Quote Originally Posted by Franglais View Post
Do you have any examples? I've been following this subject for years in the French context. I sometimes carry around with me a copy of the applicable law, in case I have to convince people that I'm within my rights in doing photos in a particular place of a particular subject. I don't think I'm putting a personal interpretation on it but I'm not an expert.

Here is my rather rough translation of French Penal Code:

Article 226-1

"One year imprisonment and 45000 Euros fine for infringing on the private life of another person by any means:

1. Recording or transmitting without the consent of the author words spoken privately or confidentially
2. Recording or transmitting, without the consent of a person the image of the person in a private place

When the acts previously mentioned were done visibly and with the persons being recorded being aware of the recording, and the persons did not oppose the recording while they had the possibility to do so, then the consentment of the persons is assumed."

Article 226-2

"Punished by the same amount the act of keeping, carrying or bringing to the knowledge of the public or to a third person or to use by any means whatsoever the recordings or documents obtained by one of the acts mentioned in 226-1.

When the crime committed by the previous article is carried out by the press (written or audiovisual) the specific laws governing these activities are appliucable to determine the responsible persons."

Article 226-6

"In the case of 226-1 and 226-2 public action can only be carried out after complaint by the victim or his legal representative"
The example I can give is here - near Chicago.

For your terms I questioned in this context:
- 'private property' is that owned by a private party; not public parks, gov't buildings, etc.
- 'published' is commercial use.

I can capture anybody that has no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. inside a personal residence, in a public bathroom, etc.) as long as I am not someplace where photography is designated as restricted (these restrictions have nothing to do with privacy and it doesn't matter where the subject is). If it is restricted, it must be evident such as being posted or being informed by security. In order of increasing likelihood - public streets, sidewalks, parks, monuments, gov't buildings, etc. may have restrictions (mostly just commercial restrictions). For private property it is up to the owner.

I do not need a model or property release unless the image is to be used for commercial purposes. Things like posting on a forum or FaceBook, club competitions, editorial use and the portfolio of a pro photographer do not require any releases.

This does not mean that I am crazy enough to go everywhere and shoot everyone, but the trouble wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be legal. But an irate soccer mom who thinks she is defending her cub can be a force that needs to be feared.

Also, this is the US - the possibility of a lawsuit for anything always exists if a lawyer thinks he can make a $.

Terry