can you take someones picture in public if they yell, "NO!" ?

Let's see, in this thread;
United States, Paris, killed, Russian, trial, google, maps, restrict,
Constitution, Federal, CCTV, shoot, EU, harmful
and just for good measure Jimmy Hoffa !

No that wouldn't trigger any monitoring database
I ever heard of to spit out a heads-up to the gendarmerie
to check a few street cams to track down this dangerous moggie.

The lady has gone from in public to public property
entirely due to this posting and for all we know,
the fur ball might just not like having it's picture taken,
or Canadians.
--

 
You, should "respect little old ladies". And, besides with proper manners/technique you would be able to have most of them cooperate with you and help you get the type pictures you want; heck, even enjoy a cup of tea or coffee with you and remain a friend for life. ;)
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

 
well, this shows your true character, I try to help and your arrogance tries to defend your bad manners with cheap insults.
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!
--

If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada :-)
 
But, they may not believe you either. :(
Gerry
Huh? Margouillat and you said entirely different things, yet you claim to agree with him.

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."
That is what I believe
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.
The photographer has possession of the image , so, not likely.
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."
You may wriggle that in a court of law , but, the law clearly states the subjects image is their own unless signed away.
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.
Yah, right.
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.
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.

Again it is quite clear. The image is the subjects and you need a signed agreement before you can do anything with it.

--

If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada :-)
 
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 :-)
 
Oh dear, you are determined to have the last (incorrect) word aren't you.

You have offered NO facts.
You have given your interpretation and opinion.
If you have these facts then post them or at least a link to them.

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.

A 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.

I 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 :-)
 
Personal Opinions...Ok if you think so...should there be a 3rd grade playground fight over it???

I think not...Common sense and decorum should have prevailed long before the original question was even asked or even posted here...

Regardless of what I or any one else thinks... if a subject is ever unwilling to have their photograph taken...anyone with an ounce of decency, should be prepared to delete (if digital) that photograph immediately...

I don't care who listens to what I consider to be very sage advice...

The moral issue can be debated ad nauseum, but I have deleted many fine street images because the subject objected to their picture being taken...

If they don't want it done, don't do it...

The golden rule applies here...as much as anywhere...

The information in this thread could be valuable, if the PI$$ING match was left out of it...
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.
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
 
Oh dear, you are determined to have the last (incorrect) word aren't you.

You have offered NO facts.
yes I have
You have given your interpretation and opinion.
no
If you have these facts then post them or at least a link to them.
do your own homework, I have done mine. You only believe yourself.
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.
A simple statement.... the image of a subject belongs to that subject unless signed away in France or Quebec. Refute that if you can.
A 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.
"Under certain circumstances" now you are wheasiling. Court cases can be won or lost with money
I have had enough of this now so you go ahead and have the last word if you want.
thankyou
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 :-)
--

If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada :-)
 
Zoot!!

Maybe you should have botched the cats's face, having spent some years in Paris many Parisians think more of there pets than their family. Anyway what was the cat doing on the edge of the wall....this would almost be worth a caption competion!!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top