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

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 
Star_Wars_The_Force_Awakens

What was PC technology like when each new Star Wars debuted?

When George Lucas' Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope hit theaters in May 25, 1977 the vision of a world that existed a "long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" was startlingly new. The film opens with a massive Imperial Star Destroyer chasing a rebel ship and features routine space travel and battles suggestive of both of the age of King Arthur and a high-tech future, as depicted by visual effects pioneers Industrial Light & Magic. It also features a wire-frame animation (replicated below) of the Death Star, one of the first uses of computer animation ever to make it into a motion picture. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVMnwd4mZlA] Less than a month later, history was made in the personal computer industry when Apple released the Apple II on June 10, 1977. At $1,298 -- which is just over $5,000 in today's U.S. dollars -- the machine that operated using Applesoft BASIC would become one of the first microcomputers to win widespread adoption, eventually expanding personal computing beyond hobbyists by offering business applications like VisiCalc, the first computer spreadsheet program for PCs. By the time Apple phased out the II series in 1993 between 5 and 6 million units had been sold. During 1999, the year when Lucas launched his first of the prequels Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, more than 114 million PCs were sold and the explosion of the World Wide Web had sped up widespread adoption of internet-connected computers. EverQuest -- the second massively multi-player online game after Ultima Online and the first with a 3-D engine -- was released on March 16, 1999 and within months more than two-hundred thousand players had subscribed. On May 19th, Phantom Menace hit theaters with only one scene that wasn't altered by visual effects. It was the first Star Wars film to feature fully computer generated characters including Jar Jar Binks, so maybe that wasn't a great idea. That year Apple released its its iMac computers in a variety of colors, Intel released its Pentium III and the computer virus Melissa -- the first able to spread itself through email -- became the fastest spreading malware ever and hit 250,000 PCs worldwide. The Mobile Web also debuted in Japan via the i-mode networking standard. According to the Computer History Museum Timeline of Computer History, it offered "web access, e-mail, mobile payments, streaming video, and many other features that the rest of the world won't see for nearly another decade." Free PC gave away 10,000 Compaq computers, one of many companies that offered hardware or Internet access in exchange for viewing ads. Many of these companies were bankrupt by December of that year. This is what a 1999-era Compaq running Windows 98 looks like: [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii51iSCnE0Q] The full trailer of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens debuted in October of 2015. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGbxmsDFVnE] This follows only six months after Apple introduced its Apple Watch wearable device. The number of computers sold each year -- when you combine personal computers with smartphones and tablets -- now numbers in the billions with more than a billion devices powered by Google's Android operating system alone being sold each year. The largest PC maker in the world Lenovo sold 58 million units in 2014. The director of The Force Awakens J.J. Abrams had no input whatsoever from its creator George Lucas who sold to the franchise to Disney. But Abrams studiously sought to connect the new film to the original trilogy. He did this both by working with the writer of Episode IV: The Empire Strikes Back Lawrence Kasdan and through effects that focused on continuity with the movie's predecessors, with only a judicious use of computer generated images. [Apple II image by Narnars0]

December 18, 2015
BY 
parent and child

We need more than just age limits to protect our children in social media

The European Union is preparing a new data protection package. It is making headlines because there are plans to raise the age limit for digital consent from 13 to 16 years. This has sometimes been describes as the age limit for joining social media. To be precise, member states could choose their age limit within this range. Younger kids would need parental consent for creating an account in social media and similar networks. We can probably agree that minors’ use of the internet can be problematic. But is an age limit really the right way to go? It’s easy to think of potential problems when children and teenagers start using social media. The platforms are powerful communication tools, for good and bad. Cyberbullying. Grooming. Inappropriate content. Unwanted marketing. Getting addicted. Stealing time and attention from homework or other hobbies. And perhaps most important. Social media often becomes a sphere of freedom, a world totally insulated from the parents and their silly rules. In social media you can choose your contacts. There’s no function that enables parents to check what the kids are doing, unless they accept their parents as friends. And the parents are often on totally different services. Facebook is quickly becoming the boring place where mom and granny hangs out. Youngsters tend to be on Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Periscope or whatnot instead. But is restricting their access to social media the right thing to do? What do we achieve by requiring parental consent before they sign up? This would mean that parents, in theory, have a chance to prevent their children from being on social media. And that’s good, right? Well, this is a flawed logic in several ways. First, it’s easy to lie about your age. Social media in generic has very poor authentication mechanisms for people signing up. They are not verifying your true identity, and can’t verify your age either. Kids learn very quickly that signing up just requires some simple math. Subtract 16, or whatever, from the current year when asked for year of birth. The other problem is that parental consent requirements don’t give parents a real choice. Electronic communication is becoming a cornerstone in our way to interact with other people. It can’t be stressed enough how important it is for our children to learn the rules and skills of this new world. Preventing kids from participating in the community where all their friends are could isolate them, and potentially cause more harm than the dark side of social media. What we need isn’t age limits and parental consent. It’s better control of the content our children are dealing with and tools for parents to follow what they are doing. Social media is currently designed for adults and everyone have tools to protect their privacy. But the same tools become a problem when children join, as they also prevent parents from keeping an eye on their offspring. Parental consent becomes significant when the social media platforms start to recognize parent-child relationships. New accounts for children under a specified age could mandatorily be linked to an adult’s account. The adult would have some level of visibility into what the child is doing, but maybe not full visibility. Metadata, like whom the child is communicating with, would be a good start. Remember that children deserve s certain level of privacy too. Parents could of course still neglect their responsibilities, but they would at least have a tool if they want to keep an eye on how their kids are doing online. And then we still have the problem with the lack of age verification. All this is naturally in vain if the kids can sign up as adults. On top of that, children’s social media preferences are very volatile. They do not stay loyally on one service all the time. Having proper parent-child relationships in one service is not enough, it need to be the norm on all services. So we are still very far from a social media world that really takes parents’ and children’s needs into account. Just demanding parental consent when kids are signing up does not really do much good. It’s of course nice to see EU take some baby steps towards a safer net for our children. But this is unfortunately an area where baby steps isn’t enough. We need a couple of giant leaps as soon as possible.   Safe surfing, Micke   Image by skyseeker    

December 17, 2015
BY