Photography and the law

[1] In Australia you can generally photograph anything or anyone in a public place without permission assuming that it isn't being used in an otherwise illegal way such as defamation and does not contain copyrighted material.

[clarification needed] Furthermore photographing in a place where people would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy such as in a public restroom may also be illegal.

It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow "picture papers".

[18] However, in January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

[22][23] The scope of these powers has since been reduced, and guidance around them issued to discourage their use in relation to photography, following litigation in the European Court of Human Rights.

The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism.

A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act.

[33] Scanning old family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.

[n 1] It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation.

[41] The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides a freedom of panorama clause at Section 62, in which photography or filming of buildings, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in public spaces, as well as distributions of the resulting images or videos to the public, are not infringements to the copyright.

[42] The broad exception makes selling printed images of copyrighted buildings like The Gherkin legal without needing to worry of potential incriminations from the architects.

But if the public art was reproduced in photographs or videos and those reproductions were made with profit-making intent, the use is no longer subject to fair use defense.

[69] In the Gaylord v. United States case, concerning the United States Postal Service's use of an image of the Korean War Veterans Memorial for their 2003 commemorative stamps, the photographer of the said image – former Marine John Alli – was included in the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the monument creator Frank Gaylord against the postal service.

The French penal code stipulates that unauthorized photographs of individuals in private properties are liable to a one-year term of imprisonment and a fine of €45,000.

Strict rules also apply to publications of images of any individuals inside automobiles, as cars are considered private spaces.

Additionally, strict rules apply to images of minors and deceased individuals whose relatives may object to public displays of their photographs.

[84] Freedom to use photographs of French public landmarks is restricted to non-commercial purposes, in accordance with Article L122-5(11°) of the copyright law of France.

[86] Commercial uses of images of an illuminated Eiffel Tower, such as in magazines, on film posters, or on packaging, may be subject to prior authorizations from Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE), the tower's operating company who claims copyright on the illuminations although its claim has not been legally challenged.

A 2014 article in the Art Law Journal suggested there would be no legal problems for tourists posting casual photographs of the illuminated tower on social media.

It is illegal to equip or take photographs and recording in a place of public entertainment, such as cinemas and indoor theaters.

[citation needed] Photography on private property that is generally open to the public (e.g., a shopping mall) is usually permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs.

[citation needed] In Hungary, from 15 March 2014 when the long-awaited Civil Code was published, the law re-stated what had been normal practice, namely, that a person had the right to refuse being photographed.

[98][99] Calling oneself a photographer, in line with most other trades in Iceland, requires the person to hold a Journeyman's or Master's Certificates in the industry.

[104] In a 2022 advisory opinion by the National Privacy Commission, regarding the legality of taking photographs of certain medical facilities as part of a health monitoring activity by a local division of the Department of Health, a photograph of an identifiable person was deemed "personal information" under the scope of the Data Privacy Act.

The commission listed the following lawful cases of the use of this personal information as prescribed by Section 12 of the Data Privacy Act:[105] There has been a controversy among Filipino photographers and establishment managements.

There is no official policy on taking photographs of historical places and the group has called legislators to create a law on the matter.

[106] The Department of Tourism, in their November 15, 2011 press release, clarified that everyone is permitted to take photographs at Rizal Park and Intramuros for personal or souvenir purposes.

"[107] The NPDC issued rules in 2018 aimed at regulating photography and videography at both Rizal and Paco Parks, after an incident wherein filmmaker Chris Cahilig and boy band 1:43 were intercepted by the personnel of Rizal Park for failing to secure permission from NPDC before doing a video session.

While casual snapshots for personal or souvenir purposes through mobile phones and simple cameras are tolerated, prior permission is required for photography and videography of the parks for commercial, professional, reporting, interviewing, and special occasion purposes, as well as sessions that may cause disruption at the parks.

[109] The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, or Republic Act 8293, does not permit a freedom of panorama exception allowing artistic works and architecture situated in public spaces in the Philippines to be photographed and used for commercial purposes without needing the permission from the copyright holders of the said works of art; for example, shooting a video of a public space with a building authored by an architect who is a National Artist, and selling the said video to Netflix.