IMG_4615-Edit

The photo, the net and the law

IMG_4615-EditDigital technology and the net are reforming so many things, among them photography. Do you remember when we used to develop films with 2 or 3 summer holidays on the same roll, and then bury the prints deep in the family album? Now we can snap hundreds of shots a day and share them on the net in real-time. If you are lucky your shared shot or video can get more viewers than a small newspaper has readers. The newspaper is made by professionals who know the ethical and legal aspects of publishing. But do you know? How do you decide if it is OK to publish a shot or not? Or to take the photo in the first place? With common sense? That’s OK, it’s a good start. But I suggest that you get familiar with some of the basic legal aspects too.

You know how it is to ask a lawyer if something is legal or not. It’s impossible to get a straight answer. I start to understand why when digging into this problem. There are really so many aspects that matter and many things that aren’t black and white (no pun intended). And on top of that, the international aspect. Laws are different in every country. I have been looking a long time for a good and comprehensive guide that covers photo law in different countries. In vain so far.

That’s an indication about how big and complex the issue is. But I’m going to give it a try anyway. I have tried to list the basic principles in a very compact form. This list can’t be very precise as it isn’t country specific. So be aware that the law in a specific country can differ from what’s stated below. But the risk that your camera puts you in trouble should be significantly lower if you know at least these principles.

To take a photo

  • It is generally OK to take photos in public places, but some limitations may apply.
    • Taking photos that present a person in a defamatory way may be banned.
    • Taking photos of police officers may be banned.
    • Taking photos of military installations and critical infrastructure may be banned.
    • Taking photos of monumental buildings may be restricted or banned.
  • It is generally OK to take photos of other persons without permission in public places, but some may have a personal problem with that. It’s polite to comply and cease shooting if someone complains, but these persons do typically not have any legal right to prevent others from photographing them. Unless the shooting can be seen as harassment. Also keep in mind that there may be cultural restrictions. It’s for example considered bad habit to photograph priests, monks and nuns in some countries.
  • What’s a public place has typically nothing to do with ownership. It’s a place that the public has free access to, even if it isn’t owned by a public institution. Events and transportation that the public can buy tickets to freely do typically also qualify as public places.
  • Some public places, like shopping centers or shops, try to limit or ban photography. Those rules may or may not be legally binding, depending on local legislation. Many shop owners seem to know as little as their customers about the laws regulating photo.
  • Photography is typically not allowed without permission in private places and events for invited guests. You should always ask for permission before taking a shot in someone else’s home. Regardless what your local law says, that’s common sense IMO.
  • Vehicles where you can stay overnight may be considered private places just like homes. Ordinary cars do not belong to this category.
  • Taking photos of kids is typically no different from other kinds of photography from legal point of view. Many parents have however became wary about having pictures of their kids online because of increasing media coverage about pedophilia. So it’s best to be careful when shooting others’ children. Talk to the parents first, if possible.
  • Remember that knowing the law and your rights to photograph is important, but so is common sense. If you face a photography ban that is in violation of your legal rights, it’s up to you if you want to challenge the ban or save both parties some trouble. Is it worth it?

Copyright and licenses

  • The creator of a creative work, like a photo or a video, has automatically the right to decide about how the work can be used, and to be compensated if the work creates profit. It’s a bit like ownership and it is called copyright.
  • Copyright exists automatically. You do not have to apply for it, register the work somewhere or even put a copyright statements in the corner of your photo.
  • The copyright holder is the person who has done the creative work, i.e. came up with the idea for the photo. It doesn’t matter who pressed the shutter button or who owns the camera.
  • Copyright can be transferred to someone else, which is like giving away the ownership. The copyright holder can also grant licenses to use the work. It is very important to understand the difference between these two.
  • There are no usage rights by default. It means that you basically can’t do anything with a photo taken by someone else without permission from the copyright holder. And vice versa for others using your shots. There are however exceptions to this. The fair use concept in US is one example. It states that minor insignificant use is OK without permission, like use for private or some educational purposes.
  • If you own the copyright, you have free hands to grant, or refuse to grant, others the right to use your photo. Such rights are called a license. A license can be any kind of free form statement that:
    • Specify what work it affects.
    • Specify who it grants rights to, or grant rights to anyone who want to use the work.
    • Can specify how the copyright holder shall be compensated.
    • Can demand that the copyright holder shall be attributed.
    • Can limit the rights to a defined period of time.
    • Can limit the rights to a specific kind of use.
    • Can limit the rights geographically.
    • Can be exclusive, meaning that the copyright holder agrees to not grant any conflicting licenses to others.
  • Creative Commons (CC) is a widely used ready-made system for granting generic licenses to use your photos. This is a nice way to share shots if you don’t mind others using them for free. There are several kinds of CC-licenses, for example licenses that exclude commercial use.

 To publish a photo

  • Remember that taking a photo and publishing it is two different things. You do not necessary have the right to publish even if it’s OK to take the photo.
  • You can generally publish your own shots freely as long as it is done as a private person on a hobby basis. Like sharing on Facebook or Flickr.
  • Publishing a shot that presents a recognizable person in a defamatory situation, state or context is most likely illegal.
  • Be careful when publishing pictures of others’ children. It’s typically legal, but the parents may have issues with it.
  • People usually can’t prevent others from photographing them in public places, but they have the right to decide if shots of them can be used commercially. An approval of this kind is called a model release. It is a document where a person who is recognizable in the picture grants rights to use the image. A similar property release may sometimes be needed for shots showing buildings etc.
  • Some companies are guarding their brands rigorously. They may have a problem if they see their brand exposed in a published photo in a way they don’t like. You may get a letter that threat you with legal actions unless you remove the photo. There’s typically little or no legal substance behind these threats, as companies and brands typically aren’t protected against libel etc. in the same way as individuals. You may comply, ignore them or ask for more details about what paragraphs they refer to and under what jurisdiction. That may make them go away.
  • You do by default not have any rights to publish others’ photos (exceptions exist, see for example fair use in US). Many photographers are however adopting a liberal attitude against sharing and publish their work under a CC-license, or similar. If you need to illustrate something, you can search the net for CC-images for example on Flickr. This is how I get most of the pictures I use in these blog posts. Remember to credit the photographer! That’s a small token of appreciation compared to the value you get.
  • But what about sharing in social media, Facebook for example? If you take a picture file and upload it so that it is visible to anyone, then it is definitively publishing. But sharing a photo that someone else has uploaded to Facebook is totally different. What you do is really to tell others that the picture exist and where they can find it. You just share a pointer to it, not the image itself. That is of course always OK and only limited by the privacy settings of the photo.

As said. This summary is an attempt to list some generic fundamentals that should be valid pretty much everywhere. That’s a good start, but if you are a serious photographer you should educate yourself with more accurate info for your own country. Also, what’s said about photos also applies to video.

Do you know of a good source that covers international photo law? Or a good guide for your own country? Then post a link as a comment to this article. Maybe there isn’t a comprehensive international guide, but a collection of links to guides for different countries is almost as good.

And finally. Quoting an excellent tweet from @Mikko. “Remember that legal advice you find on the net is worth every penny you paid for it.” Nice disclaimer, isn’t it.:)

More posts from this topic

Facebook videos

How far are you ready to go to see a juicy video? [POLL]

Many of you have seen them. And some of you have no doubt been victims too. Malware spreading through social media sites, like Facebook, is definitively something you should look out for. You know those posts. You raise your eyebrows when old Aunt Sophie suddenly shares a pornographic video with all her friends. You had no idea she was into that kind of stuff! Well, she isn’t (necessary). She’s just got infected with a special kind of malware called a social bot. So what’s going on here? You might feel tempted to check what “Aunt Sophie” really shared with you. But unfortunately your computer isn’t set up properly to watch the video. It lacks some kind of video thingy that need to be installed. Luckily it is easy to fix, you just click the provided link and approve the installation. And you are ready to dive into Aunt Sophie’s stuff. Yes, you probably already figured out where this is going. The social bots are excellent examples of how technology and social tricks can work together. The actual malware is naturally the “video thingy” that people are tricked to install. To be more precise, it’s usually an extension to your browser. And it’s often masqueraded as a video codec, that is a module that understands and can show a certain video format. Once installed, these extensions run in your browser with access to your social media accounts. And your friends start to receive juicy videos from you. There are several significant social engineering tricks involved here. First you are presented with content that people want to see. Juicy things like porn or exposed celebrities always work well. But it may actually be anything, from breaking news to cute animals. The content also feels safer and more trustworthy because it seems to come from one of your friends. The final trick is to masquerade the malware as a necessary system component. Well, when you want to see the video, then nothing stops you from viewing it. Right? It’s so easy to tell people to never accept this kind of additional software. But in reality it’s harder than that. Our technological environment is very heterogeneous and there’s content that devices can’t display out of the box. So we need to install some extensions. Not to talk about the numerous video formats out there. Hand on heart, how many of you can list the video formats your computer currently supports? And which significant formats aren’t supported? A more practical piece of advice is to only approve extensions when viewing content from a reliable source. And we have learned that Facebook isn’t one. On the other hand, you might open a video on a newspaper or magazine that you frequently visit, and this triggers a request to install a module. This is usually safe because you initiated the video viewing from a service that shouldn’t have malicious intents. But what if you already are “Aunt Sophie” and people are calling about your strange posts? Good first aid is going to our On-line Scanner. That’s a quick way to check your system for malware. A more sustainable solution is our F-Secure SAFE. Ok, finally the poll. How do you react when suddenly told that you need to download and install software to view a video? Be honest, how did you deal with this before reading this blog?   [polldaddy poll=9394383]   Safe surfing, Micke   Image: Facebook.com screenshot      

April 22, 2016
BY 
Tracker Mapper

Want to Pwn Internet Trackers? Here’s How

A recent PEW report says that 86 percent of people have taken action to avoid online surveillance, including simple things like clearing their browser cache, as well as using more effective methods, such as using a VPN (virtual private network). The same report says that 61 percent of participants indicated that they’d like to do more. Many people understand their privacy is at risk when they do things online, and want to do something about it. But that’s easier said than done. Not only do you have to have the will to make it happen, but you have to know where to start. Who do you want to protect your privacy from anyway? Facebook? The NSA? Nosey neighbors? PEW’s report says that 91 percent of people agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control over personal information that is collected and used by companies. So if you want to take this control back, the first thing you need to do is figure out who’s stalking you online. F-Secure’s Freedome VPN, which you can try for free, has baked-in tracking protection technologies to help people protect their privacy while they’re surfing online. It also has Tracker Mapper – a feature that people can use to control how they expose themselves to Internet trackers. Tracker Mapper has been available for Macs and Windows PCs for about half a year, and was just launched for Freedome’s Android and iOS apps. So how does using Tracker Mapper help you control your online privacy? Here’s our Chief Research Officer, Mikko Hyppönen, talking about how online tracking threatens people’s privacy, and how Freedome (and Tracker Mapper) can help people protect themselves. [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1F8sHjCBx0&w=560&h=315] I ran a little experiment to help me learn how to limit my exposure to trackers while planning a vacation. I used Alexa to help me find some popular travel websites that I could use to shop for deals on hotels. After that, I turned on Tracker Mapper (which is turned off by default, because we respect the fact that people don’t want apps to create logs without permission) so I could find out which of these websites used the most tracking to study me as I used their site. I chose 5 of the more popular sites, and then I spent about 10 minutes on each, and left a bit of extra time so I could check out the results in between. The whole thing took me about an hour, giving me a one-hour log of the tracking attempts Freedome blocked while I browsed these sites. Tracker Mapper creates an interactive visualization of the blocked tracking attempts, and gives you information on what trackers attempted to monitor you on different websites. It also shows how these trackers link together to create a network capable of monitoring you as you navigate from website to website. These are screenshots showing how Tracker Mapper visualizes online tracking, as well some of the statistics it provides. The capture on the left shows the entire overview of the session (which lasted exactly one hour). The shot in the middle shows the sites I visited ordered by the most tracking attempts. The capture on the right shows the actual trackers that attempted to track me during my session, ordered by the number of blocked attempts. Based on this, Trip Advisor appears to have made the most tracking attempts. But you can learn even more about this by combining Tracker Mapper with a bit of online digging. You can tap on the different “bubbles” in Tracker Mapper to pull up statistics about different websites and tracking services. The first screen capture shows how many tracking attempts from different services were blocked when I visited Trip Advisor. The next two show the most prominent tracking services Freedome blocked – the tracker that TripAdvisor has integrated into its website (www.tripadvisor.com), and a tracking tag from Scorecard Research (b.scorecardresearch.com). As you might have guessed, TripAdvisor’s own tracking service is only used on their website (it’s what’s called “first-party tracking”). That’s why Tracker Mapper doesn’t show any connections between it and other websites. The second one, Scorecard Research, is used on both Trip Advisor and Lonely Planet. That’s why there are lines connecting it with both (it’s what’s called “third-party tracking”). Scorecard research is a marketing research firm that provides tracking and analytic services by having websites host their “tags”, which collect information about those website’s visitors. The Guardian has an excellent write-up about Scorecard Research, but what’s missing from the Guardian story is that you can opt-out of Scorecard Research’s tracking. Basically, they put a cookie on your browser, which isn’t an uncommon way for tracking companies to allow web surfers to protect their privacy (and oddly enough, a common way for them to track you). Stripping trackers out of websites lets people take control of who’s monitoring what they do online. PEW’s survey found that this idea of control is central to people’s concerns about online privacy - 74 percent of respondents said it’s important to control who can get information, and 65 percent said its important to control what information is collected. However, opting out of every tracking service (and for every browser you use) by installing opt-out cookies isn’t as convenient as using Freedome. And as F-Secure Security Advisor Sean Sullivan pointed out in this blog post, it actually works much better for your browsing (one experiment found that Freedome can reduce the time it takes to load web pages by about 30 percent, and decrease data consumption by about 13 percent). You can download Freedome for a free trial and find out for yourself if how it can help you control your online privacy. And right now, you can win free annual subscriptions, as well as cool swag (like stylish hoodies) by posting a screenshot showing your blocked tracking attempts to F-Secure’s Facebook wall, or on Instagram with F-Secure tagged. The contest is open till March 23rd, and 5 winners will be randomly drawn after it ends.

March 16, 2016
BY 
Safer Internet Day

What are your kids doing for Safer Internet Day?

Today is Safer Internet Day – a day to talk about what kind of place the Internet is becoming for kids, and what people can do to make it a safe place for kids and teens to enjoy. We talk a lot about various online threats on this blog. After all, we’re a cyber security company, and it’s our job to secure devices and networks to keep people protected from more than just malware. But protecting kids and protecting adults are different ballparks. Kids have different needs, and as F-Secure Researcher Mikael Albrecht has pointed out, this isn’t always recognized by software developers or device manufacturers. So how does this actually impact kids? Well, it means parents can’t count on the devices and services kids use to be completely age appropriate. Or completely safe. Social media is a perfect example. Micke has written in the past that social media is basically designed for adults, making any sort of child protection features more of an afterthought than a focus. Things like age restrictions are easy for kids to work around. So it’s not difficult for kids to hop on Facebook or Twitter and start social networking, just like their parents or older siblings. But these services aren't designed for kids to connect with adults. So where does that leave parents? Parental controls are great tools that parents can use to monitor, and to a certain extent, limit what kids can do online. But they’re not perfect. Particularly considering the popularity of mobile devices amongst kids. Regulating content on desktop browsers and mobile apps are two different things, and while there are a lot of benefits to using mobile apps instead of web browsers, it does make using special software to regulate content much more difficult. The answer to challenges like these is the less technical approach – talking to kids. There’s some great tips for parents on F-Secure’s Digital Parenting web page, with talking points, guidelines, and potential risks that parents should learn more about. That might seem like a bit of a challenge to parents. F-Secure’s Chief Research Officer Mikko Hypponen has pointed out that today’s kids have never experienced a world without the Internet. It’s as common as electricity for them. But the nice thing about this approach is that parents can do this just by spending time with kids and learning about the things they like to do online. So if you don’t know what your kids are up to this Safer Internet Day, why not enjoy the day with your kids (or niece/nephew, or even a kid you might be babysitting) by talking over what they like to do online, and how they can enjoy doing it safely.

February 9, 2016
BY