This page is considered an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons. It illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the It illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

This is part of the guideline Photographs of identifiable people.

In a number of countries consent is needed for just taking a photograph of one or more identifiable people, not to mention publishing it and/or using it commercially even if the person is in a public place. The following is a list of countries where consent is needed for one or more of the mentioned situations. Consider using one of the {{Consent}} templates when applicable.

This list is incomplete: Just because a country isn't listed here, it does not reflect a fact that everyone is free to take/publish/commercially use pictures of people in public spaces in that country.





Afghanistan [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details below)

Requires consent (see details below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (per above)

Per the Law Supporting the Rights of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers[6] article 38 (1) "[a] Person who takes photographs, films, portraits or records voice of a Person shall be prohibited from publishing, displaying or distributing the original or copy of picture, film or voice record of the said person". Some exceptions lie in the same article, mainly if the photo is taken during a public event (1), related to public figures (1), of world known celebrities (1), or authorized by the public authorities (1) or the said person itself (2).

Argentina [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details below)

Requires consent (see details below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details and exceptions below)

Publication of personal photographs without consent is considered violation of privacy by the Argentine law. It is explicitly mentioned as a civil infraction in the Civil Code[7].

The Argentine Copyright Law (Law 11.723)[8] gives the following rules for commercial use of portrait photographs: A portrait photograph of a person may not be placed in commerce without their explicit consent or authorization. This consent can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity. Publication shall be free only for scientific, teaching or general cultural purposes or where it is related to facts or events of public interest or which have taken place in public.

Australia [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with some exceptions)

Does not require consent (with some exceptions) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with some exceptions, see below)

Does not require consent (with some exceptions, see below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

It is generally OK to take photos of people in public without obtaining permission. "There is also currently no tort of invasion of privacy in Australia, but in ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) the High Court did not exclude the possibility that a tort of unjustified invasion of privacy may be established in the future. Based on this view, the Queensland District Court found in Grosse v Purvis (2003) that a tort of invasion of privacy had been made out on the facts and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, this case concerned a long history of harassment over many years and has limited application. As a result, taking photographs of people in public places is generally permitted."[9]

Exceptions might arise in cases where certain acts are done in what is technically public space, but "where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy" (e.g. a secluded part of a public beach): "it is an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment to photograph a person to provide sexual arousal or gratification if the person is undressed or engaged in a private act in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, and he or she has not consented to being filmed. A private act includes using the toilet, bathing and engaging in sexual activities not ordinarily done in public."[9]

More generally, subjects can prevent publication of "clearly degrading" photographs: "Injunctions can be obtained to halt the publication of photographs if the images are indecent, offensive or otherwise demean the subjects in them (Lincoln Hunt Australia v. Willesee (1986) 4 NSWLR 456 at p.464). The depiction has to be clearly degrading though, merely saying you were "embarrassed" or "uncomfortable" will be laughed out of court - Donnelly v Amalgamated TV Services (1998) NSWSC 509."[10]

The state of Queensland has legislation explicitly prohibiting recording of "private acts" in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy: Queensland Criminal Code S227A - Observations or recordings in breach of privacy. Such "circumstances" may arise either from the subject being in a private place (S227A(1)(b)(i)) or from the subject "engaging in a private act and the observation or visual recording is made for the purpose of observing or visually recording a private act" (S227A(1)(b)(ii)). "Private acts" are defined by the Queensland Supreme and District Courts Benchbook.[11] The Code includes as an example A person changing in a communal change room at a swimming pool may expect to be observed by another person who is also changing in the room but may not expect to be visually recorded.

Austria [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not normally require consent

Does not normally require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not in principle require consent, though in many cases it does (see explanation below)

Does not in principle require consent, though in many cases it does (see explanation below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Does not in principle require consent, though in many cases it does (see explanation below)

According to the Austrian Copyright Law[12][13] it is illegal to publish or distribute any picture taken of a person without permission if their legitimate interests are affected. Although you may be legally entitled to publish the picture if the person is not shown in a private situation and the picture is not used in a misleading or derogatory context or for publicity purposes, this would be illegal if the person successfully claims violation of their legitimate interests[14]. Therefore it is strongly recommended[15][16] to obtain permission from the person depicted in the photograph, unless their appearance is merely accidental and not incriminating or it is a Person des öffentlichen Lebens (public figure). It is not allowed to publish or distribute pictures which could reveal intimate life details or private information without interest for the public even if the photo was taken in a public space and shows people well known in the public sphere (e. g. Minister kissing a lady at the airport[16]).

In 2013, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) ruled that under certain circumstances, even just taking photos of people can violate their general personality rights. In that case, a person took a photo of a lawyer visiting their house and, when asked to explain the reason, responded that they took the photo "for amusement" (zur Belustigung). The court ruling did however affirm that cases where a person's presence on the photo is merely incidental can be considered differently.

Belgium [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent [17] (see exceptions below)

Requires consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Referring to article 8 (privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights the Belgian Courts assume that no specific damage or prejudice has to be suffered in order to be entitled to object to the publication of one's own recognizable image.[18] All acts of reproduction or communication to the public of a portrait without prior consent are considered illegal.

Article 10 of the Belgian Copyright act implies not the right to prevent beeing photographed.

Belgian jurisdiction and doctrine have recognized that public figures have to accept the publication of their image if the photograph is not taken in private circumstances and if the publication has no commercial purposes (e. g. advertising, merchandising).[19]

Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event.[20][18]

There are special rules and official recommendations if minors are involved.[18]

Brazil [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see explanation below)

Requires consent (see explanation below) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Requires consent (as per above) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Article 5, sections V and X, of the Brazilian Constitution states that the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages to the image is ensured.[21][22]

The Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 deals with this matter in article 20 which has to be interpreted in the light of article 12 of the same codification[23] and the generally accepted doctrine, legalized by case law that specifically recognizes the image right as an autonomous personality right. This means, the right to own image is protected as such: Just taking someone's photo without their permission (in private or public space) can violate their image right and gives them a right to compensation for moral damage. Of course copying, reproducing, transfering, distributing, publishing or commercializing such a picture are illegal and anti-constitutional acts. Simultaneous prejudice to honour or reputation is not necessary. If the image is commercially exploited or used in a derogatory way, this will only aggrave the situation, but it is not a requirement for infraction complaint.[24][25]

Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[26] public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life),

people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),

people related to news events of public interest (only if necessary and reasonably justified and if the reported facts are true). Once taken or published lawfully without obtaining the permission from the person depicted, it is not allowed to re-use or publish the same picture again at a later time or in another context without consent. The consent to publish or use a picture can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity.

Current practice in Brazil doesn't seem so strict, as shown in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Índios Isolados 4.jpg.

Bulgaria [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

Bulgaria recognizes and protects the right of journalists and artists to take photographs in public without the consent of the shown person(s). Bulgarian media regularly show scenes of people in public life and street photography is a popular art genre in Bulgaria with exhibitions at state-managed galleries and museums. In Bulgaria the constitutional article on privacy which dates from the communist era disallows photography of citizens in public unless as allowed by law but the Bulgarian post-communist law allows the taking and publishing of a photograph of an identifiable person in public without their consent for non-commercial use as long as the photograph was not taken for the purpose of attacking that person's dignity. Court cases have decided that the dignity of a person is attacked through the means of a photograph taken in public only in the following cases: if the person is a woman or a child and the genitalia are visible on the naked body except if the person showed them in a public event (e.g. a naked political protest or naked bike run), if the person is shown in private activities in a lavatory or restroom, and if the person is shown in such a way that it is possible to read private password data the person enters in electronic devices (e.g. an ATM PIN or the PIN of a mobile phone). If the person's dignity is not attacked through the ways decided in court cases the photograph can be published without the person's consent. The same rules apply to video as the law makes no distinction between photography and video.

Canada [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (some exceptions)

Does not require consent (some exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Does require consent

Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. established "that under Quebec law a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject." Exceptions include (i) a person of public interest (ii) an unknown person who is implicated in a public matter (iii) persons included incidentally.[27]

Whilst the Aubry case was decided under Quebec law, it was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court's approach in the case is generally thought to give guidance on Canadian legal views on these matters more generally.[28] For example, the court explicitly rejected the US legal approach in which a "socially useful purpose" can support publication of a photograph without subject consent.[29] British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan also have privacy legislation giving individuals the right to sue for privacy breaches; in other provinces, common law protection may apply.[30] In addition, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) provides privacy protection which requires consent for the taking or publication of photographs for commercial purposes.[30] "For all activities, whether commercial in nature or not, provincial and common law privacy protections limit the distribution of photographs. Distributing an identifiable image of a person without consent is likely to violate one or more of these privacy laws."[30]

China (People's Republic of) [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (as per above)

Does not require consent (as per above) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

According to the Chinese Civil Law Article 100[31] photos of regular people may not be used for profit (commercially) without consent.

Hong Kong [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent unless the party has identified or seeks to identify the individual

Does not require consent unless the party has identified or seeks to identify the individual Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent unless the party has identified or seeks to identify the individual

Does not require consent unless the party has identified or seeks to identify the individual Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Depends on circumstances (per above)

Generally if the person(s) in the photograph in a public place is not intentionally identified, it is generally okay to take and publish the photograph even if the person(s) are identifiable.

Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486), Data Protection Principles 1 (DPP1) states that:

(2) Personal data shall be collected by means which are -

(a) lawful; and

(b) fair in the circumstances of the case.[32]

In Eastweek v Privacy Commission [2002] 1 HKC 692, The Court of Appeal laid down three requirements that has to be met before taking and publishing photographs is regarded as collection of personal data (requiring consent) :

the party is "compiling information about the individual" the individual is one the party "has identified and seeks to identify"; and the individual's identity "must be an important item of information" to the party.[33]

If one of these requirements are not met, DPP1 does not apply even if the persons are identifiable.[33] As long as the identities of the persons are not known or "of relevant concern" to the publisher, it does not satisfy the criterion of "collection" in Eastweek.[34] The Court of Appeal also provided example scenarios as not requiring permission from the person: "A business editor may consider it newsworthy to publish a crowd jostling in a queue for an initial public offering of shares in a company or for the purchase of flats in a new property development. A features editor may likewise want a photograph of teenagers smoking cigarettes to illustrate a feature article on health concerns and a sports editor may want to print a picture of racegoers at Happy Valley to illustrate attendance in record numbers."[34]

Macau [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent if the person is identifiable (with exceptions for legal civil requests, public safety use, educational and scientific use, artistic use and news reporting).

Requires consent if the person is identifiable (with exceptions for legal civil requests, public safety use, educational and scientific use, artistic use and news reporting). Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions as per above).

Requires consent (with exceptions as per above). Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions as per above).

The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated by the Civil Code Articles 80 and enforced by Penal Code Articles 191 to 193.[35]

Everyone has a right to Personality Rights. People are not to be photographed, photographs of them displayed or reproduced without their prior consent (Art. 80.1 Civil Code). Exception is applicable for appropriate use of public safety, legal requests under civil law, scientific, educational or artistic purposes and for news reporting especially in urgent cases. (Art. 80.2 Civil Code). Use of these exceptions must be reasonable. (Art. 80.2 Civil Code). Exception is also applicable for well-known celebrities in a public event or in events of public interest (Art. 80.2 Civil Code). However, all these exceptions are inapplicable if they were defamatory in nature (Art. 80.3, 83 Civil Code). If the person is sufficiently identifiable, it is considered personal information (PDPA). A photographer must not forcibly take or publish any photographs of a person against his/her will without legal justification, even if it is at a public place (Art. 191 Penal Code).[36] This applies even if the photographs are produced or obtained legitimately. (Art. 191 Penal Code) This can be interpreted as instances where the photographer continues to take photographs after consent has been positively refused by the person or has shown objection to being photographed. Criminal penalties include imprisonment, but are applicable only if a person makes a complaint (Art. 191, 193 Penal Code). Additionally, photography of police officers in Macau is illegal.[37]

China (Republic of) (Taiwan) [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: May require consent (see exceptions below)

May require consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

In the Republic of China (Taiwan), although there's no formal definition of “right of portrait”, however the mentioned right is considered as parts of rights of personality or rights of privacy, and protected by civil codes (Article 18, 19, 152, 184 and 195-1).[38]

Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent as favour of public interests or fair usage. In all of these cases, the personality (honour, reputation, public image) of depicted person should not be infringed.

As the ruling of Su No.2476, ROC 91 (2002) by the Taipei District Court (臺北地方法院91年度訴字第2476號判決), “Commercial usage would be seen as an infringement of the ‘right of portrait’, if author does not declare his/her intention at first.”[39] Also ruling of Shang-Yi No.958, ROC 94 (2005) by the Taiwan High Court (臺灣高等法院94年度上易字第958號判決).[40]

However the “right of portrait” cannot be formed and protected, if appearances or features of any individuals which cannot be identified or recognised in the media (photographs, video, etc.), according to the ruling of Min-Zhu-Su No.53, ROC 102 (2013) by the Intellectual Property Court (智慧財產法院102年度民著訴字第53號判決), “Using facial features of a individual without permission in any photographs or visual media is an offence, which infringes individuals own right of portrait. However, the claimed right cannot be formed, if the media contains only partial features which cannot be recognised as an individual, e.g. a photograph contains only part of face from the person being photographed.”.[41]

Czech Republic [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent if the person is identifiable (with exceptions for legal official use, scientific use, artistic use and news reporting).

Requires consent if the person is identifiable (with exceptions for legal official use, scientific use, artistic use and news reporting). Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions as per above; if the person consented to have his/her picture taken in context from which it was obvious the picture will be distributed, the consent for distribution under expectable conditions is presumed).

Requires consent (with exceptions as per above; if the person consented to have his/her picture taken in context from which it was obvious the picture will be distributed, the consent for distribution under expectable conditions is presumed). Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions as per above).

The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated by the Civil Code no. 89/2012 Coll., Articles 84 to 90.[42]

No consent for taking and using pictures of a person is needed to protect or exercise other rights. Also, the consent is not needed for legal official purposes, or for images of public appearances in matters of public interest. (Art. 88) Exception is granted also for appropriate use for scientific or artistic purposes and for press, radio, television, or similar news reporting. (Art. 89) No exception may be used to disproportionately invade the person’s rights. (Art. 90) Any consent given may be revoked at any time. (Art. 87 (1)) In that case, the subject may be liable for damages caused by the revocation. (Art. 87 (2))

Denmark [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires no consent (with exceptions) (see definition below)

Requires no consent (with exceptions) (see definition below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions) (as per above)

Although there is no specific law granting such right, court practice gives certain amount of protection to the right to own image.[19]. The governmental Danish Data Protection Agency, has made a declaration regarding publication on the Internet of pictures taken of persons in a public area[43]. The main rule is that situational pictures such as people at a rock concert, visiting the zoo, children playing in a schoolyard etc. does not require any consent as long as the intent is to show the situation.: The exception is any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication. A portrait photograph is defined as a photograph, with the purpose of depicting one or more specific person(s).[43]

The exceptions is traditional (non-internet) news-media-distributions (TV and newspapers) as well as in a context with "distinctly expessions of opinions and subjective judgements [that demands the publics attention]".[44]

Ethiopia [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent [45] (see exceptions below)

Requires consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Reproduction of the image does not require consent:[46] for celebreties and politically exposed persons (public figures). [47]

for scientific, cultural or educational purposes.

for facts of public interest, public events and celebrations.[48]

Finland [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent in many cases

Requires consent in many cases Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent, if the use is promotional

There is no specific law about photographing people or publishing the images; some of the issues are very vaguely regulated.

Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent. Offices, factories etcetera and fenced yards of these are not regarded as public space, even when visible from outside, but are less protected than areas defined as private (homes, tents, private yards, dressing rooms etcetera).

Publishing pictures of a person in a public space may require consent, unless the person clearly is not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic. Photos of people who are of public interest (famous politicians, artists, sportsmen) and who are carrying out their public duties or going about their usual work may be published without consent.

An image of an identifiable person may not be used for promotion (in advertisements or similar), even if not identifiable for a stranger. Commercial use is not different from non-commercial use, neither in such cases nor otherwise.

France [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see explanation below)

Requires consent (see explanation below) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Requires consent (as per above) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Article 9 of French Civil Code states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private life”.[49]

This is generally considered to include one's right to their own image, even if it is taken in a public space.[50][51]

According to case law and legal doctrine, photographs taken of (one or more) individuals require authorisation.[52] Just taking someone's photo without consent (in private or public space) can be considered as an invasion of privacy and gives them the right to claim for cessation of the wrongful conduct. Everyone is legally protected from unauthorised distribution, publication or commercialisation of a picture of himself. The permission has to be interpreted in a strict way (only to the extent expressly consented to by the subject).[51]

It is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[51] public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life) [53] ,

, people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals),

people who are present in a public location (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),

people related to news events of public interest or public information purposes.

Although it is usually considered to be superior, the right to one's privacy and own image is also not absolute and shall be balanced especially with the right to freedom of expression.[54] This can be of certain relevance for professional photographers and artists.[55]

There are special rules and criminal sanctions if minors are involved.[50][56]

In France in a number of legal cases the judges in courts of law have declared that photographers have the right to take and publish photos of people in public without their knowledge or consent as long as the photos contribute to the public's exchange of ideas and opinions; for example, a legal case between a street photographer and a non-celebrity woman appearing in a photograph taken without her knowledge and published without her consent in the photographer's book decreed that the photographer's freedom of expression in taking and publishing street photography without the consent of the subject is an important freedom in a democracy: the judge said that "the right to control one’s image must yield when a photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions, deemed “indispensable” to a democratic society."[57] Therefore, even though the privacy right in public exists in France, a photograph of a specific identifiable person in a public place can still be taken and published without the subject's consent as long as it can be shown that the photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions to such a degree that would make the photographer's freedom of expression right more important to the public interest than the subject's privacy right. It is therefore wrong to assume that it's always "illegal" to take and publish photos of people without their consent in France, what happens in reality is that the photographer has the legal right to freedom of expression, the subject has the legal right of privacy, and the public has the legal right of exchanging ideas and opinions, and when the subject's right to privacy would threaten the public's right to exchange ideas and opinions the photographer's right to freedom of expression is considered superior to the subject's right to privacy because otherwise the public's right to exchange of ideas and opinions couldn't be served. But this balancing of the legal rights has to take place separately for each photograph that becomes the object of argumentation in a legal case, it cannot be said with certainty in which cases the public's right to exchange ideas and opinions is superior to the individual's right to privacy or vice-versa because the written law code of France specify two competing classes of legal rights (the photographer's freedom of expression and the society's right to exchange ideas and opinions versus the individual's right to privacy) without specifying in which cases one right should be considered superior to the other, thus it would be wrong to assume that the privacy right makes illegal all photographs taken and published without consent, but at the same time it would also be wrong to assume that the society's right to exchange ideas and opinions makes legal all photographs taken and published without consent, and the cases in which one right is superior to the other are to be decided by the judges when relevant legal cases reach the courts, so, in effect, it is the judge's opinion which declares the taking and/or publication of a specific photograph illegal or legal rather than the written legal code. Because of this balancing of the legal rights in France it is therefore important that photographers and the publishers of their photographs consider how the photos contribute to society's exchange of ideas and opinions when taking or publishing the photos. Furthermore, the mode of publication might impact the balancing of the legal rights, for example a photo in an encyclopaedia article would be viewed more favourably by a judge compared to a mode of publication not traditionally seen as benefiting the public through education, because it can easily be shown that an encyclopaedia article assists the public in forming and exchanging ideas and opinions.

Germany [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not normally require consent if done by individuals for personal use only. Collection, storage, processing and distribution by org, corp or public authorities is subject to data protection laws and requires consent with very few exceptions.

Does not normally require consent if done by individuals for personal use only. Collection, storage, processing and distribution by org, corp or public authorities is subject to data protection laws and requires consent with very few exceptions. Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent [58] , unless it is a Person der Zeitgeschichte (public figure) [59] (see other minor exceptions below)

Requires consent , unless it is a Person der Zeitgeschichte (public figure) (see other minor exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Apart from the already mentioned there is a small number of additional exceptions to the above statement.

Publishing or propagating the image does not normally require consent: Picture of a landscape or locality where the person is an insignificant or coincidental element ( Beiwerk ).

). Picture of a public assembly/convention, parade or similar event that includes a person (non-prominently).

If distribution or exhibition serves a higher artistic interest. Also in these cases, it is not allowed to publish or distribute the picture without permission if this may affect the subject's legitimate interests.[59][60]

Greece [ edit ]

In Greece taking photographs in public, whether identifiable people are shown or not and whether the photograph displays just one person's portrait or a crowd of people, is protected as freedom of speech by the Greek Constitution in Article 14, and consent is not required for taking or publishing a photo of a person. At the same time, Article 9 of the Greek Constitution protects the privacy of people inside their own homes by forbidding illegal entry into their home, so a photographer cannot enter a private home without permission. In Greek legal cases there is a clear distinction between public spaces and private places: if a photograph is made in the street or at a venue where the public is invited (like, e.g. a shopping mall or a music nightclub) then the photograph is considered part of the public record as there is no reasonable right to privacy there, but if a photograph was made in a private home and the entry into the home was without permission then the photograph is an invasion of privacy (examples of that are photographs by photojournalists who followed fire-fighters inside homes ravaged by fire, whereas the fire-fighter had a legitimate purpose to enter the private home the photojournalist was required to secure permission). The freedom of speech clause in Article 14 of the Greek Constitution, however, also places very specific limitations on speech or photographs that can offend the Christian religion, the President of the Republic of Greece, or shows military bases. For example, a photo of the President of the Republic of Greece that would offend his personality wouldn't be covered by the freedom of expression even if it was made in a public place. Same with photos that would offend the Christian religion. As for military bases, even if a photo showing the composition of the armed forces was made from a public area, the photo wouldn't be protected as free speech. But any other kind of photo that does not involve the Christian religion, the President, or the armed forces is okay to take and publish without consent by anyone as long as it was made in a public space (e.g. the street) or even in a privately-held venue where the public is invited (e.g. a shopping mall or museum). Property owners in Greece have no right to restrict the publication of photographs already taken. Furthermore, there have been legal cases that have established that photography, including amateur photography, is protected not only as freedom of speech but also as "personality development" per the Article 5 of the Greek Constitution which states that "All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality" and the legal cases have established that this means that property owners cannot require a photography permit or ban photography on their premises if they invite the public in their premises because the moment the property owner invites the public the premises become part of the public space and the individuals who decide to enter maintain their constitutional rights, including the right to photography which has been defined as part of the constitutional right to develop one's artistic personality. An example of such a legal case was between photographers and a train station operator in which the operator was forced to accept photography without permission "in all parts of train stations where the public was invited": http://www.synigoros.gr/resources/docs/199930.pdf

Greek case law has established that it is legal for citizens as well as photojournalists to produce and publish photographs depicting identifiable police officers as long as these photos were taken in public, such as during political demonstrations or arrests in the street, even if the identifiable police officer in the photo is suspected of crimes: http://www.synigoros.gr/resources/docs/porisma_dimosiographos.pdf

There have been cases of police officers claiming that it is illegal to take photos of them even in public, but when such cases went to the courts the judges held that it is legal to record the police and publish the photos. According to the Greek Ombudsman, who cites a report by the Data Protection Authority (DPA) numbered 67/2002: "the journalistic research regarding the person who was arrested and the reporting of the press is protected by the freedom of the press clause of Article 14 of the Greek Constitution and it is irrelevant to the above reasosing" where "above reasoning" is: "the police forces are restricted in their publication of personal data of the arrested persons because these personal data are considered sensitive personal data based on the Article 2, Sentence B of the law 2472/1997 and therefore the processing of these data is governed by the Article 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence E, Case BB of the above law." Furthermore, it has been established that Greek Law 2472/1997 on personal data processing does not apply to photography, whether the photography is of an artistic or journalistic nature, as the law is intended to be applied in cases of automatic computer processing of databases containing marketing information such as automated calling lists for advertisement calls, or spam e-mail.

The Greek Constitution (as well as the European ECHR European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations documents on Human Rights) gives individuals the right to freedom of speech (freedom to transmit information and freedom to receive information), including the rights to report, freedom of the press, freedom of the arts (which is editorial use), etc. Individuals have a right to privacy inside their own homes which is cancelled when they go out in the public place where the freedoms to transmit and receive information take precedence and can be freely exercised by any person (not only professional photojournalists, this was established in legal cases soon after the fall of the Greek Military Government of 1967-1974). Journalistic and editorial use is irrelevant to the privacy law per the decision 67/2002 of the DPA. According to Greek law regarding the "right to report" and freedom of speech, there is no restriction on the taking or publication of photographs of identifiable people in public places. Journalists and television regularly show identifiable people in the street without their consent, and street photography exhibitions are regularly being held in art galleries and also at the Syntagma Metro Station without the consent of the subjects. Furthermore, the culture in Greece is very liberal and Greeks don't mind being photographed and will happily pose for the camera of a tourist, and photographers in small villages are welcomed as very respectable and important persons. The Ombudsman of Greece has agreed that taking and publishing photographs is an act of "personality development" since the photographer-artist-journalist expresses their personality by exercising their freedom of speech by photography and publication, and they also develop their artistic or journalistic personalities in the same way.

However, using a photo for a commercial advertising of a product, let's say by printing the photo on an advertising billboard on the street which promotes a brand of biscuits, is illegal without the consent of the person, unless the photo shows a group of people in a public space or if the person is only a small part of the advertisement. Law 57 of the Greek Code was relevant on commercial advertising photography before the Code was updated. There is also case law regarding the application of the law of 1997 to published lists of alleged rich tax evaders: a journalist was acquitted of charges of privacy breach: journalistic/editorial use of information, especially when in the public interest, is not a breach of privacy law. The same legal principles can be applied to photography, especially photography important in the public political discourse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20172516

Even photos taken inside private homes can sometimes be allowed to be published without consent, if they are in the public interest or show public personalities. This PDF contains some information about the boundaries of the right to privacy: The individual doesn't have an absolute right to privacy, if the individual has chosen to put himself in a social environment or position which is, for example, dominant or public, the rights of others (e.g. freedom of the press) are greater than the right to privacy. This is very relevant to public figures. Someone at a public event full of photographers and the press should expect no privacy and they know it before they decide to participate in the public event, e.g. as actors, dancers, speakers or audience. But even inside the private home, for example, if a police officer beats someone inside a home during a search warrant execution, and there is a photo (e.g. by a neighbour who entered the house) then the photograph is in the public interest and therefore can be published. The press is allowed to expose private facts that prove someone who says an opinion in public contradicts his private life, e.g. someone protesting nudism in public while being a secretive nudist in private cannot expect privacy protections from the law if journalists discover his private nudism and expose him.

The Law 366 of the Greek Code (366 GPC) says (according to the PDF) that the law of defamation doesn't apply if the statement is true. For example the caption of a photo describing a policeman beating a civilian wouldn't be considered defamation if the photo shows a policeman beating a civilian because the caption would simply describe the truth. The same law recognizes that there is no intrusion of privacy when the private fact is related to public activities. For example, photos of a politician accepting a bribe from a businessman, even if the photo was taken inside a private home, it would be in the public interest and therefore it could be published.

Hungary [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

Requires consent (with exceptions) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

Requires consent (with exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

In Hungary, the right to the own image is guaranteed by the Civil code: the 1959. évi IV. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről[61] (until 2014.03.14.) and the 2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről[62] (from 2014.03.15.).

According to the law above, “It is required the consent of the person for taking or publishing of the image [or voice record] of a person”. Exceptions: public figures performing in their public functions or activities (not in private life),

people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals).

Indonesia [ edit ]

The Copyright Law of 2014 provides certain provisions on consent requirements. Taking, publishing, and commercial use of a picture of a person in a public space requires written consent from the person or their heirs. Taking, publishing, and commercial use of a picture of two or more persons requires consent, not necessarily in a written form, from the persons or their heirs. Taking, publishing, and commercial use a picture of a person or several persons performing something does not require consent, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Portraits of person/s may also be taken without consent for purposes of national security, public interest, and/or necessity of criminal proceedings by competent authorities. A single copy of portrait reproductions for personal use may be made without permission of the copyright holder, but it is not necessarily clear whether permission is legally needed for two or more copies.

Every Person is prohibited from engaging in Commercial Use, Reproduction, Publication, Distribution and/or Communication of a Portrait taken for commercial billboards or advertising purposes without the written consent of the persons in the portrait or their heirs; The Commercial Use, Reproduction, Publication, Distribution and/or Communication of the Portrait as referred to in section (1), containing portraits of 2 (two) or more persons, are obligated to request the consent of the persons in the Portrait or their heirs." — Article 12

Article 1 (10) defines Portrait as "a photographic work with a human object." The Elucidation for Article 12 interpreted "for advertising or publicity purposes" as for "the placement of a portrait including in advertisements, banners, billboards, calendars and pamphlets for commercial use."

"The Publication, Distribution, or Communication of the Portrait of a Performer or several Performers in a public performance are not regarded as an infringement of Copyright, unless stated otherwise or authorized by the Performers or holders of the right to the performance prior to or during the performance." — Article 13

Article 1 (6) defines Performes as "one or several persons who individually or jointly display and perform works." The Elucidation for Article 13 stated that the phrase "unless stated otherwise or authorized by the Performers or rights holders of the performance" refers to the example of an a singer in a musical performance who may object to have his portait taken for publication, distribution, or communication to the public by other party for commercial use.

"For the purpose of security, public interest, and/or necessity of criminal proceedings, competent authority may engage in the Publication, Distribution, or Communication of a Portrait without having to secure the consent of the person or persons depicted in the Portrait." — Article 14

The Elucidation for Article 14 stated that term "competent authority" refers to, among others, ministries that hold government affairs in the field of communication and information, the Corruption Eradication Commission, or other law enforcement officials.

"Public interests" (kepentingan umum) is broadly defined by relevant Indonesian statutes (Article 570 of the Civil Code, Article 37 of the Commercial Code).

Unless agreed otherwise, the owner and/or holder of a Works of photography, paintings, drawings, architectural work, sculpture or other artistic works have the right to make a Publication of the Works in a public exhibition or a Reproduction in a catalog produced for exhibition purposes without any consent of the Author. The provisions regarding the Publication of Works as referred to in section (1) also apply to Portraits insofar as they do not contradict the provisions as referred to in Article 12." — Article 15

The Elucidation for Section 1 of Article 15 refers to "owner" as the person who lawfully controls the Works, such as, collectors or Copyright Holders.

"Reproduction for personal use of Works that has been published may only be made for 1 (one) copy and may be carried out without permission from the Author or the Copyright Holder." — Article 46

Iceland [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space : Does not require consent

: Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public place : Does not require consent (see exceptions below)

: Does not require consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

In Iceland there is no specific law that covers public photography. Photographers have the right of speech and publication, while the subject has the right of privacy and the right not to be defamed. It is not always clear where the rights of the photographer and the subject meet.

The right of speech and publication is protected by the 73rd article of the Icelandic constitution which also states that the article may be restricted.[63]

The right of privacy is protected in the 71st article of the Icelandic constitution[63] and the european law of human rights, which was ratified in Iceland in 1994.[64] Privacy refers among other things to the right of not disclosing the way of life and personal matters with the principle of proportionality. When an picture shows an privacy issue, there needs to be an legimate aim for the publicity of said photo.

Despite the right of the photographer to publish an photo taken in an public place, the subject still has some rights. Should the subject object to being photographed, the photographer must obey by that decision. At least one court case deemed that publishing an picture for an commercial purpose requires remuneration. People of public interest have lesser privacy rights than the public and it is generally ok to photograph them in a public place.[65]

When pictures are taken in an private space the personal data protection act applies. Article 8 of said act enforces that there is a clear consent from the subject.[66] Additionally the photographer needs to ensure that the picture does not defame the subject, as it would violate article 229 of the general punishment law.[67]

Iran [ edit ]

A 2007 Iranian law [6] forbids 1) photographing women-only places such as public bathes and swimming pools; 2) taking inappropriate photographs of private and familial parties (wedding ceremonies, etc).

Israel [ edit ]

Hebrew and English

Italy [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent [68] [69] but Italy's Copyright Law (Law 633/1941) says in its Article 96 and Article 97 that portraits taken in private locations or portraits used for commercial use require consent, thus portraits taken in public do not require consent as long as the use is not commercial.

Does not require consent but Italy's Copyright Law (Law 633/1941) says in its Article 96 and Article 97 that portraits taken in private locations or portraits used for commercial use require consent, thus portraits taken in public do not require consent as long as the use is not commercial. Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent:[70] for celebrities and politically exposed persons (public figures). [71]

for public events or celebrations. [72]

for scientific, educational or cultural purposes.

General prohibition, in all cases, it is never allowed to publish or use images that may “harm the honour or reputation or also the public image of the depicted person”.

India [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with exceptions)

Does not require consent (with exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

In general you are free to take pictures for private use of other people in public areas under the Constitution of India (CoI) article 19, however publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.[73]

The recent amendment to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013) introduced the offence of voyeurism in India. Section 354C of Indian Penal Code (as amended) makes it punishable for any man with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine on first conviction, and with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine on second or subsequent conviction to: 1) Watch or capture the image of a woman engaging in a private act ("private act" includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public) in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator, or 2) Disseminate such image. Further, Explanation 2 to Section 354 C provides that where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section. Therefore, it would seem that merely the act of capturing a woman’s image while she is engaging in a private act with her consent is not an offence. However, should such image (which was captured with her consent) is disseminated; it would constitute an offence under this section. Moreover, 354C of Indian Penal Code does not make it punishable to capture a man’s image while he is engaged in any private act. [74]

Japan [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see conditions below)

Requires consent (see conditions below) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Requires consent (as per above) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

There is no law in Japan that formally defines "right of portrait", "right of publicity", or other related rights.

What may be considered the Japanese equivalent of "the right of portrait (肖像権)" was first introduced in the ruling for Kyoto Fugakuren Incident, where a police officer photographed a protestor. The Supreme Court of Japan has ruled:

"Any person possesses the freedom not to have his/her feature or figure (hereafter 'feature etc.') photographed without his/her consent, as one of the freedoms guaranteed for the individual's personal life.

Any person has the right not to have his/her face or appearance photographed without consent or good reason, and if a police officer, without good reason, has photographed a citizen's face or appearance, such an act is in violation of the purport of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore it is unallowable." Keishu Vol. 23, No. 125 at 1625 — Supreme Court of Japan Grand Bench 1969, in:

This is interpreted as protecting the general freedom of the subject, especially when the photographer is acting in public power.[75]

On the other hand, if the photographer is a private person, the photographer has the right to “freedom of expression” as stipulated in Article 21 of the Constitution. One must be aware that the photographer's right may limit the subject's right of portrait.[75] A ruling by the Supreme Court in 2005 has stated:

"Any person has a legally protected personal interest not to have his/her face or appearance photographed without good reason, and whether or not an act of photographing a person's face or appearance without consent should be deemed to be a tort should be determined by examining whether or not the photographed person's personal interest has been injured beyond the tolerable limit in social life, while taking various factors into consideration such as the photographed person's social status, the the [sic] photographed activity, the place, purpose, manner, and necessity of photographing.

人はみだりに自己の容ぼう、姿態を撮影されないということについて法律上保護されるべき人格的利益を有し、ある者の容ぼう、姿態をその承諾なく撮影することが不法行為法上違法となるかどうかは、被撮影者の社会的地位、撮影された被撮影者の活動内容、撮影の場所、撮影の目的、撮影の態様、撮影の必要性等を総合考慮して、被撮影者の上記人格的利益の侵害が社会生活上受忍すべき限度を超えるものといえるかどうかを判断して決すべきである。" Minshu Vol. 59, No. 9 at 2428[76] — Supreme Court of Japan First Petty Bench 2005, in:

In this ruling, the Supreme Court has determined that it is illegal for photographer in a weekly pictorial magazine to publish voyeur photos and illustrations in which criminal suspects are restrained with handcuffs and tied with rope at the waist. On the other hand, the Supreme Court said "The act of publishing, in a weekly pictorial magazine, illustrations that depict the defendant of a criminal case who is looking at the materials given by the party concerned at the courtroom or appears to be talking and gesticulating, cannot be deemed to be a tort."[76] The reasons for making photography illegal are “the mode of infringement is malicious”, “the picture taken is content that hurts the honorary feeling of the person”, and “the person's reasonable expectation was hurt” are comprehensive consideration. In this way, in the case where the photographer is a private person, it must be judged whether or not it exceeds a certain socially acceptable limit. [75]

According to an article by the Japan Professional Photographers Society,[77] if the following two conditions are met, an individual may be photographed or published without the person's consent:

The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.

The content and method of expression is not unjust.

If the photograph is to be published or is made public in any way, the photographer must inform the subject the exact manner and purpose to publish and obtain explicit permission.[77] Other precedents have been compiled by H. Kawarazaki, Esq. and is cited here for reference.[78]





Libya [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)

Requires consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968), Article 36:

A photographer may not show, publish or distribute a photograph unless the people depicted in the photograph have consented, unless the photograph is of a public event or of officials or persons enjoying public renown, or the public authorities have given permission for its publication for the general welfare. Notwithstanding the preceding, no photograph may be shown or circulated if doing so would result in detriment to the honour, reputation or social standing of the person depicted in the photograph.

Mexico [ edit ]

Information is available at the Personality rights in Mexico[ ] wiki entry at the University of Edinburgh Law School

Netherlands [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: May require consent (see explanation below)

May require consent (see explanation below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: May require consent (as per above)

Dutch law has a particular approach to the image right of the person portrayed (so called portretrecht or “portrait right”) which differs from most other countries.[79] The “portrait right” is seen as part, or derived from the author's (copy)right (auteursrechten). Therefore, there is no legal way to object to being photographed (provided there is no other violation of privacy[80]. In this context, Dutch courts apply the concept of “public figure”, who usually is expected to accept more public interest than others[81] since the image right of the person depicted does not exist before the picture is captured.

Articles 19-20 of the Dutch Copyright Act grant property-like protection to persons who have been portrayed on photos or other depictions, especially if they have commissioned their own portrait. If a portrait is made without having been commissioned by or on behalf of the person(s) portrayed, article 21 of the Dutch Copyright Act allows individuals to prevent the use (openbaarmaking, “disclosure”) of their portrait, if “a reasonable interest” to do so can be established.[82] In principle, it does not matter whether the photo was taken in a public or private space and whether there was a permission or consent to be photographed or not. The “reasonable interest” claimed as opposed to the publication (openbaarmaking) of the picture has to be balanced by the judge against the rights and interests invoked by the defendant, like press freedom or freedom of expression. Besides misuse, undesired advertising or damage to reputation, reasonable interests may be privacy concerns[80], but also commercial interests of the subject in order to merchandise their own picture.[79]

New Zealand [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with some exceptions)

Does not require consent (with some exceptions) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with some exceptions)

Does not require consent (with some exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”[83]

New Zealand Police public guidelines summarise the law around taking photos or filming in a public space as: "It is generally lawful to take photographs of people in public places without their consent. However, you must not film or take photos of people if they are in a place where they can expect privacy (such as a public changing area or toilet) and that person: is naked, in underclothes, showering, toileting etc

is unaware of being filmed or photographed

has not given consent to be filmed or photographed.

You should not take photos of people if: they are in a place where they would expect reasonable privacy and publication would be highly offensive to an objective and reasonable person

it has potential to stop other people's use and enjoyment of the same place

you have no legitimate reason for taking the film or photos.

However, you can take and/or publish photos or film of people where there is no expectation of privacy, such as a beach, shopping mall, park or other public place."

Traditionally New Zealand, like Australia, has had no recognised right to privacy while in public. The High Court confirmed this in Hosking v Runting HC Auckland CP 527/02 2003. However, the Court of Appeal did suggest a possible tort of Invasion of Privacy [84]. This tort has three tests, briefly that: There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the photograph

Publication would cause substantial offence and harm to a reasonable person

That harm is not offset by the public interest

Some disputes have been dealt with by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

For more indepth guide. See Clendons guide NZ law relating to photography

Norway [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)

Requires consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Article 104[85] of the Norwegian Copyright Act states that photographs of a person may not be reproduced or shown publicly without consent of the person depicted, except when the picture is of interest to the general public

when the picture of the person is less important than the main object of the photography

when the person in the picture is part of an assembly or parade in public or in events of interest to the general public This protection applies during a person's lifetime and for 15 years after the year of their death.

Even if these exceptions are met, it is still illegal to publicize a photograph if the photography is defamatory, derogatory, demeaning or in any other way tramples on the dignity or honor of the depicted.[86]

Consent given for publication only applies in its specific context. That is to say that if a person has allowed publication of their depiction in a newspaper article for instance, that does not mean they have given consent for that picture to be reproduced anywhere else.

Peru [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (unless for public figures acting in public)

Requires consent (unless for public figures acting in public) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see details below)

The Constitution of Peru of 1993 is one of the few (besides Spain and Brazil) which explicitly mentions a fundamental right to own image (Article 2.7).[87]

In Article 15 of Peruvian Civil Code of 1984 the use of a person's image and voice is regulated as follows: The profitable use[88] of a person's image or voice is not allowed without their explicit authorization (...). This consent is not required, if the use of the image or voice is justified by the notoriety of the person or their official position, facts of general importance or public interest, or scientific, educational or cultural purposes; neither is it required if the use of the image is related to facts or events of general interest celebrated in public. These exceptions do not apply where the use of the image or voice attempts against the affected person's honour, prestige or reputation.

As seen above, current civil law still uses the term “profitable use” (aprovechamiento[88]). Relevant post-1993 case law, as well, deals mainly with commercial image use like undesired advertising[89] etc., or defamation cases[90][91].

However, the constitutional Legislator made clear his intention to protect the right to the own image as such, not for commercial use only and without requiring to prove prejudice to honour or reputation (see Debates of Constitutional Commission[92]). Therefore, possible constitutional problems with applying civil law should lead us to assume that consent is required by Peruvian law for any reproduction or distribution of a person's picture, unless the exceptions mentioned above are present (particularly if it is a public figure acting in public). This is supported by Peruvian legal doctrine[93] and case law[90][89].

Poland [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent [94] (see exceptions below)

Requires consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Requires consent (as per above) Publishing or using a picture of a person who has been paid to sit for their portrait: Does not require consent[94]

The Polish Civil Code mentions the right to the image as a personality right protected by civil law.[95]

Exceptions from the consent requirement are named in the Copyright Law[94] “2. Consent is not required in the case of the publishing of the image: 1) of a commonly known person [public figure], if the picture was taken in connection with the exercise of their public function, in particular political, social, professional,

2) of a person, when he or she constitutes a part of a whole as in a gathering, landscape or public event.”

According to case law, “subsequent publications do not require consent (provided there was a consent to the first publication) provided that the original source is specified and no changes have been made.”[96]

Portugal [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (unless the subject expressly refuses to be photographed)

Does not require consent (unless the subject expressly refuses to be photographed) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent [97] (see exceptions below)

Requires consent (see exceptions below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

According to Article 79(2) of the Portuguese Civil Code, publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent: for celebreties and politically exposed persons (public figures). [98]

for scientific, educational or cultural purposes.

for images of public locations or related to facts of public interest.[99] In all of these cases, it is not allowed to publish or use images that may “harm the honour or reputation or simply the public image of the depicted person” (Article 79(3)).

Due to Portuguese criminal law regulation concerning privacy it is illegal to take a picture of a person who opposes to being photographed.[100][101]

Romania [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

Requires consent (with exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

In Romania, the right to the own image is guaranteed by the Civil code, Art. 74 c)[102] and the Copyright law.[103] According to Civil code[102] is prohibited “taking or publishing images [or voice record] of person in private spaces without consent“ According to Copyright law[103] “It is required the consent of the person for publishing (none about picture taking or sound recording) of the image [or voice record] of a person”. Exceptions, according Copyright law, Art. 88 (3) a) (in both public spaces and private): a) public figures performing in their public functions or activities (but not in private life),

b) people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals). According of legal interpretation, actors, singers, athletes, etc. performing in public spaces fall to a) exception.[102]

Russian Federation [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent if such image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the state's, society's or other public interest.

Requires consent if such image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the state's, society's or other public interest. Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent if such image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the state's, society's or other public interest.

Requires consent if such image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the state's, society's or other public interest. Publishing or using a picture of a person who has been paid to sit for their portrait: Does not require consent

The law makes no exceptions with regard to pictures of officials or persons enjoying public renown, consent is required even in that case. See Art. 152-1 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation (as added by the Federal Law № 231-FZ of Dec. 18, 2006). However, consent is not required if the image is used in the state's, society's or other public interest. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the term "public interest" was clarified:

Article 152 of the civil code of the Russian Federation specifies that the publication and further use of the image of a citizen is allowed only with consent from the citizen. Such consent is not needed in particular when the image is used in state, social or other public interests. The term public interest should not refer to any interest of the public but rather to the need of the society to reveal and expose the threat posed to the democratic state governed by the rule of the law, civil society, public safety and environment. The courts should distinguish between the information on facts (even the disputable ones) that positively influence the discussion of the matters concerning for example the execution of the duty of the officials and public figures in the society and the information on the details of the private life of a person not engaged in any public activity. Whilst in the former case the mass media perform the civil duty informing the citizens on the matters of public interest, in the latter case, however, they play no such role. " Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation № 16 June 15, 2010

Singapore [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not requires consent (with exceptions)

Does not requires consent (with exceptions) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not requires consent (with exceptions)

Does not requires consent (with exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Generally does not requires consent (with exceptions)

Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (No. 26 of 2012) provides an exception to the consent requirement for photography involving collection, use and disclosure of personal data which is "publicly available".[104] "Publicly available" includes:

"in relation to personal data about an individual, means personal data that is generally available to the public, and includes personal data which can be observed by reasonably expected means at a location or an event —

(a) at which the individual appears; and (b) that is open to the public;".[105]

The PDPA Commission defines "open to the public" as locations where there are no or few restrictions to entry.[106] The greater the restrictions to entry to such locations, the less likely it is "open to the public".[106]

Under the Personal Data Protection Act, images of identifiable individuals are considered personal data and requires consent when used in a commercial capacity. However, the above-mentioned exception to requiring consent applies if this personal data is regarded as "publicly available".[104] As set out by the PDPA Commission: "for example, when the individual appears at an event or location that is open to the public, taking a photograph of the individual would likely be collection of personal data that is publicly available for which consent is not required".[106] This exception does not cover “private spaces within public spaces”.[106]

The act of photographing or publishing the photography must not cause harassment, alarm or distress to the individual(s) concerned under Protection from Harassment Act 2014.[107] Furthermore, the published photograph must not be defamatory.

Slovakia [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

Requires consent (with exceptions) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

Requires consent (with exceptions) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (with exceptions)

The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated in the Constitution of Slovakia, the Criminal Code and the Civil Code. In resume: [81]

A person whose personal rights have been violated unjustifiably according to art. 13 of the Civil Code shall be able to request that the said violation be terminated and the consequences originating therefrom be eliminated, in order to obtain appropriate satisfaction. In those cases in which such satisfaction is insufficient, because the dignity and social standing of the affected person have been considerably diminished, the affected person may apply for compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

In general a consent isn't required, but if the depicted person feels that his/hers personal rights have been violated by having his/her photograph taken and/or published and/or commercially used may sue for infringement of basic human rights for privacy (thus a basic level of privacy is to be expected on public streets).

South Africa [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent

Does not require consent Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

Privacy in South Africa is protected by the law of delict and the Bill of Rights, which also provides for freedom of expression.[108]

Photographing a person without their consent in an area where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is permitted as a general rule. There may be some restrictions on photography in general in certain places based on municipal bylaws and the National Key Points Act which is related to national security issues.[109][110] Consent is required to use photographs of identifiable persons for advertising purposes.[108][111]

Spain [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see definition below)

Requires consent (see definition below) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Requires consent (as per above) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

In Spain, the right to the own image is guaranteed by Constitution (Sections 18.1 and 20.4).[112]

Civil law deals with this subject in the context of privacy legislation (Fundamental Law No. 1/1982).[113]

According to section 7.5 of the above law[114], “the taking, reproducing or publishing of the image of a person captured by photography or filming or any other means in places or moments of private life or outside these” is considered to be an “illegal intromission in private life”, unless in some specific cases. The same applies under section 7.6 of the mentioned law to the illegitimate “use of the name, the voice or the image of a person for publicity, commercial or similar purposes.”

The exceptions to the above statement are the following:

There is no illegal intromission:

In case of explicit consent of the concerned person (section 2.2). [115]

In case of predominant and relevant historical, scientific or cultural interests (section 8.1).

It is allowed to capture, reproduce and publish a picture without permission if the person depicted is a public figure [116] and the picture is taken in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody (section 8.2.a). [117]



the picture is taken in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody (section 8.2.a). It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).

Later commercial re-use of previously published news pictures or public figures' images (lawfully released without permission) is not allowed without the consent of the person(s) affected (see Sentence 231/88 of the Spanish Constitutional Court, dealing with the death of the star matador Paquirri).[118]

Special rules apply to minors and incapacitated persons. If they are under a legal disability, written consent from a legal representative is to be obtained in order to capture or publish or use their picture, and shall be submitted to the local Public Prosecutor's Office for approvement (section 3 of the above law).

Other regulations: Section 491.2 of the Spanish Penal Code penalizes the use of the image of the King or any of his ancestors or descendents, the Prince or Princess Consort, the Crown Prince, the Regent or any Member of the Regency in any way that can damage the prestige of the Crown.

Sweden [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent ( [119] #5, see below)

Does not require consent ( #5, see below) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent ( [120] , see below)

Does not require consent ( , see below) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent ([119]#3a, see below)

Taking a picture of a person in a public place is allowed as a general rule. Places exempt from this rule are courts of law or security-classed places. Also, with a new law you are not allowed to take pictures concealed without consent if it is an area private to the subject (e.g. home) or an area intended to be private (e.g. restroom, showers). Publishing a picture of a person is generally allowed, as long as no abuse of personal integrity is involved. Within a journalistic framework (in a publication with a publisher accusable by law) even more freedom is allowed. Use of a picture of a person will require consent if used in marketing or in advertising, other commercial uses might not require consent.[121]

Switzerland [ edit ]

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent [122] (see explanation below)

Requires consent (see explanation below) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Requires consent (as per above) Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

Swiss civil law contains a general clause for protection of personality rights, which may be restricted only with the consent of the person affected.[122] This applies to the right to the own image, even if a picture is taken in a public space. In principle, any unauthorized picture which aims to depict the person as such is considered an infringement of personality rights (according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Court). Therefore, just taking a person's photograph is an offensive act and consent must be obtained from any person recognizably depicted as an individual, unless their appearance is merely accidental and has nothing to do with the purpose of the image. Consent can be given expressly (either written or verbal) or implied through actions. It is generally recognized by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied for pictures of public figures, at least when performing their public functions or activities (not necessarily also in private situations). Consent is also implied for people consciously and voluntarily exposed to the public in some kind of public event. As an exception, predominant and mostly public interests (e. g. public information, science) will allow an unauthorized picture to be admitted.[123]

The Swiss personality right to privacy does not protect financial interests. Therefore it makes no difference in terms of the right to one's own image if a picture is used commercially or in a non-profitable way.

United Kingdom [ edit ]

this section is a work in progress: draft for discussion, editing, improvement

Taking a picture of a person in a public space: ?

? Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: ?

? Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: ?

Where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, taking and publishing of photographs without consent is likely to be an invasion of privacy,[124] unless there is a clear public interest at stake. This follows in large part from balancing Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act, which must be done on the merits of each case. Whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a difficult issue, and not simply a matter of public or private space. "It is not possible to draw a distinction in principle between, on the one hand, engaging in activity which is clearly part of a person's private recreation time intended to be enjoyed in the company of family and friends, and on the other, routine acts such as a walk down a street, a ride on a bus or a visit to the grocers to buy milk. It all depends on the circumstances."[125] An exemplary case is Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (2004), where a public figure was photographed outside a drug rehabilitation clinic.

A "reasonable expectation of privacy" may therefore apply even in public spaces, particularly for children: a UK court has held that a child's right to privacy was infringed when photographed on a public street together with his parents.[126] Another recent court case "upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there."[127] Beyond expectation of privacy, however, recent cases establish privacy rights for behaviour in public places that the subject does not want others to know about.

In addition, it has been established that even public figures can have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". "Stars like Michael Douglas and Princess Caroline of Monaco have established in Court that everyone, however famous, has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that photos of them in their private life should not be published unless there is a legitimate public interest in doing so. This does not just mean that they are entitled to privacy when they are in private places such as their home. It also extends to behaviour they would not want others to know about."[128] Examples include Von Hannover v Germany[129] (Princess Caroline), Douglas v Hello! Ltd (2005, Michael Douglas), Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (2004) and POI v The Person Known as "Lina" (2011).[130]

A decision by the ECHR suggests the mere taking of a photograph may also infringe privacy, but most cases involve publication so this area is less clear.[126]

Photography at public events is likely acceptable without subject consent.[126]