I just cought a short blurb on the news last night. What they said
was that a law was proposed to make it "illegal to digitally modify
a photo of someone". The example that they gave was putting
somebody's head on another body ...
This is concidered as a long introduction to the analysis of the
case Bryan Biggers brought to our attention:
I am writing this from very far from you... that is from Finland.
This is what I comprehend from our laws regarding to publication of
photographic images. This
may be in line with many other
(civilized) countries.
I suppose
taking pictures for private use only is quite free as a
contrast to strict but sensible rules of
publishing them. The
rules presented here apply at least for the latter.
The photographer can publish and make publicly available any
pictures he has taken in public places and situations. Public
places include any streets, parks, stores, malls, events etc. that
are open to general public free or with an admission fee. The
people shown in such pictures cannot oppose of publishing those
pictures (but in certain rare cases explained later).
The line is draw to private areas. Without approval of all parties
you cannot publish any pictures of private gardens, inside of
peoples houses, hotel rooms (other than yours), or anything where
people live e.g. pictures presenting people in their homes, inside
mobile homes are restricted (even when taken from public area
through windows etc.). Visitors in private homes are protected just
like the permanent residents. Cars are not general places for
housing so it is not restricted to take&publish pictures of people
driving their cars. All this doesn't restrict publishing pictures
of the
outside walls of the peoples houses as seen from the
public places like streets. Just don't use long tele to capture
people as seen through windows & publish the pictures.
Toilets, fitting rooms in shops, changing rooms in swimming pools
and beaches and similar places with more needs for intimacy are
concidered as private areas too. Taking photos there even for
private use only is prohibited. Makes sense.
Private events where participants are invited are concidered no-go
situations for publishing except when the participants are very
well aware of the possibility (marked press people with cameras in
their hands are present).
Now I am getting closer to the point. It is NOT OK if a clearly
regognized John-Average-person in a picture taken in a public place
would be hugely humiliated if it is published. Harsh example,
sorry: if his fly zip is open and his ***** is clearly seen and the
picture includes his recognizable face, picture cannot be
published. This rule doesn't apply to celebrities. They need to
accept more than the average person. This means paparazzi pictures
are legal in this respect.
Finally, the "head-body digitally modified photo" problem. In
Finland, at least, two rules apply. First: You need an approval of
a person in the image (written, preferably) for publishing a
picture taken in a private place (private? > see above). Second:
You cannot release a picture where the recognisable
Joan-Average-person is presented in a humiliating situation,
modified body or not. Notice, Britney Spears is a celebrity:
publishing fake nudes of her is not restricted (but is it any good
for us as civilized people?)
In Finland, it is not restricted to digitally or by other means
modify (and publish) a photo taken in public place from
recognizable John-Dough-person if it is done
without humiliating
him. And I suppose it never will be.
Last word about common sense and sensibility. How would you feel if
someone, girl- or boyfriend or else, would do you something like
the man did for her ex-woman?
Matti J.
P.S. In France, in the future, people are allowed take "pictures of
the sky and the sea only". But they fighting hard against these
proposed laws. I think they'll come to their senses in the end.
