Should Alamy delete all photos taken in France?

[Richard Baker]

Searching "France" gives a result of 2m+ though of course, not everything has recognisable people within. Nevertheless, I cannot see Alamy deleting anything unless forced to on an individual basis such as this.

 

Rgds,

Richard.

[Ed Rooney]

Carlo, a search for "France people" on Alamy produces 329,473 images. "France" alone shows 1,954,832. It's a guess, but I don't believe Alamy is planning to delete all those images. 

 

"If someone is in a photo but not an essential element – or when the person is not recognizable – or is an accessory by chance – say in an image of a public monument, or statue, then it is generally considered that consent is not necessary, even though people have taken photographers or publishers to court over this. The same goes when the person is part of a crowd. But again each case is taken on its own merits, as to what is considered a crowd or an accessory or not."  From Geoff's quote of the French law in question. 

 

That's helpful . . . but people end up in court, in a lawsuit, because they disagree with the interpretation of a law. 

 

Is this about one image that is sitting in your 5948 collection, Carlo? Or has it sold? Deleting the image would be a good way to close the matter and move forward. Deleting all you France images? No way. 

 

Edo

[fotoDogue]

I had a similar experience after photographing a street performer, here in New York, where it's perfectly legal. I contacted Alamy and they removed the image promptly.

FWIW, there are other images of the same performer on Alamy and he doesn't seem to have complained about those. Even so, it's more trouble than it's worth. ( in six months the photo had 0 views) 

 

As Ed said, deleting this single image is a good way to resolve the matter and prevent this crank from spoiling your day any more than he already has, but there's no need to delete other photos taken in France if nobody else has complained.

 

fD

 

 

 

[Phil Robinson]

 

 

I really can not inmagine that tourists walking in France can not make a photo of anything just because a person is standing there. The Police could then directly forbid having a camera on the streets. Every tourist has a camera and on every camera are photos including people. Not to avoid. So i am standing in front of a statue but a person is sitting in front of it eating a sandwich. I need first to ask the person to take the photo of the statue? Even just for private use? I can not believe it. And therefore i think just restrict France.

 

No weapons, no alcohol and no cameras in the streets soon.

 

Mirco

It doesn't apply to public places. This is the OP's point.

 

Ok. I  was not sure if the OP situation was public.

 

Thanks.

 

Mirco

 

I'm not an expert in French law but I do know the laws about photographing people are very different there. They have privacy laws regarding the photography of individuals - in public places - that are very different from those in other countries. 

The fact that the photos are published in other countries would not alter the fact that they were taken in France. Presumably if the famous NT found images of their precious properties published abroad they could, theoretically, still go after the photographer.

[John Mitchell]

I had a similar experience after photographing a street performer, here in New York, where it's perfectly legal. I contacted Alamy and they removed the image promptly.

FWIW, there are other images of the same performer on Alamy and he doesn't seem to have complained about those. Even so, it's more trouble than it's worth. ( in six months the photo had 0 views) 

 

As Ed said, deleting this single image is a good way to resolve the matter and prevent this crank from spoiling your day any more than he already has, but there's no need to delete other photos taken in France if nobody else has complained.

 

fD

 

I tend to agree. Deleting the offending image and moving on is the best -- and most stress-free -- way to go. No need to do mass deletions.

 

BTW, Quebec has similar privacy laws to France's when it comes to photographing people. AFAIK, no photographers have been successfully prosecuted in "La Belle Province".

[Bill Brooks]

As John says the province of Quebec has the same rules for street photography as France. However there is a Quebec case where an amateur street photographer lost over a photograph published in an exhibition. I think France and Quebec have it right when it comes to balancing the rights of artists and private individuals. France have some very artist friendly laws when dealing with other matters.

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

We also have to be careful that we are aware of the difference between news and editorial. A calendar may be editorial, but it is not news. The same could be said for a book full of travel images.

 

This was driven home for me when my wife and I were used on the cover of Canada’s national magazine because of our interracial marriage. The issue was about how immigration was changing the face of Canada, and in the future most Canadians would have an off white skin colour. We agreed with the premise of the article, but we did not agree to be photographed.

 

The image was a telephoto stock photo featuring only the two of us walking down the street, surreptitiously taken by a voyeur for profit, without our permission. Had we been asked, we would have declined permission.

 

Ironically we were in that street surreptitiously taking stock street photographs when the offending stock shot was taken of us.

 

Life is complicated.

[John Mitchell]

 

As John says the province of Quebec has the same rules for street photography as France. However there is a Quebec case where an amateur street photographer lost over a photograph published in an exhibition. I think France and Quebec have it right when it comes to balancing the rights of artists and private individuals. France have some very artist friendly laws when dealing with other matters.

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

We also have to be careful that we are aware of the difference between news and editorial. A calendar may be editorial, but it is not news. The same could be said for a book full of travel images.

 

This was driven home for me when my wife and I were used on the cover of Canada’s national magazine because of our interracial marriage. The issue was about how immigration was changing the face of Canada, and in the future most Canadians would have an off white skin colour. We agreed with the premise of the article, but we did not agree to be photographed.

 

The image was a telephoto stock photo featuring only the two of us walking down the street, surreptitiously taken by a voyeur for profit, without our permission. Had we been asked, we would have declined permission.

 

Ironically we were in that street surreptitiously taking stock street photographs when the offending stock shot was taken of us.

 

Life is complicated.

 

 

Bill, how recognizable were you and your wife in that photo?

 

What are your thoughts about photographs "featuring" local people in third-world countries? A coconut vendor standing on a corner in the Dominican Republic certainly isn't going to sign a model release. Or do you mean something else when you say "without their permission"?

[spacecadet]

 

 

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

I respectfully disagree. The public sphere is just that. In the UK we have that right- I prefer to call it a freedom.

As to France, I don't think I will be having any trouble from the organ-grinder in the Capitole in Toulouse, but you never know.

I wonder how stock photography even functions in France with such laws- perhaps they are ignored until an agency gets a threatening letter from a crank. Does anyone know?

[Guest]

 

What are your thoughts about photographs "featuring" local people in third-world countries? A coconut vendor standing on a corner in the Dominican Republic certainly isn't going to sign a model release. Or do you mean something else when you say "without their permission"?

 

Not sure how third world you would class Colombia but this image is model released.... I assume the vendor only.

 

 

The 'problem' is that getting releases takes effort and often money......

[John Mitchell]

 

 

What are your thoughts about photographs "featuring" local people in third-world countries? A coconut vendor standing on a corner in the Dominican Republic certainly isn't going to sign a model release. Or do you mean something else when you say "without their permission"?

 

Not sure how third world you would class Colombia but this image is model released.... I assume the vendor only.

 

 

The 'problem' is that getting releases takes effort and often money......

 

 

Actually, I don't like the term "third-world," but it's still in common use. I've not visited Colombia. However, it is considered to be a "developing country" as far as I know.

 

I don't see why this image would need a model release for editorial use, say to illustrate a travel article in a newspaper or magazine. That said, it's always polite to ask permission. Having a release of course might open the door to commercial possibilities. I would add some knowledge of the local language to effort and possibly money, but there are many places where people wouldn't be able to read a model release no matter what language it was written in, let alone understand what a release is.

 

P.S. If I'm not mistaken, the photographer who took the image above has marked that there is only one person in the photo. So the MR might not do him much good.

[Martin P Wilson]

This thread triggered a memory.

 

I have a photograph taken in a market in France of a woman going about her normal business.  She is just an ordinary middle-aged woman doing her shopping but her make up, her expression, her style makes for a very striking image, it is a great street photograph. That is why I took it. But I have not published it, because to do so could suggest I am holding her up to ridicule. It was taken in a public place, she is not doing anything that, I guess, she would not normally do but I worry that it if she saw it could hurt her. I do not know who she was, I will almost certainly never see her again and she would be unlikely to see any publication if I permitted it. But I still will not publish; there would be no public interest justification, just voyeurisim.

 

My non-publication comes from my own ethical standpoint, not from any legal or external rules. I never want to demean for the sake of a cheap shot. A funny situation, an amusing juxtaposition, is one thing, making fun of someone for what they are is something very different, arguably mean spirited or even nasty.
 

[Bill Brooks]

John:

 

Completely recognizable, more like a portrait that had been posed. Our friends called our attention to the cover. A long vertical telephoto shot with only the two of us occupying about 2/3 of the image, with enough extra room above and below for type. The ideal stock magazine cover shot, taken without our knowledge or permission, that connected us to an issue that we did not wish to champion.

 

Taking news photos of anyone in a public place should be a right, but only for news. A general stock scene that might include, but not feature, individual people should also be OK.

 

I think permission for shots of individuals should be sought if it is not news, even for editorial. By permission I agree with John. I do not mean a model release, but an acknowledgement from the subject that they know you are taking a picture and are OK with it. You do not have to speak the language, point at your camera.

 

Common courtesy, in my opinion. I must admit that my views have changed over the years.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

John:

 

...

 

I think permission for shots of individuals should be sought if it is not news, even for editorial. By permission I agree with John. I do not mean a model release, but an acknowledgement from the subject that they know you are taking a picture and are OK with it. You do not have to speak the language, point at your camera.

 

Common courtesy, in my opinion. I must admit that my views have changed over the years.

 

 

I have pretty much come to the same, or at least similar view. My problem with my French lady is just that. I grabbed the moment, she was not aware of me taking it. So there was no acknowledgement. When shooting street photography I am very visible, at this time of the year I usually wear a bright yellow jacket, not at all furtive. And I respect when a possible subject indicates they do not want to be photographed. Others see the camera and play up to it, I take that as acceptance! Others just ignore it, more tricky as much of the time I do not want posed pictures!

[John Mitchell]

 

John:

 

Completely recognizable, more like a portrait that had been posed. Our friends called our attention to the cover. A long vertical telephoto shot with only the two of us occupying about 2/3 of the image, with enough extra room above and below for type. The ideal stock magazine cover shot, taken without our knowledge or permission, that connected us to an issue that we did not wish to champion.

 

Taking news photos of anyone in a public place should be a right, but only for news. A general stock scene that might include, but not feature, individual people should also be OK.

 

I think permission for shots of individuals should be sought if it is not news, even for editorial. By permission I agree with John. I do not mean a model release, but an acknowledgement from the subject that they know you are taking a picture and are OK with it. You do not have to speak the language, point at your camera.

 

Common courtesy, in my opinion. I must admit that my views have changed over the years.

 

 

That's what I do most of the time -- i.e. ask permission either verbally or by a gesture.  Unfortunately, the best shots of people are often the candid ones.

 

Interesting to hear about your experience. I tend to duck when I catch someone pointing a camera or phone in my direction. 

 

As you say, it's complicated...

 

 

 

.

[Bill Brooks]

 

 

 

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

I respectfully disagree. The public sphere is just that. In the UK we have that right- I prefer to call it a freedom.

 

 

 

Mark

 

Are you sure about the right to photography in the UK?

 

I just browsed the streets of London in Google street view, and even the mighty Google has obscured faces and license plates enough to make them unrecognizable.

[KerinF]

There is quite a good article on this topic from the NYT a couple of years back: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/paris-city-of-rights/?_r=0 (Apologies if it was already posted, have come into the discussion a little bit late, but on a quick scroll, couldn't see it.)  Personally, over the last 4-5 years, I would say I have been leaning more and more towards Bill's views on this one, irrespective of the strict legal position.  Perhaps it is the rise of Facebook/Instagram/Etc, but I do believe that people have become more cautious (or even hostile), and as Bill's example shows, with good reason.

[wiskerke]

 

 

John:

 

Completely recognizable, more like a portrait that had been posed. Our friends called our attention to the cover. A long vertical telephoto shot with only the two of us occupying about 2/3 of the image, with enough extra room above and below for type. The ideal stock magazine cover shot, taken without our knowledge or permission, that connected us to an issue that we did not wish to champion.

 

Taking news photos of anyone in a public place should be a right, but only for news. A general stock scene that might include, but not feature, individual people should also be OK.

 

I think permission for shots of individuals should be sought if it is not news, even for editorial. By permission I agree with John. I do not mean a model release, but an acknowledgement from the subject that they know you are taking a picture and are OK with it. You do not have to speak the language, point at your camera.

 

Common courtesy, in my opinion. I must admit that my views have changed over the years.

 

 

That's what I do most of the time -- i.e. ask permission either verbally or by a gesture.  Unfortunately, the best shots of people are often the candid ones.

 

Interesting to hear about your experience. I tend to duck when I catch someone pointing a camera or phone in my direction. 

 

As you say, it's complicated...

 

When someone points a camera or phone in my direction, I take it as an opportunity! So I tend to pose. And ask for one in return.. and out comes the big bad monster Canon ;-)

 

wim

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

I respectfully disagree. The public sphere is just that. In the UK we have that right- I prefer to call it a freedom.

 

 

 

Mark

 

Are you sure about the right to photography in the UK?

 

I just browsed the streets of London in Google street view, and even the mighty Google has obscured faces and license plates enough to make them unrecognizable.

 

 

Yes, you have the right to take photographs in a public place. I've a letter from the Chief of Police that was sent out to the police force advising so and that they cannot confiscate cameras, delete images or ask for images to be deleted. Nor can anyone else, provided you are in a public place. 

 

Google is a commercial enterprise and Street View is a commercial product therefore without a model release the pictures of people cannot be used.

 

Edit. Just to clarify Google. You and I many not pay to view but companies do pay in order to use the functionality on websites etc. Basically it is a product and not editorial.

[MircoV]

I often wonder WHY people object. Does it take 10 years of their lives if a picture is taken? Are they all out doing criminal acts which are not meant to be seen?

 

I remember - many, many years ago - taking shots at the city park in my hometown Ghent. There is a waterfall where you can walk under. So, I was waiting for people to walk under it to make the picture more interesting. Unfortunately it were American tourists which came in view first. The guy noticed me taking a picture (of the waterfall, not so much him as a subject), came straight to me and told me in an angry voice "I'm going to sue you!" When I asked him "Why? What's the harm done?". He stood there several seconds not knowing what to answer and finally said "Because I can!" I gave him a little lecture about Belgium - the land of the free - and moved on.

 

In Europe, we never had problems like that in the past. Unfortunately, sueing each other is now becoming a "sport" as well.......... Because we can!

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Totally weird to me also. If you are in public people are seeing you anyway from all possible perspectives. You should not be leaving your house at all if you are so afraid to be seen. For me also a huge why????

 I only understand of course the commercial use. Where your face is used on a billboard promoting a product but i dont see the harm if you standing next to the subject in a photo on a magazine page. People look at the foto to see that subject without special interest to see you standing next (as long you are not an Alien just landed coming from a spaceship).

 

Mirco

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

I respectfully disagree. The public sphere is just that. In the UK we have that right- I prefer to call it a freedom.

 

 

 

Mark

 

Are you sure about the right to photography in the UK?

 

I just browsed the streets of London in Google street view, and even the mighty Google has obscured faces and license plates enough to make them unrecognizable.

 

 

We have the right to photograph in public unless in areas where it's unlawful (criminally - court room for example), there's no rights of image to the subject as per France, We have no real privacy rights (in public) in statute law AFAIK but there are judgements about invasion of privacy in a public setting which have been handed down from the Euopean Court.  So whilst anyone can sue you, they now have court rulings in favour of privacy in certain circumstances.

 

Right to photograph and consequences of publication are two separate issues - for stock, the two are however interlinked.

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

I respectfully disagree. The public sphere is just that. In the UK we have that right- I prefer to call it a freedom.

 

 

 

Mark

 

Are you sure about the right to photography in the UK?

 

I just browsed the streets of London in Google street view, and even the mighty Google has obscured faces and license plates enough to make them unrecognizable.

 

 

We have the right to photograph in public unless in areas where it's unlawful (criminally - court room for example), there's no rights of image to the subject as per France, We have no real privacy rights (in public) in statute law AFAIK but there are judgements about invasion of privacy in a public setting which have been handed down from the Euopean Court.  So whilst anyone can sue you, they now have court rulings in favour of privacy in certain circumstances.

 

Right to photograph and consequences of publication are two separate issues - for stock, the two are however interlinked.

 

 

Yes. If you take a shot of someone in their garden and you're in a public street, then it would be reasonable to expect them to be able to sue (technically) for Invasion of Privacy. However, they are unlikely to succeed if they were walking down the high street as it's unreasonable to expect privacy in a non private place.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of news, we should not have the right to make money by featuring people in images without their permission, even if they are in public. Notice I said feature.

 

I respectfully disagree. The public sphere is just that. In the UK we have that right- I prefer to call it a freedom.

 

 

 

Mark

 

Are you sure about the right to photography in the UK?

 

I just browsed the streets of London in Google street view, and even the mighty Google has obscured faces and license plates enough to make them unrecognizable.

 

 

We have the right to photograph in public unless in areas where it's unlawful (criminally - court room for example), there's no rights of image to the subject as per France, We have no real privacy rights (in public) in statute law AFAIK but there are judgements about invasion of privacy in a public setting which have been handed down from the Euopean Court.  So whilst anyone can sue you, they now have court rulings in favour of privacy in certain circumstances.

 

Right to photograph and consequences of publication are two separate issues - for stock, the two are however interlinked.

 

 

Yes. If you take a shot of someone in their garden and you're in a public street, then it would be reasonable to expect them to be able to sue (technically) for Invasion of Privacy. However, they are unlikely to succeed if they were walking down the high street as it's unreasonable to expect privacy in a non private place.

 

 

Example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm Note the part about the privacy laws being confused

 

And the major one http://www.out-law.com/page-4663

[spacecadet]

There's the  J.K. Rowling case over the privacy of her child in the street. It never went to trial and she got a very narrow judgement.

[Bryan]

I confess to having a few hundred shots taken in France, and even  a few in Quebec,  showing people, very few of which are model released. I have tended to take the same approach as shooting in the UK, i.e. I would not upload an image showing a person in a bad light, or if they were giving me the evil eye, or if they asked me not to use the photo.  If it is a head on shot, I normally ask permission, but, as John says above, you tend to get different photos if they are candid.

 

Reading the above it appears that I could be in trouble. although the probability is probably close to negligible. Don't think that I will be deleting any shots, unless asked.

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

 

 

 

Example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm Note the part about the privacy laws being confused

 

And the major one http://www.out-law.com/page-4663

 

 

1st links dead for me. The 2nd.... well, I think it has something to do with who it was but you can never tell. That said, the average Joe blogs is unlikely to go to that extent and is more likely to be happy for their 15mins of fame. Unless of course they were with someone they shouldn't have been with