lynnb
Veteran
French laws granting people the right to control their own image have led to photographer Yan Morvan being fined and having his photobook Gangs Story banned from sale, despite the offending photograph having being taken more than 20 years ago and the subject being unidentified in the book, according to a report in BJP.
According to the report, the subject - who was 17 at the time and is now 43 - claimed that the photograph didn't represent his current beliefs and that he should own the rights to his own image. The court found in his favour, ordering the photographer to pay a €5000 fine and the book publisher to withdraw the book immediately.
Further details in the linked story.
This thread contains links to articles about Jan Morvan and his social documentary work.
According to the report, the subject - who was 17 at the time and is now 43 - claimed that the photograph didn't represent his current beliefs and that he should own the rights to his own image. The court found in his favour, ordering the photographer to pay a €5000 fine and the book publisher to withdraw the book immediately.
Further details in the linked story.
This thread contains links to articles about Jan Morvan and his social documentary work.
Don't get me started about our French friends....
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Monochrom
Well-known
The law was applied retroactively or was there and never executed?
20 years ago in terms of roghts of property doesn´t seem too much, but also 20 years of not complaining is...
Many law claims extinguish if are not persecuted in a given time lapse....
but i guess in this case they are eternal...
20 years ago in terms of roghts of property doesn´t seem too much, but also 20 years of not complaining is...
Many law claims extinguish if are not persecuted in a given time lapse....
but i guess in this case they are eternal...
slm
Formerly nextreme
Its pretty much the same rules here in Quebec, but not elsewhere in Canada.
edge100
Well-known
GaryLH
Veteran
This is scary... What about just us regular non-pro doing a blurb book?
Gary
Gary
Frontman
Well-known
Had this law existed during HCB's heyday, we would likely have a great deal less of his work to enjoy.
finguanzo
Well-known
Shame,
Yan Morvan has some great stuff..
Yan Morvan has some great stuff..
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
No one sees you, no one sues you, I guess. Or at least that's my hope, as long as I make very few copies of my Blurb books and keep them off the ordinary commerce and mainly to be distributed to dedicated followers.
But if the French one is a trend, at some point we'll have to start worrying about images on our sites and blogs. These can reach even wider public than a book. Or?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think the issue was commercial use of the image without the subject's approval. The photographer's argument seems to have been that the photo is documentary in nature so he has a right to inform.
If I were a neo-nazi twerp when I was 17 I'd probably want to hide it too, but I have to agree with the photographer here, it's a work of reportage not some sort of commercial portrait.
If I were a neo-nazi twerp when I was 17 I'd probably want to hide it too, but I have to agree with the photographer here, it's a work of reportage not some sort of commercial portrait.
DougFord
on the good foot
There is no hell, there is only France.- f. zappa
Addy101
Well-known
The right to your own portrait is an older one. I don't know when it was introduced.
I can understand Matthieu doesn't want his picture in that book and I can understand the ruling. However, I think the newsworthiness of the picture to me is greater then the right of Matthieu. It is a long time ago and he isn't easily recognisable. But then, the judge probably decided the picture was taken this long ago, that the newsworthiness was less.
Those of us with a blog: don't worry, they have to ask you to take it down. Just do it.
Those of you who are worried, read this for legal information
I can understand Matthieu doesn't want his picture in that book and I can understand the ruling. However, I think the newsworthiness of the picture to me is greater then the right of Matthieu. It is a long time ago and he isn't easily recognisable. But then, the judge probably decided the picture was taken this long ago, that the newsworthiness was less.
Those of us with a blog: don't worry, they have to ask you to take it down. Just do it.
Those of you who are worried, read this for legal information
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Interesting.
Eventually, they'll try this on someone with the resources to push it to the EU court. Then, I think, we'll see some fireworks.
Eventually, they'll try this on someone with the resources to push it to the EU court. Then, I think, we'll see some fireworks.
daveleo
what?
Doesn't this open a legal case against every photo ever printed in a book, by any person in any photo ?
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Why is it that people have to be such compulsive control freaks about photography these days?? It's all such "bull feces" ... 
Cutly
Established
this surely helps.
Appart from that, being french and a photographer, I have to say it's a real bad news.
tonyramos
Member
this is an ex post facto law, isn't it?.
nherment
Newbie
Don't judge french law too fast..
Being a french amateur photographer, this law to the 'right of the image' is a real pain because we can't publish whatever picture we want and we have to be a bit careful. Some take the risk and are still fine... The probability of being sued seems pretty low.
There are legal precedents in favor of the photographer as well as in favor of the person whose picture was taken.
Here is an excerpt of a judgement that I think defines well how this law is interpreted (I'm no lawyer but I've searched the subject a bit. Maybe others will step in):
"Si chacun dispose d’un droit exclusif sur son image qui lui permet de s’opposer à la publication de celle-ci sauf nécessité tirée du droit à la légitime information du public, ce droit peut céder devant la liberté d’expression de l’artiste photographe lorsque ne sont en cause ni le respect de la dignité humaine ni l’atteinte à la vie privée de la personne représentée."
It pretty much means that the right to inform and the right for an artist to express himself takes precedence unless the photograph harms one's dignity or his right for privacy. Also, when the consequences of a picture are unusually grave, the person taken can also oppose to publishing the image.
There is another principle which is that anyone has the absolute right to control his image.
Some of our case laws:
- publishing a photograph of a dead body is harming his human dignity
- publishing a photograph of a famous person being taken by an ambulance falls in the right to inform
- François-Marie Banier published a book (perdre la tête) which included a photograph of a woman. She sued for her 'right for image' but lost against banier's right for 'artistic expression'.
In the case on hand (Yan Morvan) I could not get the judgement so I don't know why the judge leaned towards the person being photographed.
Several reasons may explain why:
- the photograph was taken in a private place (the subject's bedroom)
- there does not seem to be any written authorization given from the subject to the photographer
- the photograph is of a national extremist ("extrême droite"). You can see SS and 3rd Reich posters on the walls.
I could very well see why this person would like to protect his current reputation and publishing this image may harm his image with unusual gravity. Because he may regret what he thought.
Hope I'm not launching a flame war. I understand that we as photograph want to report and express ourselves. Should we bring up that someone in his 20s was pro-SS and publish a 'gang' book with him in it ?
It reminds me of Eddie Adams photograph of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Later, M. Adams said
"The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera … photographs do lie, even without manipulation."
Here you can hear him talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv11KilBpHQ
Being a french amateur photographer, this law to the 'right of the image' is a real pain because we can't publish whatever picture we want and we have to be a bit careful. Some take the risk and are still fine... The probability of being sued seems pretty low.
There are legal precedents in favor of the photographer as well as in favor of the person whose picture was taken.
Here is an excerpt of a judgement that I think defines well how this law is interpreted (I'm no lawyer but I've searched the subject a bit. Maybe others will step in):
"Si chacun dispose d’un droit exclusif sur son image qui lui permet de s’opposer à la publication de celle-ci sauf nécessité tirée du droit à la légitime information du public, ce droit peut céder devant la liberté d’expression de l’artiste photographe lorsque ne sont en cause ni le respect de la dignité humaine ni l’atteinte à la vie privée de la personne représentée."
It pretty much means that the right to inform and the right for an artist to express himself takes precedence unless the photograph harms one's dignity or his right for privacy. Also, when the consequences of a picture are unusually grave, the person taken can also oppose to publishing the image.
There is another principle which is that anyone has the absolute right to control his image.
Some of our case laws:
- publishing a photograph of a dead body is harming his human dignity
- publishing a photograph of a famous person being taken by an ambulance falls in the right to inform
- François-Marie Banier published a book (perdre la tête) which included a photograph of a woman. She sued for her 'right for image' but lost against banier's right for 'artistic expression'.
In the case on hand (Yan Morvan) I could not get the judgement so I don't know why the judge leaned towards the person being photographed.
Several reasons may explain why:
- the photograph was taken in a private place (the subject's bedroom)
- there does not seem to be any written authorization given from the subject to the photographer
- the photograph is of a national extremist ("extrême droite"). You can see SS and 3rd Reich posters on the walls.
I could very well see why this person would like to protect his current reputation and publishing this image may harm his image with unusual gravity. Because he may regret what he thought.
Hope I'm not launching a flame war. I understand that we as photograph want to report and express ourselves. Should we bring up that someone in his 20s was pro-SS and publish a 'gang' book with him in it ?
It reminds me of Eddie Adams photograph of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Later, M. Adams said
"The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera … photographs do lie, even without manipulation."
Here you can hear him talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv11KilBpHQ
j j
Well-known
Thanks nherment for an interesting contribution. On the face of it the ruling is disconcerting. I would hope that exposing someone's extremist past would be in the public interest.
To introduce a less emotive example, how about model release forms? Are they not similar?
To introduce a less emotive example, how about model release forms? Are they not similar?