inappropriate for the police force to presume that the subject matter of all photographs is deserving of protection.

It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, volition be subject to copyright.^[41] It is probable that a photograph (including a browse – digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional creative work, such equally another photograph or a painting volition besides exist subject to copyright if a significant corporeality of skill, labour and judgment went into its creation.^[42]

Photography and privacy [edit]

A right to privacy came into existence in UK law equally a upshot of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic constabulary through the Human being Rights Human action 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.^{[43] [44] [45] [46] [47]}

Whether this correct is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a thing of some controversy.^[48] The right to privacy is protected past Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Commodity 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public involvement in balancing the rights through the legal examination of proportionality.^[45]

A very limited statutory correct to privacy exists in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Human action 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a lensman to photo their wedding. The commissioner,^[49] irrespective of whatsoever copyright which he does or does not agree in the photograph,^[49] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photo, has the correct not to have copies of the work issued to the public,^[50] the work exhibited in public^[51] or the piece of work communicated to the public.^[52] Nonetheless, this correct will not exist infringed if the rightholder gives permission. Information technology will non be infringed if the photo is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast.^[53]

Usa [edit]

Local, land, and national laws govern still and motion photography. Laws vary betwixt jurisdictions, and what is not illegal in ane identify may be illegal in another. Typical laws in the United States are as follows:

Public property [edit]

• It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, within reasonable community standards.^[54]
• Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by a specific law or statute.^[55]

Individual belongings [edit]

• Photography may exist prohibited or restricted by a property owner on their property. However, a holding possessor mostly cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are non within the premises of the property.^[54]
• Photography on private property that is generally open to the public (eastward.1000., a shopping mall) is usually permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs. Even if no such signs are posted, the property owner or agent tin ask a person to stop photographing, and if the person refuses to do so, the owner or agent tin ask the person to get out; in some jurisdictions, a person who refuses to leave can be arrested for criminal trespass, and many jurisdictions recognize the mutual-police correct to apply reasonable force to remove a trespasser; a person who forcibly resists a lawful removal may be liable for battery, set on, or both.^[56]

Outer space [edit]

• Remote sensing of the earth from outer infinite is regulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which requires that a license be issued in advance.^[57]

Privacy issues [edit]

• Photographing individual belongings from within the public domain is not illegal, with the exception of an area that is more often than not regarded as private, such equally a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room.^[54] In some states there is no definition of "individual," in which case, there is a general expectation of privacy.^[58] Should the subjects non attempt to conceal their individual affairs, their actions immediately become public to a photographer using normal photographic equipment.^{[ citation needed ]}
• In the U.s., there are multiple laws prohibiting photographing a person'southward ballocks without that person'southward permission. This likewise applies to any filming of another within a public restroom or locker room. Some jurisdictions take banned the use of a telephone with camera functionality inside a restroom or locker room in order to forbid this. The United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally capture an individual's genitalia without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy.^[59] State laws have too been passed addressing this issue.^[60]

Commercial photography [edit]

• In sure locations, such as California State Parks, commercial photography requires a permit and sometimes proof of insurance.^{[61] [62]} In places such every bit the city of Hermosa Beach in California, commercial photography on both public property and private property is subject to allow regulations and possibly besides insurance requirements.^[63]
• At the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, commercial photography requires a permit under certain circumstances.^[64] For photography that involves the advertising of a commercial product or service, or photography that involves sets or props or models, a let is required.^[64] In addition, if the photography has aspects that may be disruptive to others, such as additional equipment or a meaning number of personnel or the employ of public areas for more than four hours, information technology is necessary to obtain a permit.^[64] If a photographer or related personnel need to admission an area during a time when the surface area is normally closed, or if access to a restricted surface area is involved, the photography requires a permit.^[64] For commercial portrait photographers, there is a streamlined procedure for photography permits.^[64] In the case of National Park arrangement units, commercial filming or audio recording requires a permit and liability insurance.^[65] Still photography that uses models or props for the purpose of commercial advertising requires a permit and proof of insurance.^{[65] [66]}
• If a photograph shows private belongings in such a fashion that a viewer of the photograph can identify the owner of the property, the ASMP (American Order of Media Photographers, Inc.) recommends that a property release should be used if the photo is to be used for advertising or commercial purposes.^[67] According to the ASMP, a property release may be a requirement in such a situation.^[67]

Other bug [edit]

• Photographing blow scenes and law enforcement activities is usually legal.^[54] At the same time, one must not hinder the operations of law enforcement, medical, emergency, or security personnel by filming.
• Whatsoever filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm confronting a subject may be a violation of the police in itself.

Canada [edit]

Federal legislation governs the questions of copyright and criminal offences with respect to photography. Otherwise, the common law (except, in the case of Quebec, the Civil Code of Quebec), generally determines when photography tin take place.

• The Copyright Act provides that the duration of copyright for a photograph is the life of the author plus 50 years.^[68] Freedom of panorama is likewise allowed, with respect to photographs of sculptures and architectural works,^[69] and there is likewise protection for those who "incidentally and not deliberately include a piece of work or other subject-affair in another work or other subject-matter."^[70]
• The Criminal Code provides for penalization of various offences, including voyeurism,^[71] child pornography,^[72] trespassing at night,^[73] and paparazzi behaviour.^[74]
• The law of defamation, trespass and privacy is governed at the provincial level.

• The common-law provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Saskatchewan take enacted privacy legislation dealing with personality rights,^[75] which supplement the law of trespass.
• In Quebec, the Civil Code goes further by specifying that "keeping ... private life under ascertainment by any means" constitutes an additional footing of invasion of privacy. In Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, the Supreme Courtroom of Canada held that, because of that, supplemented by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms privacy provisions, a photographer can take photographs in public places simply may not publish them unless permission has been obtained from the bailiwick, except where the field of study appears in an incidental manner, or whose professional success depends on public opinion.^[76]

Hong Kong [edit]

A sign declaring "No Phototaking" inside a Hong Kong public library

In some public belongings endemic by government, such as police force courts,^[77] government buildings, libraries, civic centres ^{[78] [79]} and some of the museums in Hong Kong, photography is non allowed without permission from the government. It is illegal to equip or have photographs and recording in a place of public entertainment, such as cinemas and indoor theaters.^{[80] [81]}

In private holding, photography may be prohibited or restricted past a holding owner on their property.^{[ citation needed ]}

Photography on private property that is generally open up to the public (eastward.g., a shopping mall) is ordinarily permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs. Even if no such signs are posted, the belongings owner or agent can ask a person to stop photographing, and if the person refuses to do so, the owner or agent tin ask the person to exit; in some jurisdictions, a person who refuses to leave can be arrested for criminal trespass, and many jurisdictions recognize the common-law right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser; a person who forcibly resists a lawful removal may exist liable for battery, assail, or both.^{[ citation needed ]}

Republic of hungary [edit]

In Hungary, from 15 March 2022 when the long-awaited Civil Code was published, the law re-stated what had been normal practice, namely, that a person had the correct to refuse being photographed. However, implied consent exists: it is not illegal to photo a person who does not actively object.^{[82] [83]}

Iceland [edit]

Calling oneself a photographer, in line with most other trades in Iceland, requires the person to hold a Journeyman's or Master's Certificates in the manufacture. Exceptions can exist made in low population areas, or for people coming from within the EEA.^[84]

Macau [edit]

In Macau, a lensman must not accept or publish any photographs of a person confronting his/her will without legal justification, fifty-fifty in a public identify. Too, everyone has a correct to Personality Rights.^{[ citation needed ]} People are not to be photographed, photographs of them displayed or reproduced without their prior consent.^{[ commendation needed ]} Criminal penalties include imprisonment.^[85] Additionally, photography of constabulary officers in Macau is illegal.^[86]

Mexico [edit]

Mexican law is similar to the law in the United states of america. Authorities may intimidate or prevent any holder of a photographic camera if they come up into close perimeters of Government buildings.^{[ citation needed ]}

Philippines [edit]

There has been a controversy amid Filipino photographers and establishment managements. On June 12, 2013, Philippine Independence Day, pro-photography group, Bawal Mag-Shoot dito, launched at the Freedom to Shoot Day protest at Rizal Park. The group protested for their right to take photos of historical and public places, especially in Luneta and Intramuros. The park direction imposed a fee for D-SLR photographers to shoot images for commercial purposes merely it was too reported that security guards also accuse 500 pesos to shoot photos even for not-commercial purposes, an act which the advocacy group branded equally "extortion". The group also claimed that there is discrimination against Filipino photographers and claimed that the direction is lenient on foreign photographers. In that location is no official policy on taking photographs of historical places and the group has chosen legislators to create a law on the thing.^[87]

The National Parks Development Committee (NPDC) issued rules in 2022 aimed at regulating photography and videography at both Rizal and Paco Parks, after an incident wherein filmmaker Chris Cahilig and boy band i:43 were intercepted by the personnel of Rizal Park for declining to secure permission from NPDC earlier doing a video session. While casual snapshots for personal or souvenir purposes through mobile phones and simple cameras are tolerated, prior permission is required for photography and videography of the parks for commercial, professional, reporting, interviewing, and special occasion purposes, equally well as sessions that may cause disruption at the parks. Additionally, consent from the National Historical Committee of the Philippines (NHCP) is necessary for shoots involving both the Rizal Monument and the Philippine Flag. Cahilig reacted to the policy, calling it "anti-tourism" and "astern".^[88]

Due south Africa [edit]

In South Africa photographing people in public is legal.^[89] Reproducing and selling photographs of people is legal for editorial and limited fair use commercial purposes. At that place exists no instance police to define what the limits on commercial employ are. Ceremonious law requires the consent of any identifiable persons for advertorial and promotional purposes. Belongings, including animals, practise not savor any special consideration.

During the media coverage of the Nkandla controversy it emerged that there exists a law, the National Cardinal Points Act, 1980, prohibiting the photographing of any "national central points." National key points are buildings or structures that serve a strategic or military purpose. Though it wasn't revealed what these are as function of state secrecy it was claimed that the presidential residence is one of them and should thus not be shown in media. Subsequent court action resulted in information technology being ruled that a list of all key points be fabricated public. Although not currently or previously enforced the law is still in result even after calls for it to be repealed as a relic of apartheid-era secrecy legislation.^[ninety]

Kingdom of spain [edit]

Taking pictures or recording law officers is legal, what is a serious offence to share or publish those images if:

1. they could put at risk the police officers and their families from harassment
2. they could put at run a risk a planned police force performance
3. taken at a strategic or classified facilities.

If none of the iii mentioned cases utilise, it is only legal to share those images if the faces, voices and any identity signs are removed.

Sudan and S Sudan [edit]

Travelers who wish to take any photographs must obtain a photography permit from the Ministry of Interior, Department of Aliens (Sudan)^[91] or Ministry of Information (South Sudan).^[92]

Meet as well [edit]

• Freedom of panorama
• Google Street View privacy concerns
• Paradigm copyright (Federal republic of germany)
• Legality of recording by civilians
• Ballot selfie
• Model release
• Public domain

Notes [edit]

1. ^ Illustrated in the Norowzian v Arks instance. In this case, it was noted that the copyright in a film would be infringed only though photographic copying of a substantial function, as opposed to mere recreation of the pic. It was, nonetheless, too held that a pic could be protected by copyright both as a film and every bit a dramatic work, provided, of form, that it fulfilled the requirements of protection of a dramatic work, on the facts. The claimant, was eventually unsuccessful. It was held that whilst the film in question in fact had copyright subsist in it both as a picture show and as a dramatic work, this copyright was not infringed, because at that place was no copying of a substantial part.

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} "Photography and the law – when is it illegal to accept a photo? - Criminal Law - Australia". www.mondaq.com . Retrieved 2020-10-30 .
2. ^ "Arts Police : Information Sheet : Street photographer's rights". Arts Law . Retrieved 2019-03-18 .
3. ^ "Know y'all rights - Shooting in public - Capture magazine". www.capturemag.com.au . Retrieved 2019-03-19 .
4. ^ "Is Information technology Legal To Film In Public Places?". LawPath. 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2019-03-18 .
5. ^ "Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK - the police and photography". www.urban75.org . Retrieved 2017-01-xix .
6. ^ [Members of the public and the media practice not need a let to film or photo in public places and police have no ability to end them filming or photographing incidents or constabulary personnel. "Met Police Photography advice"]. Met Police force. Met Law. Retrieved one October 2019.
7. ^ "Enquire The Law". Police National Legal Database. Police National Legal Database. Retrieved 1 October 2019.
8. ^ Trotter, Andrew. "Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" (PDF). IAC. IAC. Retrieved 1 Oct 2019.
9. ^ "Trafalgar Foursquare Byelaws 2012" (PDF). Greater London Authorisation Human action 1999, Department 385(one). Greater London Authorisation. 2012. Retrieved 2018-01-23 .
10. ^ "Parliament Square Garden Byelaws 2012" (PDF). Greater London Authority. Retrieved 2018-01-23 .
11. ^ http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/fine art-culture/trafalgar-square/managing-trafalgar-square/filming-trafalgar-square/application-process Application process
12. ^ "Commercial filming and photography". The Regal Parks. Retrieved 2016-10-19 .
13. ^ "Photographic access". National Trust. Retrieved 2019-03-09 .
14. ^ Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.Thou – The UK Photographers Rights Guide
15. ^ Criminal Justice Deed 1925 (c.86) s.41
16. ^ Mobile courtroom photo sentence upheld – news.bbc.co.uk
17. ^ Regina v Vincent D No. 2004/01739/A7 [2004] EWCA Crim 1271
18. ^ Rubin, G. "Seddon, Dell and rock n' curlicue: investigating alleged breaches of the ban on publishing photographs taken within courts or their precincts, 1925–1967" Crim. L.R. 874
19. ^ Cosgrove, Sarah (14 April 2009). "Man questioned nether terrorism law after taking picture of police automobile in park". Enfield Independent . Retrieved 2009-04-22 .
20. ^ Geoghegan, Tom (2008-04-17). "Innocent photographer or terrorist?". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-11-xxx .
21. ^ "Terrorism Human activity: Photography fears spark police response". Amateur Photographer Magazine. 2008-10-thirty. Archived from the original on 2015-07-13. Retrieved 2015-07-02 .
22. ^ "Tory MP stopped and searched by police for taking photos of bicycle path". Daily Telegraph. 2009-01-06. Archived from the original on 2009-02-23. Retrieved 2009-xi-thirty .
23. ^ Davenport, Justin (2009-11-27). "BBC human in terror quiz for photographing St Paul's sunset". London: Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2009-11-xxx. Retrieved 2009-11-30 .
24. ^ "BBC homo in terror quiz for photographing St Paul's dusk - News - London Evening Standard". 2012-10-23. Archived from the original on 2012-10-23.
25. ^ "Department 44 Terrorism Act". Freedom. Archived from the original on 2014-07-07. Retrieved 2014-06-23 .
26. ^ "Photography advice". Metropolitan Police Service . Retrieved 10 August 2016.
27. ^ R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185
28. ^ ^{a b} Copyright, Designs and Patents Human action 1988 s 1(ane)(a) and due south 4(2)
29. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Deed 1988 southward 9(one)
30. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 11(1)
31. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s xi(three)
32. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 south 12
33. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Deed 1988 s xvi(2)
34. ^ "Locating a copyright owner". Intellectual Property Office.
35. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Deed 1988 s sixteen(1)
36. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Human action 1988 s16(3)
37. ^ Creation Records Ltd five News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444 (Ch)
38. ^ Lambert, Jane (February 2000). "Example Notation: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers". IP/IT-Update. NIPC. Archived from the original on 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2009-05-09 .
39. ^ ^{a b c} Richard Arnold, "Copyright in Photographs: A Case for Reform" [2005] European Intellectual Property Review 303
40. ^ Reichmann, Michael. "The Fine art of Photography". The Luminous Landscape. Retrieved 2009-05-09 .
41. ^ "Antiquesportfolio.com plc v Rodney Fitch & Co Ltd". Pinsent Masons. Retrieved 2009-05-09 .
42. ^ Encounter Sawkins v Hyperion Records [2005] EWCA Civ 565 at [79]-[84]
43. ^ Human being Rights Deed 1998 sections 2 & iii
44. ^ Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1, Part 1, Commodity 8
45. ^ ^{a b} Mosley 5 News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
46. ^ Campbell 5 Mirror Grouping Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
47. ^ Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446
48. ^ J. Morgan, "Privacy in the House of Lords, Once again" (2004), 120 Police Quarterly Review 563, 565
49. ^ ^{a b} Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s two
50. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Human action 1988 due south 85(one)a
51. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 85(1)a Paragraph B
52. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Human activity 1988 southward 85(ane)a Paragraph C
53. ^ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 85(ii)(a)
54. ^ ^{a b c d} Krages Ii, Bert P. "The Photographer's Right" (PDF) . Retrieved 2009-06-17 .
55. ^ "Photo Policy for Print and Online Publication" (PDF).
56. ^ Krages, Bert P. (2007). Legal Handbook for Photographers (second ed.). Buffalo, NY: Amherst Media. ISBN978-1-58428-194-8 . Retrieved 2011-06-21 .
57. ^ "Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Diplomacy". The NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Information, and Information Service (NESDIS). NOAA. 2018-03-23. Retrieved 2018-03-31 . It is unlawful for whatever person who is subject field to the jurisdiction or control of the United States, directly or through any subsidiary or affiliate to operate a private remote sensing space organization without possession of a valid license issued nether the Act and the regulations.
58. ^ Wright, Brittany. 2015. "Big Brother Watching Female parent Nature: Conservation Drones and Their International and Domestic Privacy Implications." Vermont Journal of Ecology Law17(1):138–59. Retrieved March 4, 2022 tr(https://www.jstor.org/stable/vermjenvilaw.17.1.138).
59. ^ "South. 1301 [108th]: Video Voyeurism Prevention Deed of 2004". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2009-02-27 .
60. ^ "Video Voyeurism Laws". The National Centre for Victims of Criminal offense. Retrieved 2009-05-27 .
61. ^ California Code of Regulations, Title fourteen, Department 4316, Commercial Filming. Retrieved 2010-12-18.
62. ^ "Definition of Commercial Filming Projects". State of California. Retrieved 2009-03-03 .
63. ^ "Film Permit Policy and Awarding -- Metropolis of Hermosa Beach, CA". City of Hermosa Beach. Retrieved 2009-03-03 .
64. ^ ^{a b c d east} "Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park – Commercial Photography Information (U.South. National Park Service)". National Park Service. Retrieved 2009-05-27 .
65. ^ ^{a b} "NPS Digest- Commercial Filming and Still Photography Permits". National Park Service. Retrieved 2009-05-27 .
66. ^ Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Section 5.5(b), Commercial photography. Retrieved 2010-12-18.
67. ^ ^{a b} "ASMP: Property and Model Release Tutorial". American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. Retrieved 2009-03-09 .
68. ^ Copyright Deed, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 6
69. ^ Copyright Deed, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, due south. 32.2(1)
70. ^ Copyright Act, R.Southward.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. thirty.7
71. ^ "s. 162,". Criminal Lawmaking (Canada).
72. ^ "due south. 163.i,". Criminal Code (Canada).
73. ^ "due south. 177,". Criminal Lawmaking (Canada).
74. ^ "s. 264,". Criminal Code (Canada).
75. ^ Conroy, Amy One thousand. (2012). "Protecting Your Personality Rights in Canada: A Matter of Property or Privacy?". Western Journal of Legal Studies. University of Western Ontario. 1 (1): three.
76. ^ Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, 1998 CanLII 817 at par. 55–59, [1998] 1 SCR 591 (9 April 1998)
77. ^ "Hong Kong due east-Legislation". world wide web.legislation.gov.hk . Retrieved 20 September 2017.
78. ^ "Civic Centres Regulation" Authorities of Hong Kong
79. ^ "Civic Centres Regulation Filming" Government of Hong Kong
80. ^ "Prevention Of Copyright Piracy Ordinance" Government of Hong Kong
81. ^ [ane] Authorities of Hong Kong
82. ^ "Xpat Stance: What's Upwardly With The New Ceremonious Code & Press Photographs? - Xpatloop.com - Expat Life In Budapest, Hungary - Current affairs". www.xpatloop.com . Retrieved 20 September 2017.
83. ^ Nolan, Daniel (14 March 2014). "Hungary law requires photographers to ask permission to accept pictures". The Guardian. London. Retrieved twenty May 2014.
84. ^ "Information for Tradesmen and Others" Ministry of Industries and Innovation. Accessed 27 September 2016
85. ^ "不法進行錄音錄像". Retrieved xx September 2017.
86. ^ "澳門女子上載遭抄牌片 發帖罵警被判囚1年". Apple Daily 蘋果日報 . Retrieved xx September 2017.
87. ^ Tanola, Nadezhda (2013-06-12). "Photographers to declare June 12 as 'Freedom to Shoot Solar day'". Remate. Archived from the original on 2014-02-02. Retrieved 2014-02-18 .
88. ^ "Did you know? You demand a permit to do a photo shoot at Luneta". ABS-CBN News. August 2, 2018. Retrieved Oct 4, 2021.
89. ^ Burchell, Jonathan (2009). "The Legal Protection of Privacy in South Africa: A Transplantable Hybrid" (PDF). Electronic Journal of Comparative Law. 13 (1).
90. ^ Hart, Genevieve; Nassimbeni, Mary (2018-01-01). "The value of information in South Africa'south new democracy". Library Direction. 39 (5): 322–335. doi:ten.1108/LM-09-2017-0087. hdl:10566/3811. ISSN 0143-5124.
91. ^ "Information for Travelers: Visiting Sudan" U.S. Department of State.
92. ^ "Foreign travel advice: South Sudan" Government of the Uk.

External links [edit]

• Bert P. Krages Attorney at Constabulary Photographer'due south Rights Folio Data almost photographers' rights in the US
• European Court of Human Rights instance constabulary factsheet on the right to i's own image
• Photography and the Law Photography and the Law Legal Updates
• Canadian laws with regard to photography
• Digital Rights Ireland » Photographer's Rights
• UK Photographers Rights
• Australian street photography legal issues
• I'm a Lensman, Not a Terrorist!, a UK group fix to fight unnecessary and callous restrictions confronting individuals taking photographs in public spaces
• Worldwide Photographer's Rights complimentary ebook

robertsonannothe.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

Share this post