damien.murphy
Damien
Spot on analogy
Sparrow
Veteran
I see many exelent photographs from people I know in Norway published here and elsewhere but I don't see much litigation going on ... is it possible that Norwegians treat this in a mature and common-sense manner and apply the law only where it's needed?
haempe
Well-known
All depends on the mood of the judge in the special case.
(art/no art; special public interest; reasoned interest of the photographed...)
I try, to keep a rough overview about the usual interpretation of the law.
But in the single case, no one can say before...
V
varjag
Guest
I've been shooting street here in Norway more or less daily, since 2006. People's attitude is quite relaxed, and the regulations (which put street photography in kinda grey area) were never the problem.
In my limited experience people's reaction to street photography in the UK (where it is perfectly legal) was quite a bit more strained.
In my limited experience people's reaction to street photography in the UK (where it is perfectly legal) was quite a bit more strained.
V
varjag
Guest
About sums it up. There is not much paranoia in the society, even after the July events.
Sparrow
Veteran
I was very impressed with the way your country reacted to and dealt with last year's massacre.
regards
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Agree. Which is why I keep taking street photos and posting them, relying on people's sensibility. Chances of really getting in trouble so that you need a lawyer are tiny, and consequences very modest (I guess) if the unauthorized photo didn't humiliate or ridiculize the subject.
But, to answer other comments, while the hotel receptionist may have acted so in fear a possible threat to hotel security or just to follow security instructions from above, the defence of the privacy right that lies behind the need of a permission to publish photos of people has nothing to do with terror paranoia.
dct
perpetual amateur
Same here in Switzerland. The law is also rather strictly against the person photographing a subject. Not in terms of taking the image but again, in terms of using the photograph publicly. Speaking of internet usage, the thin line between public and private release of an image with clearly visible individuals may be between public web sites and private password protected ones (also for viewing!). RFF galleries are "public" by that definition. Based on Swiss law in a strictly way you need a model release agreement if you wanna publish an image of a normal person (the law differentiates between unknown normal persons like you and me or well known public persons like high level politicians).
Until now there are only few court decisions and there are no supreme court decisions which cover in a definite way all the potential restrictions around this topic.
andersju
Well-known
Whenever these things are discussed it's important (as has already been mentioned) to separate taking a picture vs. publishing a picture, as they are two completely different things, not least legally speaking.
In Sweden, for example: You can take pictures of whatever you want (including people and private property, and people inside private property) as long as you are on public property; you can also take pictures inside private property as long as you haven't been informed it's not OK. Only exception being certain designated secure compounds.
Publishing a picture of someone on, say, RFF, or your blog, or on Facebook without their permission is perfectly legal as long as the picture isn't "kränkande" (degrading/offensive/violating) - which depends on a number of things and is a case-by-case thing.
I was curious about the situation in Norway so I tried to look up the relevant law - often the best way to get a clearer answer - and this appears to be the relevant bit. § 45c in "Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk m.v.", http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#45c:. I realize you already wrote a summary of this but for others it might be useful to know the exact wording and source.
(A Google translation, slightly corrected)
"Photographs depicting a person may not be reproduced or displayed publicly without the consent of the depicted, except when
a) the image is of current and general/public interest,
b) the image of the person is less important than the main content of the image, [not the main motive]
c) the image depicts assemblies, parades in the open air or circumstances or events that are of general/public interest,
d) "eksemplar av avbildningen på vanlig måte vises som reklame for fotografens virksomhet og den avbildede ikke nedlegger forbud, eller" = I think this means it's OK if the picture is used as an advertisement for the photographer, unless the depicted person has explicitly said no
e) The image is used as provided in § 23 third paragraph or § 27 second paragraph."
The protection applies during the depicted person's lifetime and 15 years after his death."
§ 23 third paragraph is about using pictures in biographies. § 27 second paragraph seems to be about using pictures in connection to inquiries or investigations and as evidence in court.
So - my take is you are pretty much always allowed to take pictures without consent, and you _might_ be allowed to publish them without consent.
In Sweden, for example: You can take pictures of whatever you want (including people and private property, and people inside private property) as long as you are on public property; you can also take pictures inside private property as long as you haven't been informed it's not OK. Only exception being certain designated secure compounds.
Publishing a picture of someone on, say, RFF, or your blog, or on Facebook without their permission is perfectly legal as long as the picture isn't "kränkande" (degrading/offensive/violating) - which depends on a number of things and is a case-by-case thing.
I was curious about the situation in Norway so I tried to look up the relevant law - often the best way to get a clearer answer - and this appears to be the relevant bit. § 45c in "Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk m.v.", http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#45c:. I realize you already wrote a summary of this but for others it might be useful to know the exact wording and source.
(A Google translation, slightly corrected)
"Photographs depicting a person may not be reproduced or displayed publicly without the consent of the depicted, except when
a) the image is of current and general/public interest,
b) the image of the person is less important than the main content of the image, [not the main motive]
c) the image depicts assemblies, parades in the open air or circumstances or events that are of general/public interest,
d) "eksemplar av avbildningen på vanlig måte vises som reklame for fotografens virksomhet og den avbildede ikke nedlegger forbud, eller" = I think this means it's OK if the picture is used as an advertisement for the photographer, unless the depicted person has explicitly said no
e) The image is used as provided in § 23 third paragraph or § 27 second paragraph."
The protection applies during the depicted person's lifetime and 15 years after his death."
§ 23 third paragraph is about using pictures in biographies. § 27 second paragraph seems to be about using pictures in connection to inquiries or investigations and as evidence in court.
So - my take is you are pretty much always allowed to take pictures without consent, and you _might_ be allowed to publish them without consent.
Matus
Well-known
Incomplete. You are not allowed to take a picture of anyone (as a private person, different rules are there for newspapers) without written consent ANYWHERE. Rule of thumb is - if the person could be recognized by it's close one - that you have to have a permission (before you trip the shutter). There are exceptions to this rule (e.g. large public events like concerts, demonstrations but even then single person may not be the main motive of the image). The wording is weakly defined - so hard to predict outcome of a suit (if that should happen).
"... higher interest of art ..." Now that is a nonsense (yes, that is written in the law) ...
So in principal street photography is 'outlawed' in Germany, as there are usually people on the streets. Good news is that problems of this kind seem to come up rarely in Germany ...
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
I was curious about the situation in Norway so I tried to look up the relevant law - often the best way to get a clearer answer - and this appears to be the relevant bit. § 45c in "Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk m.v.", http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#45c:. I realize you already wrote a summary of this but for others it might be useful to know the exact wording and source.
(A Google translation, slightly corrected)
"Photographs depicting a person may not be reproduced or displayed publicly without the consent of the depicted, except when
a) the image is of current and general/public interest,
b) the image of the person is less important than the main content of the image, [not the main motive]
c) the image depicts assemblies, parades in the open air or circumstances or events that are of general/public interest,
d) "eksemplar av avbildningen på vanlig måte vises som reklame for fotografens virksomhet og den avbildede ikke nedlegger forbud, eller" = I think this means it's OK if the picture is used as an advertisement for the photographer, unless the depicted person has explicitly said no
e) The image is used as provided in § 23 third paragraph or § 27 second paragraph."
The protection applies during the depicted person's lifetime and 15 years after his death."
§ 23 third paragraph is about using pictures in biographies. § 27 second paragraph seems to be about using pictures in connection to inquiries or investigations and as evidence in court.
So - my take is you are pretty much always allowed to take pictures without consent, and you _might_ be allowed to publish them without consent.
That's exactly the piece law I was referring to and summarised in a little shorter way. Point d above applies, I believe, mostly to studio portraits that the photographer decides to use to promote his/her activity, according to the law without needing a permission as long as he didn't get explicit request not to do so. And point e refers to photos as part of biographies and as pieces of evidence in court or investigations. I skipped these two points as neither is relevant to street photography. Men tusen takk
