ahhh now where is that little ignore button...there it is!Oh dear, having to resort to cheap and ignorant insults now are you.
Time to say goodnight Gracie.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ahhh now where is that little ignore button...there it is!Oh dear, having to resort to cheap and ignorant insults now are you.
Time to say goodnight Gracie.
--ahhh now where is that little ignore button...there it is!Oh dear, having to resort to cheap and ignorant insults now are you.
Time to say goodnight Gracie.
That is what I believeHuh? Margouillat and you said entirely different things, yet you claim to agree with him.But, they may not believe you either.![]()
Gerry
You said "FRENCH law states that a person owns their own photographic image and cannot be used for any purpose unless a signed agreement is used. If the person can be identified in the photo that person has the right to go after you for monetory compensation. Even if the person is not the primary subject of the photo."
The photographer has possession of the image , so, not likely.Right to one's image is not the same as copyright. The person in the picture, if they actually had the copyright, would be able to use the image freely at their will, without the photographers' consent. This is clearly not the case.
You may wriggle that in a court of law , but, the law clearly states the subjects image is their own unless signed away.Margouillat said "> > However, when capturing the image of a person has been accomplished in full sight of the person without this person opposing to that capture, while the person was able to do so (in full knowledge), the consent of the person is presumed."
Yah, right.so consent is implied if the photographer is in plain view and there is no objection at that time, and therefore no signed agreement is needed.
I agree , you can make prints for yourself because you have the possession of the image. Publishing without a signed waiver could be dangerous to your health.As for your claim about "cannot be used for any purpose" ... this again is not true. You can take the picture and make prints for it for yourself for example. You can publish it if the person did not object while you were in plain view and obviously taking the picture and if the picture is not defamatory or in some way harmful to the subject and if it's not for commercial purpose.
--Ilkka - give it up.
Mr. Gray is right - he said he is, so he must be!!
That is correct. I did not offer my opinion. I only offered to the OP some helpful facts.
--Ilkka - give it up.
Mr. Gray is right - he said he is, so he must be!!
If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada![]()
--You don't know if there are plenty of more images from different angles and that it was only once this last shot was taken that the lady made a face. You are only seeing one photo.
Of course, everyone should listen to a vancouverites personal opinions.
Vancouverite --> the comments and suggestions on the thread can be used for any photograph. Just for your information.
yes I haveOh dear, you are determined to have the last (incorrect) word aren't you.
You have offered NO facts.
noYou have given your interpretation and opinion.
do your own homework, I have done mine. You only believe yourself.If you have these facts then post them or at least a link to them.
A simple statement.... the image of a subject belongs to that subject unless signed away in France or Quebec. Refute that if you can.The quote from the French Penal code (given earlier) does not back up your assertions, my own and others experience of photography in France does not back up your opinions.
"Under certain circumstances" now you are wheasiling. Court cases can be won or lost with moneyA little bit of proper research on your part would quickly show you that you are incorrect in a number of things which you are putting forward as "facts".
If you search properly you can even find some details of court cases and judgements where it is clearly shown that the taking of images of people in public and in certain circumstances publishing those images is NOT against the law in France.
thankyouI have had enough of this now so you go ahead and have the last word if you want.
--That is correct. I did not offer my opinion. I only offered to the OP some helpful facts.
--Ilkka - give it up.
Mr. Gray is right - he said he is, so he must be!!
If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada![]()