Photography in public spaces

The other day I posted this with respect to the current french privacy laws that Cedric was discussing.

I had overlooked the current french legal situation - perhaps that is the new european model, in which case the italiens will ignore, you will be above the ridiculous rules, and we will assiduously enforce at great expense and to the detriment of individual freedom...

Click to expand...

Today I am visiting London to attend two meetings. Walking between the meetings I was taking a few pictures with my GX100 as I wandered through Westminster - here you will find the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben, so many many tourists snapping photos - and I passed the Ministry of Justice at 11 Tothill Road. I found the sign interesting as the ministry is located in 'Steel House' and so stopped and took (in innocence and with no attempt at concealment) one fframe of the steel wall mounted signs and the glass doors, which were largely reflecting daylight so there was no clear view to reception in any case. As I turned to move on two 'security men' rushed out of the uilding and demanded to know why I was taking photos and that I delete my photo (I wish I was shooting film today...) and then proceeded, despite my protestation that I was in a public place and within my rights, to demand (with a not terribly veiled threat) that I delete the photo. I pointed out that I am not a terrorist and that there is no evidence that terrorists are particularly keen on photography and they responded that 'these days ....' They also wanted to see what else I had photographed.

I was basically forced to delete a perfectly innocent picture under threat of some form of violence as I had a meeting to attend. They clained they were 'only doing their duty'. I suggested that they were doing their job, but I cannot see who they owe such a duty to.

I am only posting this as I am furious that my country has so abandoned the idea of freedom before the law that it allows/encourages its employees (I will not even say officers of the lalw as they were not policemen) to behave in such an illegal fashion.

Needless to say, I will be writing to my local member of parliament, the leader of the current government and the opposition to complain and ask for their views in this matter.

Mike

Mike,

Your outrage is an important commodity. We are getting less and less these days as photographers just give up. I make a point of making more pictures. Scary stuff but needed!

However, one does not wanted to get one's head cracked!

Asher

Mike Shimwell said:

I was basically forced to delete a perfectly innocent picture under threat of some form of violence ...

Click to expand...

I guess they don't know that the image can be recovered later with some image recovery software. Once this is common knowledge, will the next step be memory card or camera confiscation?

In the olden film days, sorry to say, Mike, confiscation was the way to go. They did that, probably pulling the film from its canister to completely overexpose it [remember the scene in the bar in Dr. No. So, digital is actually better for the photographer.

Good old Eric Blair, he'd have one field day after another ...

Mike Shimwell said:

...As I turned to move on two 'security men' rushed out of the uilding and demanded to know why I was taking photos and that I delete my photo (I wish I was shooting film today...) and then proceeded, despite my protestation that I was in a public place and within my rights, to demand (with a not terribly veiled threat) that I delete the photo. I pointed out that I am not a terrorist and that there is no evidence that terrorists are particularly keen on photography and they responded that 'these days ....' They also wanted to see what else I had photographed.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately completely consistent with the issue I raised in this thread.

Fear mongering will lead to innocent people giving up their constitutional rights, the very rights that protect them from their all mighty government.

The right thing to do is avoid discussion, have them call the police if they like, and don't talk to the police.

Remember, when confronted with the police:
1. Do not consent to any searches.
2. Am I free to go now? The burdon of proof is theirs, you don't have to help.
3. If I'm not free to go, then I want a lawyer present before questioning.

I do know it's easier said than done, but is is your constitutional right, don't give it away that easily. Do write to your local MP.

Bart

I once was sacked by private security when shooting in front of a big swiss bank - in public space.
I didn't deleted the RAWs, but insisted they had to call the head office, what they finally did, and they let me take the files home. The story took about an hour...

Obviously, it's different on privat ground; when shooting for a big company on its own ground, and a prime minister of a european land visited them, 12 cars, etc, I was lightning-fast surrounded by 3 gorillas and had to put the cam in the bag, which I did....

Michael Fontana said:

I once was sacked by private security when shooting in front of a big swiss bank - in public space.
I didn't deleted the RAWs, but insisted they had to call the head office, what they finally did, and they let me take the files home. The story took about an hour...

Click to expand...

I like to shoot architecture, so I've had my encounters with security people. On two occasions I was said to be trespassing on private grounds, which I solved by moving my tripod 2 metres back off the grass. Never have been asked to delete or show anything, they did take a note of my car's licence plate.

Obviously, it's different on privat ground; when shooting for a big company on its own ground, and a prime minister of a european land visited them, 12 cars, etc, I was lightning-fast surrounded by 3 gorillas and had to put the cam in the bag, which I did....

Click to expand...

Even they cannot (legally) take any of your possessions, only the police is allowed to if they arrest you. You are not obliged to surrender your gear otherwise. All that can be asked is to either abide with the local rules (e.g. no photographs near military facilities), or leave the premises. When buying an entrance ticket, there may be such rules specified on the ticket, which then becomes a contractual agreement (but even then, they cannot be in conflict with national law).

Local law may have specific rules (time limited and for a specific reason), so it can help to keep oneself informed.

Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Even they cannot (legally) take any of your possessions, only the police is allowed to if they arrest you. You are not obliged to surrender your gear otherwise.
Bart

Click to expand...

The gorillas didn't arrested me, nor asked for deleting the files, etc; they just prevented me shooting the PM and the security guys, which I didn't intended, as I had another job, same day, same place for that company. The cam just had to be in the bag, that's what they asked. They didn't checked my bag, though. They were aware, what's legal or not...

The visit of the PM wasn't made public, so maybe that's the story behind it.

When I asked the gorillas - some really made bodybuilding, had black sunglasses ;-) - for the reason, they said, that meanwhile the PM wants to have control on his public image, the special agents don't want to be uncovered.

Yup, looks like actors, musicians and hotel heiresses are free game, while politicians aren't. Seems the public needs to be suspicious and wary about celebrities but not the powerful. Disgusting.

Taking photos of "no apparent aesthetic value" could lead to terrorism

Is the next stage of fear mongering, a precursor to further violations of your civil rights?

Taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, is considered a suspicious activity and as behavior that could lead to terrorism, according to "Terrorism Liaison Officers" in Colorado.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077

Of course to determine "apparent aesthetic value", one will need access to the pictures ..., and an education in contemporary art, I would assume. Or are your details going to be entered in a database, without your civil rights to at least allow verification of their correctness?

This looks like a perfect example of creating haystacks, hoping to find a needle. In the process, or is it the goal(?), civil rights are sacrificed, again.

I wish all affected a good night sleep, after all big brother is watching (over) you.

Bart

Mike Shimwell said:

The other day I posted this with respect to the current french privacy laws that Cedric was discussing.

Click to expand...

I'm interested in this other thread and can't find it. Could you provide a link?

Charles Lupica said:

I'm interested in this other thread and can't find it. Could you provide a link?

Click to expand...

I am assuming that it was this thread: EDIT: My bad, I was looking at the wrong thread...will look for the other one unless Mike tells us where it is http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6209

Don't take pictures of people in Switzerland!

oops. I meant to post this as a new thread. I was not trying to hijack Mike's thread. Sorry.


Preface, I am an American living in Neuchatel, Switzerland; local language, French.

Today I went out riding my bike and, as I think of myself as a struuggling professional photographer, I packed my D80, a couple of lenses, and some extra memory chips into my handle bar bag . First I rode to the lakefront, took some pictures of people learning to swim, then some pictures of bees on lavender. Next I rode to a school in Auvenier and took about 200 pictures of interesting grafitti to make into a circular panorama.

Then I rode to the beach at Cortilliod, where I pulled up under a tree, had a power beverage, and scouted around to see if there was anything of interest to photograph. I took a few shots, reviewed them, and deleted them because the sun was too strong and the shadows too deep, it was around 14:00. As I went to leave a nearby sunbather was glaring at me, and I pointed my camera at her and motioned if I could take her picture.

This started a tirad that I did not have the right to photograph her or any one else without their persmission. I replied that this is a public place and that I am in full view and that I do have the right to take editorial photographs. Now several other bystanders decide to chimed in as well. I said that a few bad pictures were not worth the trouble but by this time they were threatning to call the police because I did not have the right to take photos in a public place without their consent. One demaned my contact information so that she could have the police come by my place and infrom me of the law.

At this point, I decided the best thing to do was leave, so without further conversation I went on my way; away from home along the waterfront. When I got to Point du Grain, about 3 Km away, I turned around and headed back the way I came. Guess what I saw, a police cruiser headed my way with it's lights going. Drove by me, and immediately turned around (probably a police tactic to come up from behind, safer that way.) The police asked me to stop.

I stopped, they got out of their cruiser and asked for for ID. While one was checking my ID the other asked me what I was doing. I guess he meant besid,es the obvious, I was after all riding my bike and wearing my Phonak jersey (That may have been the problem, wearing the jesrsey of Floyd Landis's former team could only mean I'm a doper ). The Police, while polite, informed me in no uncertain terms that it is illegal to take the picture of any person in Switzerland unless I have their consent. It does not matter that they are in a public place and that I was not hidden from view. When I mentioned that I often take pictures of the police he said that's ok because they're public servants. But, he reiterated that it is forbidden to take pictures of anyone, aywhere, any time , unless you have their consent.

The policeman motioned for my camera and I gave it to him, I cannot say for sure that he asked for it. But he took the camera, put in the car, and then reviewed the contents of the chip in the camera. I took no photos that were anything objectionaable, thank goodness for that but I also didn't mentioned that I had already swapped chips and reviwed the contents just in case some one actually followed through on their threat and call the police.

I have to say that I was such a threat that a second cruiser showed up just to make sure that they had found the guilty person. Before leaving, I asked the police to follow up and let me know specifically what I can and cannot do so that I will not run afoul of the law again. They said someone would call or send me a letter to help me become a bettere informed citizen.

I cannot believe that you truly cannot take a picture of anyone any time, anywhere without first getting authorization. It would render nearly all photojournalism illegal. But for now, I'm afrtaid to take anymore pictures. If this truly is the law, or at least the police think it is, if I have another encounter with them, it might not be as cordial. And as a foreigner I would prefer to stay completely under the radar of the local police. I also have to admit that I was a little afraid that I would arrive home only to find the police confiscating my computer and harddrives.

Becasue this really made me mad and because I'm now afraid to take any more street scenes I went to the local newspaper and had a long chat with one of the journalists; but it reamins to be seen wheather or not this will be interesting enough to generate a story; or perhaps the police are right. There are no images on my computer that I am ashamed of but I would rather not have the police take possesion of them.

If what I've done is illegal, then half the contents of my hard-drive contains contreband, not to mention my editorial images on Alamy, PhotoShelter, and Photographer's Direct.

So according to these police officers, everyone with a camcorder, cell phone or camera that takes a picture in a public place that contains people who did not authorize the photo is violating the law.

Anyone in Switzerland know where I can find clarification on what I can and can't take a picture of?

Charlie

This is a very shop-worn topic on nearly every Internet photo venue. Talking amongst ourselves accomplishes zero. If you want to bitch, at least spew where it will count. Write the queen. Write the tourism council. But crabbing to other choir members is pointless.

Sorry to hear this

Hi Charlie,

I am so sorry to read about what has happened. This is terrible. But it is exactly how Swiss Police can be at times. Cool and totally devoid of any human emotions or empathy.

I can make this statement since I used to work as an expatriate for a huge Swiss multinational. In that capacity, I have traveled quite often to Switzerland.

So please accept my sincere feelings, I really know how frustrated and helpless one can feel.
Don't stop taking photographs due to this incident please. Otherwise you'll end up victimizing yourself.

Hi Charles,

Your story looks like one i lived in my town few months ago...

I was surprised by what the police said you and i made some researchs on swiss internet. As i was thinking, law isn't such restrictive as they said :

http://www.cmic.ch/2007/01/22/droit-a-limage/ (in french)

In fact, you can shoot what you want in public places without any consent while you don't publish photographs. Swiss law seems to be quite similar to french one : tacit consent is the common rule and you must respect person's dignity.

Local police told you nonsense... French police told me quite the same thing while i was shooting a public market in my city : as i know the law quite well, i was able to contest them and they finally agreed with me. But, alas, it is a common behaviour from the police : they don't know the law very well but want to impress people and discourage photographers. And it works : i don't shoot no more in my town, as i had several similar problems with city police or security employees...

One needs a copy of the law in one's camera bag! I was stopped by security guards while taking pictures of a model on a public part, but privately owned wide steps and street. I refused to stop, just moved my tripod 3 feet on to the city street and continued. They insisted it was illegal. I just told them to call the police if the wanted to but they had no authority to tell me what to do. I had a similar incident in a public street in Beverly Hills weeks ago when Frank Doorhoff was here. The man, another security guy, dressed up as if he was in the US secret service, really got in my face. However I ignored his temper, told him to call the police and learn about U.s laws and get a better English accent.

My wife gets frightened when I don't back off. However, we have creeping erosion of photographer's rights.

I'd love to know the actual Swiss Law and also is it the same in the different French, German and Italian speaking parts of Switzerland?

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

This is a very shop-worn topic on nearly every Internet photo venue. Talking amongst ourselves accomplishes zero. If you want to bitch, at least spew where it will count. Write the queen. Write the tourism council. But crabbing to other choir members is pointless.

Click to expand...

Not quite!

Ken,

Dealing with erosion of photographer's rights requires bringing to the surface every so often so that we are at least remind of where pitfalls are and some people's solutions. Also we get local experience. I am learning a lot from reports in different countries.

This says a lot for having a 1DIII series camera with the ability to shoot in parallel to two cards. If they take one card, then you have the other!

If you do know particularly good reviews of this or publications, that would be great to know. I have a book on US law, that's all.

Asher

As I noted above: oops. I meant to post my experience as a new thread. I was not trying to hijack Mike's thread. Sorry.

Asher Kelman said:

One needs a copy of the law in one's camera bag!
My wife gets frightened when I don't back off. However, we have creeping erosion of photographer's rights.

I'd love to know the actual Swiss Law and also is it the same in the different French, German and Italian speaking parts of Switzerland?

Asher

Click to expand...

Hi Asher, I'm not one to back down either but when you're the foreigner you want even less police attension. I knew what they were telling me wasn't right but I didn't really want to give them any reason to keep an eye on me.

The article that Cedric linked to (thanks Cedric) confirms what I've read before (and mostly forgotten). As you say, I need a copy in my bag. What that article says is that I can mostly take what I want, it is how I use them that may run afoul of the law.

1. If I keep them for private use, no authorization is needed.
2. Posting to the web is not private and therefore is questionable.
3. I can publish pictures of anyone at any public event; right to information is stronger than the rights to an image in this instance.
4. I can publish pictures of anyone in public exercising their official duties or at work in a public place.
5. I can publish pictures of performers performing (but not the same people when they are not performing)
6. You cannot publish any picture that is degrading or impinges of the dignity of the human spirit. (no accidents, no deceased persons)
7. If I take a picture of you and your girlfriend and your wife sees it, I'm in big trouble. (seriously)
8. I can publish a picture of a crowd as long as no individual is the primary subject of the photo.
9. Corrollary to above. I cannot publisn ANY street portrait as it contains people who are the principle subject of the image.

As I have been told before, and refused to accept, if you take pictures of people in Switzerland and do anything with them besides vacation albums to sit on YOUR coffee table, you are violating their right to privacy. The exact use will determine if it is a criminal or civil issue (and they have to file a complaint). Most sites I have visited say that all of the above is true and you have to weigh the risk. What is the chance of someone from Neuchatel finding one of the images I took on Alamy and filing a complaint?

Take a picture of a person in Switzerland and publish it in any way and you risk a criminal or civil suit. Makes me want to toss the camera in the corner and forget it.

As for whether or not this holds true in the rest of Switzerland (German and Italian speaking areas) I think the articles that I have been reading have a national focus and are based on the federal law on "Rights to an image" and "Right to information".

But in all cases, I can take the pictures. There is no prohibition in doing so. It is what I do with them that can get me into trouble. (But pissing off the police is never a good idea either. and these were 4 uniformed officers).


As an Aside: My wife figures that the woman who called the police was probably ranting about some pervert taking pictures of children and everyone at the beach and that's why it only took ten minutes for the police to show up. )

Charles, I'm very sorry you had that unfortunate encounter with the police. IMHO it would be worthwhile to turn that negative into something positive, for your peace of mind, and the education of others. Thanks for posting it, now others can perhaps learn and benefit from it as well.

Charles Lupica said:

The Police, while polite, informed me in no uncertain terms that it is illegal to take the picture of any person in Switzerland unless I have their consent.

Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if Swiss law in this respect would deviate significantly from other European law. Afterall the various localized Copyright Acts in Europe (and to a lesser extend other worldwide variations) are variations of the original Berne (!) convention (dated 1886, if I'm not mistaken), of which (amongst others) Switzerland is a signatory. Significant changes in the BC Copyright Act since that date (notably 1971, Paris) meant that countries had to change their national laws to stay in compliance, that's how important the Copyright Act is.

But, he reiterated that it is forbidden to take pictures of anyone, aywhere, any time , unless you have their consent.

Click to expand...

This would have been the moment to inquire as to which articles in the law they could suggest for your education, in order to enable brushing up on your knowledge of the law. I know that's easy to say, and especially in hindsight, and in a foreign language, but the important lesson is to be prepared! When these questions are asked early in a conversation they may defuse the situation. Having a conversation with the police in such a situation can be a bad thing from a legal point of view, because you could give them information that can and will be used agaist you. That's why the best tactic is to ask them simple questions, instead of telling them too much.

The policeman motioned for my camera and I gave it to him, I cannot say for sure that he asked for it

Click to expand...

This is, again in hindsight, the result of being "caught" off guard. One is uncertain about one's situation (did I do something wrong?), and one is experiencing a traumatic event (outnumbered, language disadvantage, defenseless, uncertain, emotional, adrenalin rush).

But he took the camera, put in the car, and then reviewed the contents of the chip in the camera.

Click to expand...

You just gave away your your rights, unless I'm proven otherwise. Had you e.g. unknowingly photographed someone/something else that was of interest to them, then you could have been dragged into something unforseen.

Before leaving, I asked the police to follow up and let me know specifically what I can and cannot do so that I will not run afoul of the law again.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with asking that, in fact asking questions will keep the initiative in your hands. Now they 'need' to react, and perhaps make a mistake while doing so. However, never mention "again", as that would suggest you admit to making a mistake (which you didn't, otherwise you would have received a ticket, or worse). A specific question early on about which article of what law they thought you violated would have made them more cautious.

They said someone would call or send me a letter to help me become a bettere informed citizen.

Click to expand...

Good, in trying to be polite they made a promise, and they are now in a disadvantage because they will need to inform you of your rights, and potentially make a mistake, get their response in writing!! Such a document would help a lot in future situations. Of course you might never hear anything from them, in which case I suggest to write them, get the reaction in writing!

I cannot believe that you truly cannot take a picture of anyone any time, anywhere without first getting authorization.

Click to expand...

I also have a hard time believing that to be the case.

If this truly is the law, or at least the police think it is, if I have another encounter with them, it might not be as cordial.

Click to expand...

That would not be helpful for your situation, so the best defense is by being prepared. Not to enter into a pissing match over local law, but to avoid the stress and avoid doing the wrong things under stress. Asking questions like "which article number of your law prohibits photography" will make them vulnerable, not you.

Try to take notes, after asking them if they have a problem with that. Not that they could object, but if they do then they'll have to explain why. See, asking the right questions may help to have them back off. Staying cordial helps, to avoid being pushed into defense.

Anyone in Switzerland know where I can find clarification on what I can and can't take a picture of?

Click to expand...

Try getting it from the police, as promised, and turn this bad experience into something positive/useful. I for one am looking forward to hear about the outcome.

Bart

Ken Tanaka said:

This is a very shop-worn topic on nearly every Internet photo venue. Talking amongst ourselves accomplishes zero. If you want to bitch, at least spew where it will count. Write the queen. Write the tourism council. But crabbing to other choir members is pointless.

Click to expand...

Ken,

I don't think most people here want to bitch. People at OPF want to learn, improve themselves, help others! Sharing experiences will allow to be prepared, and not make common mistakes when being confronted. And venting some frustration in the process, is also important if one wants to avoid blowing one's lid.

I had to learn the copyright act (Dutch version) as part of my formal training as a professional photographer, not to become a layer, but to be prepared. I frequently buy the latest published version, with general explanations from the vice-president of the Amsterdam court, and participate in these exchanges to train my knowledge of these things, based on practical cases.

Bart

Asher Kelman said:

I refused to stop, just moved my tripod 3 feet on to the city street and continued.

Click to expand...

Bingo! You took away his initiative, you were no longer trespassing, it became his word against yours.

They insisted it was illegal. I just told them to call the police if the wanted to but they had no authority to tell me what to do.

Click to expand...

Correct, you kept the initiative, which is easy when you know your law. You came prepared, they didn't.

I had a similar incident in a public street in Beverly Hills weeks ago when Frank Doorhoff was here. The man, another security guy, dressed up as if he was in the US secret service, really got in my face. However I ignored his temper, told him to call the police and learn about U.s laws and get a better English accent.

Click to expand...

LOL, that English accent part is a bit bold, in the USA ...

Bart

Thanks everyone for your response.

Charles, sorry you had a bad time. No need to worry about thread hijack - the theme is common. I copied my original post to the first post in thi thread, but have also recently written on the importance of the right to photograph in a functioning democracy.

Ken, Sorry, but I don't agree. There are reasons to post other than whinging. This could be an important topic and I have written to 4 politicans as a result. Also, if we don't post, then we'll assume it's just us and noone else is affected.

Asher and Bart, I agree that knowing the law is good and having a copy in your pocket better. On this occasion the 'guards' were not really interested in any law but their own and I did not have time to hang around. Quite apart from not wanting to be dragged into the building against my wishes of course.

Been a bit busy the last few days, but will hopefully settle at the weekend.

Mike

I agree with just about everything that has been said and I want to apologize for venting. It may not help you, but it helps me and I thank you all for your responses, even Ken. people's response to Ken shows that other people are interested as well.

I think one of the most important benefits of a thread on how police and security are interfering with photographers helps to emphasis that it is not as isolated as people want to be believe. In today's climate, I think that it is only a matter of time before you will get confronted if you are taking pictures with a dSLR in public areas. The general theme is that our liberties as photographers are being eroded.

Just a short response; I might say more tomorrow:

Beeing swiss, and doing architecture-shots in public space since years, I used to make some distinctions:

two rights are clashing here together:

- the personal right, aka right on intimacy
- photographer's right of making photos in public space.

AFAIK, a photographer can shoot streets, buildings, etc - in public space - if the intend, purpose of the photo is a non portrait-type of photography.

So I'm allowed to take buildings with people arround it, as long as I don't use a tele and make a portrait. A portrait will disrespect the right on intimacy.

For me, this makes sense, as I wouldn't like to see myself, my son, etc (in billboardsize ??) on a advertising for a product xy.

In real world, when shooting archis with people, I do ask the people in the foreground either to agree on beeing on photos, or to move a bit; worked fine, so far.

Never run in a problem like Charles, but I might need to update my law-knowledge.

We Need To Educate The Public

In these Orwellian days, people feel violated. To carry a professional looking camera is to be pegged as a pervert or an FBI agent. Often it is irrational. But I don't see enough essays, enough press about the problem. We need to make more public noise.

Michael Fontana said:

Just a short response; I might say more tomorrow:

two rights are clashing here together:

- the personal right, aka right on intimacy
- photographer's right of making photos in public space.

AFAIK, a photographer can shoot streets, buildings, etc - in public space - if the intend, purpose of the photo is a non portrait-type of photography.

...

For me, this makes sense, as I wouldn't like to see myself, my son, etc (in billboardsize ??) on a advertising for a product xy.

Click to expand...

Michael

In the UK there is no right to privacy inthe public arena. This is consistent as to allow such a right becomes problematic when people decide they don't want to be watched doing whatever. Hence the photogra[her has an unfettered right to work.

Selling a portrait on without model release may be a different issue - and given the global nature of modern advertising campaigns means that you will need to deal with more than just one country's legal requirements.

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

Michael

In the UK there is no right to privacy inthe public arena. This is consistent as to allow such a right becomes problematic when people decide they don't want to be watched doing whatever. Hence the photogra[her has an unfettered right to work.

Selling a portrait on without model release may be a different issue - and given the global nature of modern advertising campaigns means that you will need to deal with more than just one countries legal requirements.

Mike

Click to expand...

This is similar to the law in the USA. There's no expectation of privacy. TTBOMK, one would have to show intentional or reckless damage to sue over a portrait taken without permission. The claimant would be unlikely to prevail.

One can sell one's art, AFAIK. Still, there are limits to how the pictures can be presented. Here's what seems to be the breaking points: one cannot place the art in an environment that intentionally or recklessly brings some overwhelming disrepute. Now if one would put that picture in an article on drug users or drunken behavior then one could be vulnerable to libel per quod if one designed this.

Using someone's image for commercial advertising goes beyond my knowledge.


Asher

ok, to start I rather want to talk about a vague feeling, prior to read the law, so this beeing more of a common sense: (or what I look beeing a common sense.)

I wouldn't go on a beach and do some editorial work/shots to sell whithout modells or a agreement of nearby standing people.

Why? I don't know it exactly, but I'd put in in the respect for other's personality-cupboard, which seems to be close to the consensus generalis. A example: during the Euro08, I went with my son in the fan-aeras, a international swiss bank had a small studio setup, with the two mascots, and paid a photographer for the children/mascot-shots, so the parents could download it at home.... so far so fine; just one but: you had to accept, that the bank could use all these shots for whatever they wanted... which made me immediatly stopping that action...


As for the law:
I never had the necessity to read these laws, so prior to tonight having a vague idea about it.
Ok, I don't shoot people, but when I had people in my shots, I made the close ones aware of the shots and its use; so they could decide to be in or out the frame. And this worked fine, in 20 years of pro-work.

There is, in the swiss personality law, and the personality protection/secrecy obligation-laws (for Charles: SR 235.1) a right of "the own image", this basing on some 1921-laws, so well ahead Orwell...and is parth of the right on the own data, and its control.
BTW: Whit that same law, you can fine spammers....

So what it means?

Basically, it's what I wrote in post 25; everbody can take pictures in public space, as long as they respect the others privacy, (this ambiguity might be a bit of chewing-gum..... ) so off course, you can make a photos of the beach, if the beach is important, and the people just a minor parth in it - but there's no way in selling these shots for ads/anual reports, in business magazines, unless the photographer specifies the duty of the photo to the people in the foreground.

And you shouldn't do portraits in public spaces.

But then, if press photographers are shooting a event, because its a event, the peole whishing not beeing published, have to signalise it to the press photographer - leave the scene.

What to thing about it?

Personally, I don't mind a bit more privacy than some rich hotel's heiress can enjoy.
And the laws are, as they are, there's nothing to do unless changing them, which would be btw rel. easy in Switzerland.

Obviously, in Charles story, something went out of control.

Michael Fontana said:

ok, to start I rather want to talk about a vague feeling, prior to read the law, so this beeing more of a common sense: (or what I look beeing a common sense.)

I wouldn't go on a beach and do some editorial work/shots to sell whithout modells or a agreement of nearby standing people.

Why? I don't know it exactly, but I'd put in in the respect for other's personality-cupboard, which seems to be close to the consensus generalis. A example: during the Euro08, I went with my son in the fan-aeras, a international swiss bank had a small studio setup, with the two mascots, and paid a photographer for the children/mascot-shots, so the parents could download it at home.... so far so fine; just one but: you had to accept, that the bank could use all these shots for whatever they wanted... which made me immediatly stopping that action...


As for the law:
I never had the necessity to read these laws, so prior to tonight having a vague idea about it.
Ok, I don't shoot people, but when I had people in my shots, I made the close ones aware of the shots and its use; so they could decide to be in or out the frame. And this worked fine, in 20 years of pro-work.

There is, in the swiss personality law, and the personality protection/secrecy obligation-laws (for Charles: SR 235.1) a right of "the own image", this basing on some 1921-laws, so well ahead Orwell...and is parth of the right on the own data, and its control.
BTW: Whit that same law, you can fine spammers....

So what it means?

Basically, it's what I wrote in post 25; everbody can take pictures in public space, as long as they respect the others privacy, (this ambiguity might be a bit of chewing-gum..... ) so off course, you can make a photos of the beach, if the beach is important, and the people just a minor parth in it - but there's no way in selling these shots for ads/anual reports, in business magazines, unless the photographer specifies the duty of the photo to the people in the foreground.

And you shouldn't do portraits in public spaces.

But then, if press photographers are shooting a event, because its a event, the peole whishing not beeing published, have to signalise it to the press photographer - leave the scene.

What to thing about it?

Personally, I don't mind a bit more privacy than some rich hotel's heiress can enjoy.
And the laws are, as they are, there's nothing to do unless changing them, which would be btw rel. easy in Switzerland.

Obviously, in Charles story, something went out of control.

Click to expand...

Michael, I have read your posts closely and with interest. I understand the law better now after reading the links provided by Cedric. And your response is sort of part of the problem. People in Switzerland believe that I have no right to take their picture. This is not true, not even for portraits. What I can't do is use them for commercial use without a model release. This is true everywhere I know. I can take the picture, it can't be used to endorse any product or idea without a release. But, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN A PUBLIC PLACE. It may be socially unaccpetable to take pictures at the beach but I can still do it.

What is done with the image is what is controlled. The idea of portrait is central to what can't be published, even as editorial. I can take and sell pictures of any group in any public place and sell them as non-released stock. However, if the pictures show anyone in a negative light there could be trouble. I also must be in full view when taking the pictures so that people have the opportunity to move out of the picture. The only case that has gone against anyone lately was someone taking a picture with a cell phone and it was determined that they hid their intent and thus violated the privacy.

But even in all this, no laws are being broken in taking the pictures if the photographers intent is clear. And any use of the images are more likely to be a civil suit than a criminal suit. The police had no right to stop me and tell me I couldn't take pictures. The people on the beach have no right to privacy in a public place. If the police really believed that I was breaking the law then they are mis-informed (because they believe the same as everyone else, that you have a right to control your image which includes requiring me to have authorization prior to taking any pictures and you being able to forbide me to take the picture, all not true). If on the other-hand, they knew that I was not breaking any laws, then they where harrassing me. Either way, the police acted inappropriatly, but cordial.