French law regarding photography

[Rob C]

I hope this gets read and some definitive replies come along, but it does seem this particular section of LuLa is sometimes overlooked...

Anyway, the question is this: if one is travelling through the country (France), say riding shotgun in a car or maybe even sitting atop a barge, is it fair game to shoot whatever comes along, be it interesting old houses, windows, other cars or boats, people having a coffee on the sidewalk, a pretty farmhouse or even a barn with some happy cows standing outside it, discussing the price of milk?

Such work would be intended for publication, be it on paper as in book, magazine or brochure, or even just websites.  Model releases or property releases would be impossible to obtain with that sort of photography; is it legal to use it in this way?

I know this might tempt replies regarding other countries/laws, but my interest lies purely within France.

Thanks -

Rob C

[NikoJorj]

As far as I know, it's OK as long as the photograph does not significantly harm the subject (ie ridiculizes, gives away some trade secret for a company, or whatever).
This is case law, which in France has not the same value as "hard" law, but should still give a fair legal protection.

If you read french, this blog http://droit-et-photographie.over-blog.com/categorie-11213765.html could be of help on the topic.

[Rob C]

As far as I know, it's OK as long as the photograph does not significantly harm the subject (ie ridiculizes, gives away some trade secret for a company, or whatever).
This is case law, which in France has not the same value as "hard" law, but should still give a fair legal protection.

If you read french, this blog http://droit-et-photographie.over-blog.com/categorie-11213765.html could be of help on the topic.

Thanks for your help, Niko, I do read French to a certain (schoolboy) level and I have already deduced from the article that taking pics in railway stations, airports etc. is not without its problems! However, it was surprising to read that making pics of graffiti on trains (tags) is not beyond trouble either; boy, how freedoms are being eroded... On the other hand, it was funny reading about restrictions regarding the use of flash and train drivers (obviously sensible safety measures) were also applicable to driverless trains!

I was amused by the advice to leave the expensive-looking equipment at home if you want to shoot in stations... how deceptive appearances can be; I wonder whether an old M3 looks professional anymore? Appearances, appearances, appearances, all is showbiz.

It is one thing to seek permission before doing a commercial shoot, but that doesn't help people just passing through and seeing something wonderful to shoot! I guess that behind it all lies the fact that the law is seldom black/white but designed to embrace that tone of grey that creates great wealth for those able to use and interpret it professionally! Then they can afford to buy that M9 and shoot with all the protection their job allows.

Thanks again -

Rob C

[Mitchell Baum]

In Paris I was warned off by the police from taking any pictures of children in a public park.

Best,

Mitchell

[alain]

Given the EU privacy laws you need explicit permission to keep digital records from all types of personal id stuff.  A digital picture off a recognisable person is clearly such a thing (and given current sensor resolutions this is often the case).
There are exceptions for purely personal stuff (family etc) and public persons in that role.
Earning money with it is asking for trouble.

For buildings there also rights to be checked, think all "modern" buildings worth photographing as such.  For example the lights of the eifel tower in Paris are still not in the "public domain".   

The same for all "recent" artwork.

[Terence h]

The stock photography companies will accept images shot at random without model
releases and property releases this just means that your images will be available
for editorial usage and not commercial usage , in fact when submitting you tick
weather you have the releases or not and they are then only available as such.
I have given up trying to fulfill all legal requirements so just shoot stock for
editorial usage.
The market for stock though is so depressed now with the economic crisis and
glut of amateur and Istockers , i wonder sometimes why i bother.
Yes your question did address France in particular but French law would not effect
your ability to have the images in a Stock agencies files on offer for sale worldwide
as long as the images are editorial only , i am not of course addressing your physical
ability to capture the image , example , a robust farmer insisting you not photograph his cattle:-)

Terence Hogben
http://www.terencehogben.co.za

[Rob C]

Thanks, Terence, it is indeed a hard financial climate.

I suppose the only thing to do is not pretend to an agency that one does have permissions where one does not, and let their superior understanding of local laws take care of the legalities.

That's probably no sure protection, but it at least shows you tried to do it right...

Rob C

[Rob C]

The Forums on this board are listed under the following categories:

Site & Board Matters
Raw & Post Processing, Printing
Equipment & Techniques
The Art of Photography

There is no natural place for The Pro Business Discussion Forum on this board and hence it gets buried and largely forgotten.

Keith, you've been reading my tea leaves again!

;-)

Rob C

[eronald]

If you pass thru Paris, Rob, we can go have a drink.

Edmund

[Rob C]

If you pass thru Paris, Rob, we can go have a drink.

Edmund

That's very nice of you Edmund, we shall see what the future holds! May I reverse the invitation if you find yourself in Puerto Pollensa?

;-)

Rob C

[shaun]

Hi

I shoot some stock too and agree that editorial use is ok (unreleased travel photography). However I've had Musse d'Orsy pics returned and other too due to privacy issues. It's a constantly changing playing field.

Shaun

[Rob C]

Hi

I shoot some stock too and agree that editorial use is ok (unreleased travel photography). However I've had Musse d'Orsy pics returned and other too due to privacy issues. It's a constantly changing playing field.

Shaun

Which, I suppose, makes travel even less economically viable if you are doing it to make money rather than have a holiday.

What is the world coming to - I would have imagined that sensible laws would limit privacy to the level that, unless one is being made to look foolish or guilty of something in some clear way, then anything out in the open or within a place open to the public should be fair game. I would certainly prohibit unreleased shots of anyone in private property, of course, because I have no time for invasion of anyone's privacy. But, step into the public domain... Let's face it, no ad campaign is likely to want to use non-pro models if the company is spending big money on the rest of a production.

Rob C

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

However I've had Musse d'Orsy pics returned and other too due to privacy issues.

Hi Shaun,

Privacy, are you sure? Or were the images taken on private property without respecting the owner's rules (which BTW should be indicated on the contract, entrance ticket, or by signs in plain view).

Cheers,
Bart

[shaun]

Hi Bart

Ok played a bit loose with the word privacy. Copyrighted would have suited better. The main clock was the issue in this instance even though it was small in the image. Another example would be the atomium in Brussels, now off limits.

Shaun