Photographers' rights in non-US countries

In My Humble Opinion
1

I teach at a photography school / community center, and last night was the class where we discuss ethics and legal issues as they pertain to the taking of photography. Being as the school is in Chicago, our discussion of legalities is centered on US law, and specifically the rights photographers have under the First Amendment of the US Constitution – right to free expression, and right to a free press, and how those rights manifest at a practical and local level.

So we were discussing things like, if you are standing on public property, you can legally photograph anything in plain view, along with a discussion of the difference between public and private property and how that changes the rules, human subjects’ right to privacy (or publicity), and how all this affects what you can photograph, what you can’t, and how you can use the photo after you’ve made it.

The key points of US legalities are:
[ul]
[li]If you are standing on public property, you can legally photograph anything in plain view, including people and government buildings.[/li][li]Private property is subject to the permission of the property owner; and private property includes things like “public” spaces such as restaurants and shopping centers[/li][li]Photographs with clearly identifiable people may be used or sold for art, journalistic, or editorial purposes, but NOT for commercial purposes unless you obtain a model release[/li][li]Commercial purposes, in general, are any circumstances where it appears that the person in the photo is endorsing something. (e.g. advertisements, book covers, brochures)[/li][li]Privacy rights/laws are subject to interpretation by the plaintiff, lawyers, and judges, and people can sue for any reason, so CYA.[/li][li]If you are taking photos legally, police cannot legally demand that you delete your photos (although they may try it anyway)[/li][li]Transportation centers generally have their own rules, which are usually that handheld photography is permissible in public areas as long as you’re not interfering with security or traffic flow (but checking their policies in advance is a good idea)[/li][li]Copyright EXISTS as soon as you press the shutter, but you must register the copyright before you can sue for infringement. You CAN register after the infringement happens, but you still must register prior to suing.[/li][/ul]

So one of my students asked me a great question that I don’t know the answer to. In non-US countries, are the rights of photographers similar? How similar? Obviously they will have different laws, but my best guess is that most Western countries, at least, will want your tourist dollars and therefore will not go out of their way to discourage photography from tourists. (I also advised that research on the specific country’s laws prior to travel would probably be a good idea.)

So, non-US Dopers – what is the Dope? What legal rights do photographers have in your country? What restrictions? Is copyright substantially different?

Please let me know what country you are from, and feel to let me know as much as you know about your country’s laws.

2

The short answer is no. Rules concerning photography vary considerably.

For instance, don’t try to photograph planes in Greece. Photographing military or government establishments is a bad idea in many places. Even pointing a camera at soldiers in some places can get you killed: I recall one case of someone getting shot for pointing their TV camera at an Israeli tank - the tanker thought they were pointing a missile at them. Just recently someone operating a drone camera was held by the Chinese security services. Etc.

In short, your students should be sure to find out local laws before using their cameras.

3

Yes, I was looking for such specifics in this thread. Are you from a non-US country and can edify us on your local laws?

4

Here’s a link with many of the rights set out as well as information about how hose rights are applied in practice. It is a left-wing site, in case your students object to it being partisan, but all the legal stuff on there is cited directly from source.

They’re pretty similar to the US. For instance:

5

SciFiSam beat me to it for U.K. laws.

Here’s the story of the drone camera operator held by the Chinese.

6

It seems to me that this question is very american.

You are making an assumption that there will be some clear rules and clear legal standards and that these things will be applied in a regular way. Except for the wealthy democratic countries this is not going to be the case and it is a bad assumption. Whatever the theoretical rules in many places the actual application will be another thing.

I had once an american colleague who liked the photography and made the bad choice of taking pictures of the gendarmerie because they looked so photogenic in the sahara. It was lucky for him I was there to speak for him. He only lost his camera and was not imprisoned. I can not think of an actual law - alhtough the security laws give credit scope of action - that says directly that they can do that, but you would be very stupid to argue.

7

In Pakistan, you can take a picture in any public or semi public place, unless laws restrict the same, which mainly mean military installations and I hear with the proliferation of smartphones they have given up enforcing that.

In private you can take any photograph unless owner expressly denies premission.

8

In Cameroon, it’s a bad idea to take pictures of government buildings, anything related to the military or police, and transport infrastructure such as airports or train stations. The train station, in particular, is a place where tourists often run in to trouble. If you are caught, they will give you a good scare, and you will need to talk or bribe your way out of trouble. The laws are unclear and unevenly enforced, but basically if you take out a camera where police can see you, you can expect to get harassed.

I think this is the norm for many places.

9

In Spain:

  • a picture is generally considered the property of the person who commisioned it. If nobody commisioned it, it’s the property of the photographer. Items which are normally taken by commision only (such as ID pics) are still considered the property of the commisioner even if there is a stamp listing the photographer’s info, so long as the stamp doesn’t indicate the actual word “copyright”.

  • pictures taken in a public place are generally viewed as the property of the photographer; he can do anything with them so long as it doesn’t inpinge on the right to privacy of anybody there, so:
    pictures taken of a person performing a private activity cannot be published in a context in which that person is treated as a public figure, unless the subject’s prior behavior indicates that they do not work under the usual concepts of privacy. Examples:
    a panned shot of the beach, OK.
    A panned shot of the beach in which it turns out that one of the 100 tiny people is somebody famous, OK.
    A closeup of the somebody famous doing the towel dance with his kids published as “Tony Singer does the towel dance! With his KIDS!!!”, not OK - nobody would give a shit if it didn’t happen to be a singer and it makes normal, everyday beach behavior sound like something bizarre.
    Now, if Tony Singer was actually Tony Scandalmonger, who sells pictures of himself, his house, his dogs having sex, his house remodel, his unpaid bills, his latest girlfriend’s hair roots… to make money, he’s waived any right to privacy.

There are locations where you’re not allowed to take pics, either for security reasons or to protect art pieces, but in general they’re clearly labeled. Taking a pic of a government building: OK. Taking closeups of its guards: not OK.

10

We did also discuss in class the difference between the letter of the law and enforcement / safety issues in the moment. One of our examples was the fact that police in the US do not have a right to delete your photos – but it does happen anyway and if a cop is arguing with you about it, you will need to decide if those photos are worth your safety. And just because you weren’t planning to bring your camera into a protest doesn’t mean you won’t stumble into one already going on, where the police MO will generally be “arrest everyone and sort 'em out later.”

We also discussed the ramifications of shooting in an area of political instability, where whatever laws that might exist will be far less relevant than considering your personal safety first.

At the same time, I don’t want to assume that all Western countries are just alike, and then discover the hard way that taking a photo of a bridge in Germany will get you arrested (or something). Even in countries with similarly democratic (-ish) political systems may have differences in those kinds of details. That’s why I’m asking.

11

Here’s a round-up of various countries’ laws.