If it’s illegal to take someones photo without permission, why do paparazzi get away with it?
Posted on December 21st, 2009 by admin
Ok, so I heard you can sue someone (or get them in trouble, etc) if they take your picture without asking and post it around websites, etc but why do paparazzi get away with it when taking pics of celebrities? Surely, they don’t give them permission?
Actually, it isn’t illegal to take someone’s picture if they’re just walking down the street or something. Not long ago, I read about a "man" (total idiot) who runs a website that posts pictures of little children. (It’s basically a pervert site, but he operates it from outside the U.S. and he hasn’t technically broken any laws so they can’t stop him.)
There is nothing to stop him from taking pictures of your child as you walk down the street with him or her. I would imagine it’s the same for anyone in a public setting. From what I can gather, the person who takes the picture holds the copyright to it and can do as they please with it. Now if someone was taking pictures of someone else in a private setting without them knowing about it (like peeking in their windows), that would probably be a whole different thing.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Public figures come under different rules than regular folks particularily when the photos are taken in public.
References :
December 21st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
because they took the picture….duhh.
References :
December 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
It’s not illegal to take someone’s picture in a public place on public property. You can still get in trouble if someone complains, but not with the law.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 am
Because it’s not illegal to take someone’s picture or to publish it. If you are in public, or visible from a public area, you have no expectation of privacy.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 am
The laws are different in the UK than the US. In the US, if you’re in public, then you’re fair game. If you’re in a place that’s private, say your bedroom, then the paparazzi can get in trouble for invading privacy.
In the UK? I don’t know. I do know that UK laws are much less friendly towards the paparazzi there than here.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 am
Not if you are in public. If you are in a public place they can legally take your picture.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 am
Actually, it isn’t illegal to take someone’s picture if they’re just walking down the street or something. Not long ago, I read about a "man" (total idiot) who runs a website that posts pictures of little children. (It’s basically a pervert site, but he operates it from outside the U.S. and he hasn’t technically broken any laws so they can’t stop him.)
There is nothing to stop him from taking pictures of your child as you walk down the street with him or her. I would imagine it’s the same for anyone in a public setting. From what I can gather, the person who takes the picture holds the copyright to it and can do as they please with it. Now if someone was taking pictures of someone else in a private setting without them knowing about it (like peeking in their windows), that would probably be a whole different thing.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 am
No it is no illegal , most paparazzi have insurance .
I am a film maker and we have errors and ommison insurance so if we take an image of a person with out there permission we cant get sued
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:30 am
they can legally take your picture in a public place. most media will ask you to sign a weaver or something depending on what is happening in the picture or news – if there is a minor and they speak to the news and it is filmed they HAVE to have parents permission.
we were sledding and a news crew came up to film – asked it they could use the footage and I said yes, but they only use the picture of my niece sledding down the hill not her comment because I am not her parent. (Darn she is such a cutie.)
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 am
public figures like politicians and movie stars have "diminished expectation " of privacy.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 am
You would be surprised at how many people who are papped have actually secretly told them where they are going to be. As long as it is in a public place, then they are fair game.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 am
What you heard was wrong.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:13 am
You’re misinformed.
The only privacy restrictions in public are that of children. Someone can take your picture and sell it online or in a store without your consent, if that photo was taken in a ‘non-private’ place.
So when Brittany is walking down the street, anyone can take her pic and sell it, because the expectation of privacy is not granted in that setting.
Now, if she’s in her house and someone takes a photo with a tele-zoom lens, THEN she can sue for ‘invasion of privacy’.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:48 am
This is something I’ve never understood.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
repeat after me – IT IS NOT repeat NOT ILLEGAL TO TAKE ANYONES PICTURE.
If the person is in a public place then it is perfectly legal to take and publish their picture.
The only laws which could come into play in the UK are libel and defamation. However if the picture was just posted on a web-site or published in the paper of the person doing something in public then they would have a very expensive and hard job proving either thing.
f
References :