What can I photograph without being legally shot.

Hello everyone,

 

This is my first post and I don't want to sound stupid or anything but I'm

more than a little confused as to what I can photograph without getting into

trouble. I think I must explain; I live in Brittany France, I originate from

Guernsey in the Channel Islands, when I have taken photos in Guernsey I have

phoned the relative owners of the property and asked permission, they seemed

genuinely shocked as no one has ever asked before and have written me a letter

with a list of property with which they have no problem with me shooting for

resale in prints, but I'm sure/know Guernsey laws are different to French

laws / English law and like the island are somewhere in between. All my

photographs so far have no recognisable property in but there are some lovely

churches and ruins here, along with fantastic picturesque villages and markets

etc. I understand the bit about non-recognisable people in pictures and if

the architect has been dead for a certain amount of time but what if there is

a fantastic shot with 200 year old houses and more recent building squidged in

the middle. Or can the current property owners sue me for selling a picture

with their house in it? I?m just starting out and finding it all a bit scary

and I don't think I'm going to progress unless I can clear it up. Maybe I?m

just a bit over sensitive to other peoples feelings.

Laws vary from place to place, but one of the important concepts is whether or not you were on public property (say, a street) when shooting. The owner of a house facing a public street doesn't really have any expectation of privacy. But using a long lens to shoot through their windows, for example, usually crosses an ethical/legal boundary. How you'll be USING the images is important too... it's one thing to show a print titled "Main Street, Smallville," and another to say, "Main Street, Smallville, Home To Criminals" (or some other libelous or other misrepresentative info). Alas, you'll need proper legal advice that takes into account the local and national traditions. For US-based photographers, there are some excellent books like "The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers" that do a nice job of easing your mind about such things, and preparing you for some of the surprises you'd like to avoid. It seems likely that there going to be a French counterpoint.

 

You may also want to do a little research online, looking for any French professional photographer's associations or other entities that may provide guidelines along these lines for their membership.

We're talking about PROPERTY, not PEOPLE. Property has no 'rights of privacy.' Only people do. It is never illegal to take pictures of anything or anyone from a public place. If the photo is of people, then there are potential privacy laws. If the photo is of a place, there are no laws whatsoever protecting them.

 

As for the book "The Law in Plain English," it's main problem is that it only addresses "aggressive" violations of privacy, but doesn't touch upon the far-more-common scenarios that more photographers face, where they not only know the owners of property, but where the may even be a business relationship. It's this area that is considerably more important to consider as far as privacy laws are concerned.

Get local legal advice. From a lawyer, not an author.

You can photograph anything without being legally shot, at least in the US, and if anywhere has the right to shoot you, it would probably be here.

 

What you can photograph without being arrested (or told to stop, or sued) is different country by country.

 

I think France has some fairly strict personal privacy laws, but I don't know what they are. You're going to need someone with specialist local knowledge to advise you.

 

You can usually photograph pretty much anything you want to except for some military intallations, at least in the US and the UK. Again, I don't know what the French laws are. What you do with the images is restricted of course. You'd need a property release for commercial (advertising use).

> Get local legal advice. From a lawyer, not an author.

 

That was precisely my thinking when I had to embark on a situation about 6 years ago. I spoke to a lawyer, and found that it got me in potentially MORE trouble. When I happened to speak to a guy that was the head of a law school, he reminded me of this quip: 50% of all lawyers lose their cases. Of course, the "humor" was more the intent, but the message behind the one-liner is that knowing legal codes is low on the priority list about what makes "good legal advice" (especially the kind that can be *useful*).

 

This lead to me to a lawyer he recommended, and this second guy told me the next big thing that I learned about model releases: 99% of lawyers know next to nothing about the subject because it involves The First Amendment, and that's a very specialized kind of law that comparatively few lawyers study. But most lawyers don't know that they don't know this stuff, especially when they want the business. In fact, it turns out that those lawyers that ARE well studied in the First Amendment (self-described as "FA-lawyers"), 80% of their business comes from clients who got in trouble because they spoke to a non-FA lawyer first. (Usually, general practice.)

 

This then lead me on a self-motivated crusade to find out more about the subject. I went to various sources: law school professors (who are generally more amicable to casual discussion), as well as with working FA-lawyers that I met in law-based discussion boards. This brought me pretty far along in the subject, which by itself, made it apparent why so many non-FA lawyers get their clients into trouble.

 

I then happened on my third encounter: a supreme court judge (for the state of CA) who happened to be on one of my travel assignments. For two solid weeks, I had the benefit (and pleasure) of having very long discussions about actual cases, theory, and of course, "real people" (on both sides of the litigation). If I had to summarize this experience, it would be this: knowing about model release issues is NOT about knowing the intricacies of laws, it's about piecing it together to form a coherent understanding of the "intent" of the law. And that doesn't require a lawyer. Indeed, the best law books ever written were not written by lawyers--they were written by people who research and investigate the topic (usually reporters). These are the best sources for this information because lawyers rarely tap into as extensive of a network of different opinions and analysis as researchers do. What's more, even lawyers that know their material can rarely communicate it well in writing, whereas outsiders who do research are usually the type that CAN communicate these complex ideas well.

 

It was due to her encouragement that I set out to write about the subject 5 years ago, and my recent book is the result of all that research.

 

While I have NEVER told people they shouldn't get legal advice from a lawyer, I have stressed that it ain't so simple to just go talk to a lawyer. You have to choose wisely, AND, you have to know about the subject so you can assess their aptitude for it. My book is NOT a legal book, and the book says so directly. It is a business book with the goal of helping you understand the business ramifications of the law so you enter into the realm better informed. It does not replace a lawyer, but anyone that reads this will be much better prepared to think about the most issues that face most photographers.

 

All that said, I rare ever come across a question on a forum that actually requires a lawyer--they're too basic and simple, just as this one is from Corina. Most photographers are so misinformed, that just getting them on the right page doesn't require a lawyer--just simple research. (And that's something most people don't do.)

 

When a case actually does require a lawyer, it's one where the situation has gotten so tied up with nuanced details that swing on both sides of the legal parameters, that it really does require a professional to address. If it's really that complex, then it isn't likely to end up here on a basic forum. But, as they say, "it could happen."

 

I'm afraid the 1st Ammendment (and all of the other Ammendments) don't apply in France or the United Kingdom.

<i>model releases: 99% of lawyers know next to nothing about the subject</i><P>There are lawyers who specialize in these subjects. In California, there is an organization called California Lawyers for the Arts, and from both their classes and their $25 consultations (very good deal), I can say that they seem incredibly well-versed in issues related to model releases, copyright, and other issues specific to photographers. Some of their classes are oriented specifically at photographers. Other states probably have similar organizations, and should be able to refer individuals to lawyers specifically knowledgeable in the areas that affect photographers.

The Bailiwick of Guernsey isn't in France or the UK. It's an independent Crown Dependency.

 

From Wikipedia: The legal system is Guernsey customary derived from Norman French customary law, heavily influenced and overlaid by English common law, justice being administered through a combination of Magistrates Court and the Royal Court.

 

Seems like a particularly good place to seek local advice first.

Many thanks for all your helpful and kind replies. I have been a little cheeky and searched for established french photographers on the net and emailed them with my question. Hopefully they will point me in the right direction and help me find a good law book which covers French photography. In Guernsey I just go and ask first hand as its easy to find out the owner of the property. Mr Heller you are right, I used to work in law and I understand how it works, you go in and ask a question, they go off and do the research because they don't know and you pay for their research time, thats why I think its better to find a book on the subject first and go prepared.

 

Once again many thanks to you all.