As a french person I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the french population do not know about privacy laws when it comes to being photographed or filmed in public.
+Gregory Fabre I'm a french person myself and I think we know about privacy laws but we just don't care about minor things. And being on the background of a tourist's photo is definitely minor. We won't go to the court each time the law gives room for action. We'll go when we feel there's a real serious problem that can't be settled between gentlemen.
+Christian Barnay The problem is that someone taking video or photos can't know who's going to be the nutjob that goes off and sues them because they were in the background of a video or photo. Even if 99.9% of people wouldn't care, that still leaves an enormous number of people who do, and without knowing who they are, the only way to protect yourself is to censor the image of every single person in the background of every one of your videos and photos.
+kered13 Keep taking your landscape photos and don't care about the nutjob. He can THEORETICALLY sue you for the photo. But he will most likely make the day of the police officer who will have a good joke to tell his colleagues after closing the case in less than 2 minutes. If instead of going to the nearest officer the background person kindly asks to see the photo, just show him. If he likes it ask for his email to send a copy and make a new friend.
@@PlantOutofPotthere are exceptions : if you take a photo/video ● in a public place in a general view "si aucune personne n'est individualisée". ●During an event of actuality or a public protest ● to inform, covering a public personality in his duty ● as an historical illustration You can't claim any right on the image for featuring you.
It's actually a lil bit more complicated. In France, you can take a picture of a crowd, and no one in the crowd can sue you... in theory. The law is about the real subject of the photo, not about the centring, that's why each case is different. About the Eiffel tower, you can take it in photo even at night (it is located in a public area), but you can't publish the photo. Hope this help !
In Germany, there's a legal institute called „Panoramafreiheit“, literally meaning freedom of panorama, including buildings and people if they're not the main subject of the photograph.
Exactly. And I think its a good idea. When you film or photograph someone ("aiming" at that person) in public against their will it is illegal. When they happen to be in your shot of something else, it is fine. That is, imho, how it always should be.
@@user-it6jd1sb6k I think as long as you don't use the image on a public website (like Facebook) you are fine. I don't know about what happens if you do intent on using it on the internet. But I can't imagine it's a problem, even with GDPR... Though maybe a person on it could request that you remove the image from e.g. Facebook? I don't know.
@@TheMightyZwom I just remember vastly because I don´t do anything across these fields. The comment might be older than the GDPR/might don´t. Altough, it got changed with GDPR thats what Im sure at (for Germany). Won´t gonna look up on that though, I hope someone else will do.
Actually, as a photographer in France, we have the right to take people's picture in every public place, and publish or exhibit them for artistic and informative purposes. It's considered as freedom of expression. But if this photo is detrimental to the person, or if the person is in a really embarassing situation, we can be sued.
@@jedisalsohere Widely celebrated as amongst the best of the Tom Baker era, and thus in turn the entire original run of the series. You'd be hard-pressed to not find it on any top ten list of classic Who.
It should be noted that the United States' "very strong freedom of speech laws" haven't prevented exceptions from arising in certain states where you're not allowed to film certain public officials in public places where nobody else has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police departments in particular have pushed hard for such laws... which is odd in my opinion. I really wish the police would be required to keep a video and audio recorder on them whenever they're executing their duties. It protects them from false allegations and frivolous litigation and protects everyone else from abuses of power. I'm certain it would reduce the number of violent encounters with US police.
Falcrist just like in britain, unless you are unser arrest (where you cant do anything) you are allowed to film pretty much anyone, and if they try to stop you, find a higher ranking officer, and the one who tried to stop you will be disciplined.
I like the idea of US police having a right not to be filmed. I'll take my video camera - and if they demand not to be filmed, I'll say they have that right and to exercise it they simply need to get out of my shot ;) And effectively, by remaining in shot, they've agreed to be filmed !
Falcrist The US system of government is complicated. It's entirely possible that those "exceptions" you mention are unconstitutional. If no one challenges those cases (or if the Supreme Court declines to consider them), they can remain in effect, but it doesn't mean they're true exceptions. They simply haven't been considered.
And then Google Street View is very badly erroneously blurred in lots of historical places because the facial detection technology gives a lot of false positives. It's sad. :(
@@Gayestskijumpever wha- how would that prevent people from "scoping out" a place? Why does the face being blurred prevent them from looking around the place?
French law is not made by judges nor case law. Parliament makes the laws. While judges interpret these laws, their rulings are not binding on future cases. Hence they are not a source of law as it is the case in common law systems like England or the US.
that's not privacy, that's censorship. The only people with the money to launch such a lawsuit would have to be rich, a company, a union or the government; not average private citizens. These blanket privacy protections essentially mean you have no way to keep your govt honest without opening yourself to a lawsuit.
The thing is that in France we are not going to sue everybody for money without REAL arguments. Is not because the law allow you to sue that your are doing it.
So, the question becomes, what is it about France that people in that area aren't taking advantage of a poorly structured law? Is it genetic, cultural, some other attribute of the legal code, or something else? Or, is it possible that your assertion is unfounded? What exactly is a "UNREAL" argument supported by this regulation?
In France we can allow laws stronger for the public than creatives, because the public will use them only in abuse, not just because they can. FYI I'm not a lawyer.
@Tara S. Just look up "The Snoopers Charter", we have no right to privacy online or regarding our phone records. Some of Terresa May's government actually wanted to ban VPNs with the now ex-Prime Minister herself showing no understanding of how the internet actually works asking why should any internet traffic be encrypted. The most recent example of our eroding privacy is the government bringing ion ;legislation regarding who we can socialize with in our own homes and giving the police the power to enter our homes without warrants as to check.
actually in France, the price of legal pursuits (lawyers, etc...) are reimbursed if you are sued wrongly. This is meant to avoid suits that are only made to make people poorer (called SLAP suits in the US). This is why there aren't as many lawsuits as in the US, Especially over privacy. Not sure about the UK way of doing it, though
Well freedom of speech in France is way more respected in France than America that's for sure. America's censorship of everything (not to mention Australia's) is stupid. In France swear words are never bleeped on TV and nudity or violent content are not such a big deal. It is parents' duty to teach their children what to do and what not to do. TV or any other media should never replace parents...
Americans freedom is based around "Anything you want that doesn't stop others freedom." You have a right to be served at a restaurant AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THEIR RULES. If a restaurant lets you jump on the table, then you can do that. If you jump on the table in a place where it is not allowed you are asked to leave their private property, if you don't you get arrested (probably just for 1 night, depending on if you hurt someone) Many television channels in america allow sex and cursing if they argue artistic merit. Radio is considered the same as public transport or roads. Can you have have sex or curse someone out on a buss? Can you walk around the street and cuss people out and expect police to be on your side? Can you walk into a school and start having sex with someone in front of children? I hope not... There are television shows which are child friendly and there is a robust rating system in place to help parents decide what their child can and cannot do. Lets say a violent video game, you are required to show an 18+ license if the game has that rating. You would say "How dare they censor this" BUT a parent can decide to buy it for their child. You say "Drinking age of 21 is stupid" BUT it's known kids drink before then, and its completely legal for PARENTS TO SERVE ALCOHOL TO THEIR CHILDREN IN THEIR OWN HOME. As long as it's not abuse. A glass of wine can be given with dinner to children 10 years old. America understands that we have DIFFERENT CULTURES. 89.7% of people in France are french. 72.4% of americans are caucasion. This includes french, irish, polish, russian, english, white south africans, some pacific islanders, danes, swedish, australian, austrian, new zealanders, ect ect ect. Of each of these cultures we have the SUBCULTURES as well. Basically: America has many many many many times more cultures than france does. We have laws in order to make sure every culture has the same freedoms. Simply: French people may have what they decide is safe or correct, every other culture does too. 'Censorship' only happens in PUBLIC broadcasts and PUBLIC places or in PRIVATE places such as restaurants or stores where it is expected you behave on someone else's property. You don't have the freedom to prevent other people from having freedom.
darius savory What im saying is. the largest group of people in France is 89.7% The largest group in america is like 10% at the most MAYBE. If there was a vote where 51% would win... The french people living in france are the ones who decide the laws. In america. on a vote where 51% would win... No one single culture has 51% Do you see the difference? Also, there are more people from china in the city of new york than there are people with 'non-danish' blood in Denmark (edit: This is to show America has a lot of foreigners in it, many more foreigners than most european countries even have people) We have more foreigners FROM A SINGLE COUNTRY that live in a SINGLE CITY than a whole county has foreigners FROM ANY COUNTRY. Don't argue that american culture is the same as french culture, but americans are stupid because we don't follow french laws. American culture is NOT THE SAME as French culture. (edit: The lowest number of illegal immigrants calculated, meaning people lying and saying the number is lower than it is, That number is LARGER than the amount of people in many european countries. If any european country had the amount of illegal immigrants that america does, they would fall to revolution within a day. America has to deal with these things that other countries dont)
darius savory Ok fine, you're right. Laws have nothing to do with the people who vote on them. Every culture is the same and wants the same thing from their government. No one in the world ever votes differently from anyone else based on their culture. This is why we all have one ruler, because everyone votes the same. All hail the supreme ruler of the world. Death to those who are different.
+Connor Hill "America has many many many many times more cultures than France does" That's completely false and idiotic. "You don't have the freedom to prevent other people from having freedom." We don't either. We have a constitution you know, it's older than yours which was inspired strongly by it. "Radio is considered the same as public transport or roads. Can you have have sex or curse someone out on a buss? Can you walk around the street and cuss people out and expect police to be on your side? Can you walk into a school and start having sex with someone in front of children? I hope not..." Again, who says the law is godsend here ? If Radio is considered something by law, does that make it that in reality ? I mean that's no argument.
It used to be the same in Norway. Filming in public used to be legal. Now it isn't unless certain conditions are met. If there's no people in the shot, you're safe. If there's a few people that can't be identified, you're still safe. If there's a lot of people that can be identified, you're still safe. If there's a few people that can be identified, you're in trouble. If there's kids in the shot, you're screwed, as that's a capital offence in Norway. Off with the little head!
I'm French. I have two children. At the beginning of every schoolyear, their school principal makes me sign a paper which grants their teachers permission to photograph them and publish their photo on official papers, class journal, after a field trip, and so on. But, apart from that, I don't think anyone in France knows we're supposed to ask permission for making a photo of any building... Photos of people, yes. Buildings, no. So I honestly don't think anyone will ever sue you for filming them, unless they were committing a felony or walking around naked, one of these stupid things... That would be a huge waste of time and money.
A few years back there was this case with Buren who claimed people could not sell postcards of la Place des Terreaux in Lyon, because there's one of his art installation there. The court decided it was invalid because pictures are focused on the plaza in general, with a fountain from Bartholdi, the Townhall and the Museum of Beaux-Arts. So if you take a general shot of Paris at night and you can see the Eiffel tower, you should be fine.
no, this is not has difficult has you may imagine to be sued in France, particularly for this case, I'm french and I have heard about some case has this , but it rarely goes to make you pay for this, most of the time, you have to "erase" the photo on every support it is stocked or published.
@@haashirkabeer2671 I didn't say "people" in general, I said rich people. It's far too easy for the rich to sue the poor who have done nothing wrong but must bankrupt themselves proving they aren't liable. Just as America should learn from the world with universal healthcare, the world needs to learn from America with things like anti-slapp laws that prevent the threat of lawsuits being used against those who aren't rich enough to keep lawyers on retainer. Universal healthcare is inevitable for America, it's not a question of "if" only a question of "when". But the steady erosion of jurisprudence that protects regular people from the law is the trend outside America.
Fun Fact: Google Street View is broadly available in France, since nobody cares. But in Germany, only a few cities are shown and their pictures won`t get updated since 2009, due to strict laws.
Good work Tom, nice video! It seems like the French have the same problem in privacy as the UK has in the rest of its legal system. Those current systems work okay but I'd prefer to have a set of clear rules like the French constitution, rather than a patchwork of precedent like the UK's expensive system of common law.
The problem with a "clear set of laws" like a constitution is that it can't exist. It's impossible to make a legal statement that can be interpreted only one way to keep any immoral loopholes from existing and still allow variation for moral exceptions. The US Constitution is proof of this. Its statements of (seemingly) simple allowances or disallowances has be interpreted and reinterpreted to mean both sides of any argument. The common law is the best way to create a flexible law that works for a local people. The more local the better. A country should not have a common law. Instead, small, local, private courts should establish private laws that reflect the local customs and demands of the folk that reside there. The courts should be private to allow for market forces to move the law in the direction it needs to go. Check out "The Machinery of Freedom" by David B Friedman and "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy. Good stuff. I'll skip the visit to Paris though.
@@dco901 Well, each system has a good side and a bad side. With the common law, flexibility is a plus. On the opposite, it created an inflation of lawyers, endless procedures, and an expensive system of justice at the end for the people. So, difficult to say which one is the best.
I'm a French teacher and I have to avoid recording my students singing together to show them whether they sound good or bad because of the uncertainty of what would happen if a parent sued me. I can also try to get an authorisation for each and every student but there's always that one parent. And to be completely fair there, were I to have kids, I _would_ be that one parent 🙄
Dans le cas d'images prises dans les lieux publics, seule l'autorisation des personnes qui sont isolées et reconnaissables est nécessaire. Rough translation: when you are taking pictures or videos in public places, you do not have to get the authorization of persons that are not (isolated AND recognizable). As long as you do not target someone in particular, you can take all the photos you want. Source: the CNIL website (L'utilisation de l'image des personnes)
it's a great approach, personal privacy should always come before anyones right to film but it definitely should be put together in some coherent laws that don't contradict each other
Ok. If you are out in public, I can film you. But if you are in a place of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, such as your private home, then I can’t film you without your consent. That seems fine to me.
Any public buildings and/or displays that is not covered up to indicate privacy/copyright, should be taken as under public domain, say with the light displays on the Eifel tower, filming the light displays should definetively fall under public domain, with the logic that 'if they wanted money, they should be required to cover it up to indicate private domain', the only part where the copyright for said argument falls in place is of course the re-production of the exact light displays say if anyone wanted to copy the light display. So basically, If it is for everyone's eyes - so should it be lawful to film and take pictures of that public - anything.
I'm French, and like 99% of the french, we do not care at all to be filmed and all. On the contrary for me, I love when I'm a part of someone's souvenir.
It's not true this is a clearly defined law with exceptions: However, the dissemination of certain images does not require the consent of the person photographed or filmed, subject to respect for his or her dignity. For example, the following examples are given: Image of a group or a street scene in a public place if no person is individualized and within the limit of the right to information. Image of a current event or public manifestation within the limits of the right to information and artistic creation Image of a public figure in the exercise of his or her functions if the purpose of the image is to inform (an elected official for example) Image illustrating a historical subject
Bizarre when you think that all land is public in France unless you put a Prive sign up - even your back garden. It's why French vineyards don't have fences around them, no point. But people respect common sense here though and most people aren't much bothered. But there are some utterly arcane privacy and access laws in France that make no sense.
The Law system in France often stays quite vague intentionnally. In a court, we take individual cases and base them more or less on past similar cases(oversimplified but it's more less like that) . The way law works in France is very diffirent to way laws works elsewhere in the world. The system is really weird, but it actually works ok. Many laws are like this : "as long as you don't harm anyone in any way, you can ignore this law". Just a fun joke to the english people : we haven't got 10 cameras on every street corner because of these laws :P ( The one part that I don't like in england is actually the lack of privacy tbh)
Also: In america you can't expect privacy on someone elses property. If you take off your clothes and run into a crowded football stadium, the French say you should be able to sue everyone in the stadium for seeing you naked. In america, you would probably arrested and banned from future games.
There is no problem with shooting someone in public spaces as long as money isn't involved, the same than in England (been doing random street portraits). In Germany, you would be right and people seem to hate in there.
Not exaclty. Ok usually french don't mind, but legally if you take a picture of someone (friend or stranger) in the street (or anywhere else, even in private area), you need to ask them the permission, even if nobody will see the picture.
A defense may be something known as "common law". You could argue ignorance and thus only get off with a warning. It's like not knowing your state has laws requiring front license plates, you might be given a warning and a 14 day grace period to get the front plat installed, but repeat violations will result in the imposition of fines and other punishments.
i would like to say we still very much have these horrible copyright abuses in the US, they just haven't done anything outrageous as claim a public icon is dmca proofed...yet.
I bet if these copyright and privacy laws were around a few hundred years earlier, I bet there would be people painting pictures of the people who claim to have the right to be anonymous out in public.
You could make on for Sweden now as well. It is illegal to take a photo of an statue or any other public art and upload it to the internet without the creators approval. Wikipedia is in the heat about this right now.
Not a legal expert but from what I understand and very roughly put: in Germany there is a distinction made in the purpose of the picture. If it’s a group or architecture it may be photographed without permission but if it’s a single or few people who are the focus of the photograph you must get their permission since they hold any and all rights to their own likeness.
Here in Norway you must Ask permisjon to take a picture or to film someone if you still takes the picture or films and keep it privatly or publish it online you can sue them
But if it is a crowd you can film or take a picture of them without nobodies permission and unless they tell you to delete it or blir you out you are fine according to the law
For all you US-Americans out there: suing someone in Europe won't make you rich (only in some extraordinary rare cases, perhaps). What it does is it either compensates for the damage caused (perhaps a fee to cover whatever the victim would have to pay to repair whatever damage has been done to them) or you just get what you wanted (i.e. your photo removed/you getting blurred out).
Under the Greater London Authority bylaws it's illegal to photograph or video Trafalgar Square, Nelson's Column etc, if you expect to put it on YT. Arguably the same applies in the Royal Parks, like Hyde Park. Like anyone cares.
Theoretically it is true but the reality is quite different. Being sued by someone who ended accidentally in the back of a photo you took in France is very unlikely to happen. It is expensive, requires a bunch of proofs (and a good lawyer). Things get more complicated when you are taking photos of people during their duty (counter staff, policeman, etc.). They can ask you to delete immediately the picture and in the worst cases, they can threaten you of a legal action. Once again, this is only a threat and, unless there is a more complex background, they will not have enough charges against you to sue you in proper terms.
Laws are decided in part by what judges decide in the past, so if a judge says that you can be filmed in public, but another says you can't, then someone could sue you if you broke one of the rulings decisions.
Okay I will try to clear some things out at the best i can with my limited knowledge. Tom's video is quiet interesting but actually pretty wrong in the way he presents it. There is something call "droit a l'image" (image rights) that says you're entitled to use your own image as you see fit. This right is enforced by article 9 of the civil code that says everyone is entitled to its privacy. For instance if someone takes a pic/films you without permission you can ask them to delete the footage or sue them (in worst case). However this at its limits. You can take pictures of people (plural) in public spaces if: -You don't focus on them (group shots or people can't be identified) -It serve some information purpose (like a reporter taking a picture of the crowd at a festival) -It is not degrading or shameful for the person -EXTRA BONUS you are a public person and the picture depicts you in your professional life (like the president at some public event) Where Tom's presentation of the facts get tricky is that in the french law system we use a lot of jurisprudence. In case of trial lawyers will use jurisprudence - rulling from the court in previous cases - to help support their plead. Those jurisprudence can be very different from one another because the judge that rules examines the facts of the ongoing trial and situations are never the same. It all depends on the criteria of the pics. The other thing a bit wrong here is about the eiffel tower. It's protected not by image right but by author rights. The law says that the "light artist" that designed the lighting system for the eiffel tower to make it look good at night as rights over his work. Therefore if you take a pic to use it in any professional or commercial way you have to pay for it just like you pay when you buy a CD. Author right in France last until 70 years after the death of the author. Since the good old Eiffel died in 1923 you're good to go. Side note: French law tries to be as reasonable as it gets so if you sue someone you must have a good reason. If your reason for sueing don't makes sense judge can actually dismiss it and the other party could sue you for harassment and missuse of the law. Side note 2: Sueing in France costs a lot at is suppppeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr long so ... Nobody would sue you without good reason especially if the penalty is nothing. Most stars that get their private film exposed in magazine sue and get fomal apologies and like few thousand euros compensation. It cost them way more to sue that what they earn from it but it's their only way to control the invasion of their privacy.
I may be a bit late but whatever. The practice of law is different in France compared to the UK or US. In France there is no such thing as common law. You basicly always rule according to the written law but sometime the law isn't very clear (or not even made yet, think internet related law back in the 80's) also some case may be really complex, thus in these situation a case may be appealed to a supreme court which will settle it. These "supreme" rulings set a trend for the cases to follow. Still they do not hold the same "importance" as the written law, for example a judge is allowed to settle a similar case in a different way. (If you're curious about that stuff, look up the differences between the Romano-Germanic law tradition and the Comon law tradition)
What about eyes, and memories? What's the legal distinction between the types of objects intercepting photons, or the types of storage allowing for access at later times?
Most likely the law specifies electronic, physical film, etc, and maybe says something about things invented in the future. It probably doesn't list eyeballs or brains TBH.
Good to know. I shall go on not publishing any of my video. Surely copyright is very different to privacy though... the legal system is there to see the protection of value for copyright (profit made from design), whereas for privacy it is about anonymity which has no financial claim unless I am expected to pay the unwitting "actors" (unlicensed) for their "performance" even though my production has no revenue. I would suggest that we should all have a right to video anything we see; for personal posterity. The problem would be showing the result for financial gain. Suing because "my face is clearly visible for 0.1 second" in the background of a YT video with 30,000 views is hardly a performance worthy of payment, permission or not.
Ahaha, yes... you are right, the light at night is a creative light design that is protected. But the French people have more pressing matters to handle right now so they are not gonna be after you...
It seems to b complicated, but these laws were made far before internet, when only newspapers diffuse photos. And if someone won't to appear on a photography, laws say that he could say : no, I want to be blured. Even nowadays, when you see a reportage which is in a classroom for example, journalists ask if anyone will not appear. Now, everybody could take photos and put them on Internet. This might causes some juridic problems. If someone appears in a photo or a video in some place where he should not be, he could have some problems, and, technically, the photograph could be sued. But these cases are rare, cause if you are in a place where you should not, you hide ;)
You have to take a page out of the, can't sue me if I dont show up for the case book. Or my favorite, just try to make me pay book, or the good luck trying editions, I live in a world of.. if you try to take it, I will make you pay 10 times plus trying to get me to pay. Sad, but I understand the French and their privacy.
haashir kabeer what do you mean there’s no 14th of July Marching. It’s the National day, and we have défilé at the arc of triumph. I was sued because someone reported me photographing people without their consent.
You can take a picture, and probably even do some limited things like showing it to friends or Facebook. Where you go into murky waters is when you professionally publish/make money/use in advertising.
But let's face it; I'm a pretty decent photographer and I'm under NO dillusion that my snaps of the Eiffel tower are going to be any better by far than the ones you can buy a license of for a few bucks...
It's a tourist attraction, you can't keep up with the amount of so called law breaking through photography the same as trying to catch everyone who breaks covid rules. It's too popular. Just like singing "Happy Birthday" is illegal yet everyone does it, it's not worth the hassle to sue. Or watching movies for free on illegal apps, yet another example of popularity beating the system.
I took loads of pictures with people in the background during my trip to Paris in 2015, especially around the Eifel Tower area and nobody from France has yet come knocking on my door stating that they'll see me in court.
Did you take the lifts of fly? It just sounds like a complicated mess. With RUclips would it matter, not that they have offices in France but where the content is hosted?
If RUclips is doing anything right (which they seem to be), their content is hosted on a network of servers distributed to as many places as they can. So if there's a French office, there's probably content hosted there, and you have no way of knowing which server your video goes to when you click Upload.
fun fact: i had my oral exams last week and they were about the uk (i'm from germany and so it's not normal for me :D) the basic question was: how far does the eu election in may affect the uk general election in 2015 considering the outcome for the Conservatives and the UKIP.
"To make matters even more complicated, I am British."
There's your problem. You're British, but you're in France.
Not too long ago that would be an even more serious problem.
Ayy caramba the baguettes are making this hard
@@muffincat120 I'm not. I'm English, thank you very much!
They say french police have 4 years training to recognise Brits and arrest them for some stupid reason
As a french person I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the french population do not know about privacy laws when it comes to being photographed or filmed in public.
+Gregory Fabre I'm a french person myself and I think we know about privacy laws but we just don't care about minor things. And being on the background of a tourist's photo is definitely minor.
We won't go to the court each time the law gives room for action. We'll go when we feel there's a real serious problem that can't be settled between gentlemen.
+Christian Barnay The problem is that someone taking video or photos can't know who's going to be the nutjob that goes off and sues them because they were in the background of a video or photo. Even if 99.9% of people wouldn't care, that still leaves an enormous number of people who do, and without knowing who they are, the only way to protect yourself is to censor the image of every single person in the background of every one of your videos and photos.
+kered13 Keep taking your landscape photos and don't care about the nutjob. He can THEORETICALLY sue you for the photo. But he will most likely make the day of the police officer who will have a good joke to tell his colleagues after closing the case in less than 2 minutes.
If instead of going to the nearest officer the background person kindly asks to see the photo, just show him. If he likes it ask for his email to send a copy and make a new friend.
Gregory Fabre I didn't know that myself.
and in today time... nobody would care.
Don't worry, there are no French people at the Eiffel Tower
Hahahahaha
*Paul Joseph watson has joined the chat*
@Sir Knight Errant shut up with your nationalist propaganda.
Surely it's on someone's commute at least
@Sir Knight Errant How many people, in Paris, are citizens of France, and, by definition, the EU?
That’s why it’s obvious propaganda.
me: moves to france
me: photobombs as many peoples' pictures as possible
me: sues them all
*s t o n k s*
*Logan Brown, Professional Photobomber*
Stoncques
@@brede974 did you actually watch the video? Like, at all?
@@PlantOutofPotthere are exceptions :
if you take a photo/video
● in a public place in a general view "si aucune personne n'est individualisée".
●During an event of actuality or a public protest
● to inform, covering a public personality in his duty
● as an historical illustration
You can't claim any right on the image for featuring you.
S t o n k s n ' t
It's actually a lil bit more complicated. In France, you can take a picture of a crowd, and no one in the crowd can sue you... in theory. The law is about the real subject of the photo, not about the centring, that's why each case is different.
About the Eiffel tower, you can take it in photo even at night (it is located in a public area), but you can't publish the photo.
Hope this help !
If putting such a phot on Twitter - it is not 'published' but shared among a small group of friends ;)
could you publish it under Creative Commons??
This makes me really want to start an Eiffel Tower Photograph at Night publishing business.
@@RJStockton My fave kind of photog - in the dark.
"you can take a photo at night as long as no one knows about it"
"You can do anything illegal you want as long as no one finds out!!"
I'm guessing Vine never took off in France
+North American RUclipsr Vine and wine are completely different things
+North American RUclipsr this is gold I can't understand peoples immunity to humour ahaha
Yes it did, I'm a witness. Cuz I'm French. Or something.
And at this point that's true for the rest of the world.
North American RUclipsr Have you been blind. Vine was a service for posting 6 second videos. Then it died and now Jake and Logan Paul are on RUclips
In Germany, there's a legal institute called „Panoramafreiheit“, literally meaning freedom of panorama, including buildings and people if they're not the main subject of the photograph.
Exactly. And I think its a good idea. When you film or photograph someone ("aiming" at that person) in public against their will it is illegal. When they happen to be in your shot of something else, it is fine. That is, imho, how it always should be.
As always, a sensible approach from Germany. I sorta wish I lived there.
@@TheMightyZwom Didn´t this got changed with the new GDPR? Now only official reporters do have the right to take pictures like you described above.
@@user-it6jd1sb6k I think as long as you don't use the image on a public website (like Facebook) you are fine. I don't know about what happens if you do intent on using it on the internet. But I can't imagine it's a problem, even with GDPR... Though maybe a person on it could request that you remove the image from e.g. Facebook? I don't know.
@@TheMightyZwom I just remember vastly because I don´t do anything across these fields. The comment might be older than the GDPR/might don´t.
Altough, it got changed with GDPR thats what Im sure at (for Germany). Won´t gonna look up on that though, I hope someone else will do.
Actually, as a photographer in France, we have the right to take people's picture in every public place, and publish or exhibit them for artistic and informative purposes. It's considered as freedom of expression. But if this photo is detrimental to the person, or if the person is in a really embarassing situation, we can be sued.
"On second thought let's not go to France, tis a silly place"
monty python :D
+TheSola10 Is there a difference between patriotic and stupid?
Don't go to France, but not because it's silly, because it's dangerous.
france isn't dangerous as long as you dont insult the cheese
Ralien or Allah
"Bye bye, Duggan!" is a reference to the Doctor Who story City of Death.
Thanks 😂
Is that a recent episode? Like since the reboot
@@125conman No, it's from 1979. Well worth checking out, Douglas Adams wrote it.
@@jedisalsohere Widely celebrated as amongst the best of the Tom Baker era, and thus in turn the entire original run of the series. You'd be hard-pressed to not find it on any top ten list of classic Who.
1:00 The owners of the Eiffel Tower said that you can take a picture of the tower at night as long as they are not doing any light shows.
"I can't show you the Hollywood Sign, it's too dangerous"
"Right now, I'm putting myself at risk of being sued."
Probability of lawsuit in USA >> probability of lawsuit in France
I'm glad I don't live in pharked-up America
It should be noted that the United States' "very strong freedom of speech laws" haven't prevented exceptions from arising in certain states where you're not allowed to film certain public officials in public places where nobody else has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police departments in particular have pushed hard for such laws... which is odd in my opinion.
I really wish the police would be required to keep a video and audio recorder on them whenever they're executing their duties. It protects them from false allegations and frivolous litigation and protects everyone else from abuses of power.
I'm certain it would reduce the number of violent encounters with US police.
Falcrist just like in britain, unless you are unser arrest (where you cant do anything) you are allowed to film pretty much anyone, and if they try to stop you, find a higher ranking officer, and the one who tried to stop you will be disciplined.
Falcrist That's a really good idea :O
Most departments already require it. Bodycams are used in most departments and dashcams are nearly nationwide.
I like the idea of US police having a right not to be filmed. I'll take my video camera - and if they demand not to be filmed, I'll say they have that right and to exercise it they simply need to get out of my shot ;)
And effectively, by remaining in shot, they've agreed to be filmed !
Falcrist The US system of government is complicated. It's entirely possible that those "exceptions" you mention are unconstitutional. If no one challenges those cases (or if the Supreme Court declines to consider them), they can remain in effect, but it doesn't mean they're true exceptions. They simply haven't been considered.
1:47 "Hey, would you mind if i took a picture of you taking a picture?"
And then Google Street View is very badly erroneously blurred in lots of historical places because the facial detection technology gives a lot of false positives. It's sad. :(
I'm just imagining Mount Rushmore being blurred because it has faces on it.
You're wrong. It's blurred to prevent terrorists using it to scope potential targets.
+Simon Harris wow. I ended fear to google Paris and look it on streetview because someone might imagine I'm planning something. It's sad.
@@Gayestskijumpever wha- how would that prevent people from "scoping out" a place? Why does the face being blurred prevent them from looking around the place?
oy google maps oyy oyyyy OYYY MAPS OYYY
French law is not made by judges nor case law. Parliament makes the laws. While judges interpret these laws, their rulings are not binding on future cases. Hence they are not a source of law as it is the case in common law systems like England or the US.
Oh my God, I loved the Doctor Who reference at the end!
Thank god some one pointed it out as well
what if someone goes like "I hate poverty. if only could I get money! OH WAIT! jackpot! just photobomb everyone and Sue em! Yay!!"
+Anas Malas
Or go into massive debts, and later, in jail
In France you can have a lawyer for free, he'll then be payed by the losing side, if it's you, too bad but if you win it's good.
that's not privacy, that's censorship. The only people with the money to launch such a lawsuit would have to be rich, a company, a union or the government; not average private citizens. These blanket privacy protections essentially mean you have no way to keep your govt honest without opening yourself to a lawsuit.
Anas Malas in Europe suing isn't always about getting cash.
Anas Malas poverty in France?
Just qualified to practice law in the UK but hoping to move to France and practice there eventually so this piqued my interest
Thanks Tom.
The thing is that in France we are not going to sue everybody for money without REAL arguments. Is not because the law allow you to sue that your are doing it.
So, the question becomes, what is it about France that people in that area aren't taking advantage of a poorly structured law? Is it genetic, cultural, some other attribute of the legal code, or something else? Or, is it possible that your assertion is unfounded? What exactly is a "UNREAL" argument supported by this regulation?
In France we can allow laws stronger for the public than creatives, because the public will use them only in abuse, not just because they can. FYI I'm not a lawyer.
"British law has a reasonable expectation of privacy."
This didn't age well.
What happened?
What happened?
What happened?
@Tara S. same
@Tara S. Just look up "The Snoopers Charter", we have no right to privacy online or regarding our phone records. Some of Terresa May's government actually wanted to ban VPNs with the now ex-Prime Minister herself showing no understanding of how the internet actually works asking why should any internet traffic be encrypted.
The most recent example of our eroding privacy is the government bringing ion ;legislation regarding who we can socialize with in our own homes and giving the police the power to enter our homes without warrants as to check.
no one actually bothers suing ppl for such, everyone knows it's stupid & a loss of time
source : i'm french
I suspect it's a law that exists mostly for the benefit of celebrities, so they can sue paparazzi who stalk them and photograph them in public.
actually in France, the price of legal pursuits (lawyers, etc...) are reimbursed if you are sued wrongly. This is meant to avoid suits that are only made to make people poorer (called SLAP suits in the US). This is why there aren't as many lawsuits as in the US, Especially over privacy. Not sure about the UK way of doing it, though
People in France don't sue. It's impolite to take advantage of situations to make money.
Well freedom of speech in France is way more respected in France than America that's for sure. America's censorship of everything (not to mention Australia's) is stupid. In France swear words are never bleeped on TV and nudity or violent content are not such a big deal. It is parents' duty to teach their children what to do and what not to do. TV or any other media should never replace parents...
Americans freedom is based around "Anything you want that doesn't stop others freedom."
You have a right to be served at a restaurant AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THEIR RULES.
If a restaurant lets you jump on the table, then you can do that. If you jump on the table in a place where it is not allowed you are asked to leave their private property, if you don't you get arrested (probably just for 1 night, depending on if you hurt someone)
Many television channels in america allow sex and cursing if they argue artistic merit.
Radio is considered the same as public transport or roads.
Can you have have sex or curse someone out on a buss?
Can you walk around the street and cuss people out and expect police to be on your side?
Can you walk into a school and start having sex with someone in front of children?
I hope not...
There are television shows which are child friendly and there is a robust rating system in place to help parents decide what their child can and cannot do.
Lets say a violent video game, you are required to show an 18+ license if the game has that rating. You would say "How dare they censor this" BUT a parent can decide to buy it for their child.
You say "Drinking age of 21 is stupid" BUT it's known kids drink before then, and its completely legal for PARENTS TO SERVE ALCOHOL TO THEIR CHILDREN IN THEIR OWN HOME. As long as it's not abuse. A glass of wine can be given with dinner to children 10 years old. America understands that we have DIFFERENT CULTURES.
89.7% of people in France are french.
72.4% of americans are caucasion. This includes french, irish, polish, russian, english, white south africans, some pacific islanders, danes, swedish, australian, austrian, new zealanders, ect ect ect.
Of each of these cultures we have the SUBCULTURES as well.
Basically: America has many many many many times more cultures than france does. We have laws in order to make sure every culture has the same freedoms.
Simply: French people may have what they decide is safe or correct, every other culture does too. 'Censorship' only happens in PUBLIC broadcasts and PUBLIC places or in PRIVATE places such as restaurants or stores where it is expected you behave on someone else's property. You don't have the freedom to prevent other people from having freedom.
darius savory
What im saying is. the largest group of people in France is 89.7%
The largest group in america is like 10% at the most MAYBE.
If there was a vote where 51% would win... The french people living in france are the ones who decide the laws.
In america. on a vote where 51% would win...
No one single culture has 51%
Do you see the difference?
Also, there are more people from china in the city of new york than there are people with 'non-danish' blood in Denmark
(edit: This is to show America has a lot of foreigners in it, many more foreigners than most european countries even have people)
We have more foreigners FROM A SINGLE COUNTRY that live in a SINGLE CITY than a whole county has foreigners FROM ANY COUNTRY.
Don't argue that american culture is the same as french culture, but americans are stupid because we don't follow french laws.
American culture is NOT THE SAME as French culture.
(edit: The lowest number of illegal immigrants calculated, meaning people lying and saying the number is lower than it is, That number is LARGER than the amount of people in many european countries.
If any european country had the amount of illegal immigrants that america does, they would fall to revolution within a day. America has to deal with these things that other countries dont)
darius savory
Ok fine, you're right.
Laws have nothing to do with the people who vote on them.
Every culture is the same and wants the same thing from their government.
No one in the world ever votes differently from anyone else based on their culture.
This is why we all have one ruler, because everyone votes the same.
All hail the supreme ruler of the world. Death to those who are different.
+Connor Hill b-but muh mcdonalds
+Connor Hill "America has many many many many times more cultures than France does"
That's completely false and idiotic.
"You don't have the freedom to prevent other people from having freedom."
We don't either. We have a constitution you know, it's older than yours which was inspired strongly by it.
"Radio is considered the same as public transport or roads.
Can you have have sex or curse someone out on a buss?
Can you walk around the street and cuss people out and expect police to be on your side?
Can you walk into a school and start having sex with someone in front of children?
I hope not..."
Again, who says the law is godsend here ? If Radio is considered something by law, does that make it that in reality ? I mean that's no argument.
It used to be the same in Norway. Filming in public used to be legal. Now it isn't unless certain conditions are met. If there's no people in the shot, you're safe. If there's a few people that can't be identified, you're still safe. If there's a lot of people that can be identified, you're still safe. If there's a few people that can be identified, you're in trouble. If there's kids in the shot, you're screwed, as that's a capital offence in Norway. Off with the little head!
I'm French. I have two children. At the beginning of every schoolyear, their school principal makes me sign a paper which grants their teachers permission to photograph them and publish their photo on official papers, class journal, after a field trip, and so on. But, apart from that, I don't think anyone in France knows we're supposed to ask permission for making a photo of any building... Photos of people, yes. Buildings, no. So I honestly don't think anyone will ever sue you for filming them, unless they were committing a felony or walking around naked, one of these stupid things... That would be a huge waste of time and money.
A few years back there was this case with Buren who claimed people could not sell postcards of la Place des Terreaux in Lyon, because there's one of his art installation there. The court decided it was invalid because pictures are focused on the plaza in general, with a fountain from Bartholdi, the Townhall and the Museum of Beaux-Arts.
So if you take a general shot of Paris at night and you can see the Eiffel tower, you should be fine.
0:58 I think the people who own the Eiffel Tower say it's OK to photograph the tower at night, but not during their light shows.
That doesn't make it less stupid imho :D
Very much individual freedom... freedom to be sued by rich people.
no, this is not has difficult has you may imagine to be sued in France, particularly for this case, I'm french and I have heard about some case has this , but it rarely goes to make you pay for this, most of the time, you have to "erase" the photo on every support it is stocked or published.
People in France dont sue lots as we dont have to pay 500k for a surgery
@@haashirkabeer2671 I didn't say "people" in general, I said rich people. It's far too easy for the rich to sue the poor who have done nothing wrong but must bankrupt themselves proving they aren't liable.
Just as America should learn from the world with universal healthcare, the world needs to learn from America with things like anti-slapp laws that prevent the threat of lawsuits being used against those who aren't rich enough to keep lawyers on retainer.
Universal healthcare is inevitable for America, it's not a question of "if" only a question of "when". But the steady erosion of jurisprudence that protects regular people from the law is the trend outside America.
@@cccooooooolllllllll7344 If you published it on the internet you will NEVER get it out. The internet does not forget.
Nobody actually gets sued except for paparazzis. No judge is going to make you pay because some random dude was in the background
Fun Fact: Google Street View is broadly available in France, since nobody cares. But in Germany, only a few cities are shown and their pictures won`t get updated since 2009, due to strict laws.
Good work Tom, nice video!
It seems like the French have the same problem in privacy as the UK has in the rest of its legal system. Those current systems work okay but I'd prefer to have a set of clear rules like the French constitution, rather than a patchwork of precedent like the UK's expensive system of common law.
The problem with a "clear set of laws" like a constitution is that it can't exist. It's impossible to make a legal statement that can be interpreted only one way to keep any immoral loopholes from existing and still allow variation for moral exceptions.
The US Constitution is proof of this. Its statements of (seemingly) simple allowances or disallowances has be interpreted and reinterpreted to mean both sides of any argument.
The common law is the best way to create a flexible law that works for a local people. The more local the better. A country should not have a common law. Instead, small, local, private courts should establish private laws that reflect the local customs and demands of the folk that reside there.
The courts should be private to allow for market forces to move the law in the direction it needs to go. Check out "The Machinery of Freedom" by David B Friedman and "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy. Good stuff.
I'll skip the visit to Paris though.
+Chris Orton This is the worst idea I've read all day.
Luckily, people in France dont need to sue alot as they have affordable education and healthcare
@@dco901 Well, each system has a good side and a bad side. With the common law, flexibility is a plus. On the opposite, it created an inflation of lawyers, endless procedures, and an expensive system of justice at the end for the people. So, difficult to say which one is the best.
It's been six years and hes still making the same, great content
I'm a French teacher and I have to avoid recording my students singing together to show them whether they sound good or bad because of the uncertainty of what would happen if a parent sued me. I can also try to get an authorisation for each and every student but there's always that one parent.
And to be completely fair there, were I to have kids, I _would_ be that one parent 🙄
With children in school in France, I can confirm that I *am* that parent. 🙂
Why would you be that on parent?
"I don't want my children to improve at an activity that makes them happy. You can not capture that audio, or I will sue."
Dans le cas d'images prises dans les lieux publics, seule l'autorisation des personnes qui sont isolées et reconnaissables est nécessaire.
Rough translation: when you are taking pictures or videos in public places, you do not have to get the authorization of persons that are not (isolated AND recognizable). As long as you do not target someone in particular, you can take all the photos you want.
Source: the CNIL website (L'utilisation de l'image des personnes)
it's a great approach, personal privacy should always come before anyones right to film but it definitely should be put together in some coherent laws that don't contradict each other
Ok.
If you are out in public, I can film you. But if you are in a place of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, such as your private home, then I can’t film you without your consent. That seems fine to me.
I GET THE REFERENCE!!!!! I got city of death on DVD maybe a week ago!!
*Photobombs photo*
"I'm suing you now"
For a current question on this: are you recognisable with a facemask?
0:08 Why are the trees blurred?
I think there are people walking in front of the trees, and Tom thinks they might be identifiable
Or they somehow found this video or asked him to blur their faces.
There is a pathway in that area which means there might be somebody walking on that.
You can't blur RUclips videos after the fact though... he'd have had to re-upload the video and it would have lost all views/likes/comments
fauna have a right to privacy too
Any public buildings and/or displays that is not covered up to indicate privacy/copyright, should be taken as under public domain, say with the light displays on the Eifel tower, filming the light displays should definetively fall under public domain, with the logic that 'if they wanted money, they should be required to cover it up to indicate private domain', the only part where the copyright for said argument falls in place is of course the re-production of the exact light displays say if anyone wanted to copy the light display. So basically, If it is for everyone's eyes - so should it be lawful to film and take pictures of that public - anything.
The alternative is to go to Blackpool take pictures of Blackpool tower and just tell your friends you went to Paris, a lot less hassle for being sued.
I'm French, and like 99% of the french, we do not care at all to be filmed and all.
On the contrary for me, I love when I'm a part of someone's souvenir.
My browser makes this "Privacy In France: A Lot Of French Ponies Might Be About To Sue Me"
It's not true this is a clearly defined law with exceptions:
However, the dissemination of certain images does not require the consent of the person photographed or filmed, subject to respect for his or her dignity.
For example, the following examples are given:
Image of a group or a street scene in a public place if no person is individualized and within the limit of the right to information.
Image of a current event or public manifestation within the limits of the right to information and artistic creation
Image of a public figure in the exercise of his or her functions if the purpose of the image is to inform (an elected official for example)
Image illustrating a historical subject
privacy laws so strict he's even blurred his own face
Bizarre when you think that all land is public in France unless you put a Prive sign up - even your back garden.
It's why French vineyards don't have fences around them, no point.
But people respect common sense here though and most people aren't much bothered.
But there are some utterly arcane privacy and access laws in France that make no sense.
I'm so proud I got the reference at the end... It's from Tom Baker's time as the Doctor, running away with Romana
The Law system in France often stays quite vague intentionnally. In a court, we take individual cases and base them more or less on past similar cases(oversimplified but it's more less like that) . The way law works in France is very diffirent to way laws works elsewhere in the world. The system is really weird, but it actually works ok. Many laws are like this : "as long as you don't harm anyone in any way, you can ignore this law". Just a fun joke to the english people : we haven't got 10 cameras on every street corner because of these laws :P ( The one part that I don't like in england is actually the lack of privacy tbh)
Also: In america you can't expect privacy on someone elses property.
If you take off your clothes and run into a crowded football stadium, the French say you should be able to sue everyone in the stadium for seeing you naked.
In america, you would probably arrested and banned from future games.
Omg I love the city of death reference at the end, very nice 👌
There is no problem with shooting someone in public spaces as long as money isn't involved, the same than in England (been doing random street portraits).
In Germany, you would be right and people seem to hate in there.
Not exaclty. Ok usually french don't mind, but legally if you take a picture of someone (friend or stranger) in the street (or anywhere else, even in private area), you need to ask them the permission, even if nobody will see the picture.
A defense may be something known as "common law". You could argue ignorance and thus only get off with a warning. It's like not knowing your state has laws requiring front license plates, you might be given a warning and a 14 day grace period to get the front plat installed, but repeat violations will result in the imposition of fines and other punishments.
Tom in 2014: I might get sued but it's worth a good video
Tom in 2019: I'm not showing a national monument because I might get sued for it
blurring will be copyrighted,
i would like to say we still very much have these horrible copyright abuses in the US, they just haven't done anything outrageous as claim a public icon is dmca proofed...yet.
I bet if these copyright and privacy laws were around a few hundred years earlier, I bet there would be people painting pictures of the people who claim to have the right to be anonymous out in public.
You could make on for Sweden now as well.
It is illegal to take a photo of an statue or any other public art and upload it to the internet without the creators approval. Wikipedia is in the heat about this right now.
As I understand, Paris has just about the opposite in public trespass rule. Something like "if it's not locked, you can go in"
Doctor Who-City of Death reference at the end! "Bye bye Duggan!" Love It 👍
Love the Doctor Who reference at the end. XD
Not a legal expert but from what I understand and very roughly put: in Germany there is a distinction made in the purpose of the picture. If it’s a group or architecture it may be photographed without permission but if it’s a single or few people who are the focus of the photograph you must get their permission since they hold any and all rights to their own likeness.
"let's hope nobody sees themç
Me a French: I'm about to do what's called a pro gamer move?
Hey! I lived there when it was published!!!!
This probably explains why the Doctor Who episode filmed in Paris had so few people visible in the background.
Here in Norway you must Ask permisjon to take a picture or to film someone if you still takes the picture or films and keep it privatly or publish it online you can sue them
But if it is a crowd you can film or take a picture of them without nobodies permission and unless they tell you to delete it or blir you out you are fine according to the law
For all you US-Americans out there: suing someone in Europe won't make you rich (only in some extraordinary rare cases, perhaps). What it does is it either compensates for the damage caused (perhaps a fee to cover whatever the victim would have to pay to repair whatever damage has been done to them) or you just get what you wanted (i.e. your photo removed/you getting blurred out).
Under the Greater London Authority bylaws it's illegal to photograph or video Trafalgar Square, Nelson's Column etc, if you expect to put it on YT. Arguably the same applies in the Royal Parks, like Hyde Park. Like anyone cares.
Hay it's my cousin Tom in the background. He is currently evading authorities in France after his prison break. Hope you didn't blow his casual cover.
Theoretically it is true but the reality is quite different. Being sued by someone who ended accidentally in the back of a photo you took in France is very unlikely to happen. It is expensive, requires a bunch of proofs (and a good lawyer). Things get more complicated when you are taking photos of people during their duty (counter staff, policeman, etc.). They can ask you to delete immediately the picture and in the worst cases, they can threaten you of a legal action. Once again, this is only a threat and, unless there is a more complex background, they will not have enough charges against you to sue you in proper terms.
The same in Mauritius. If you film/take a photo of someone, they can sue you
if their laws are so much defined, why is it so unclear what you can and can't do?
Laws are decided in part by what judges decide in the past, so if a judge says that you can be filmed in public, but another says you can't, then someone could sue you if you broke one of the rulings decisions.
Okay I will try to clear some things out at the best i can with my limited knowledge.
Tom's video is quiet interesting but actually pretty wrong in the way he presents it.
There is something call "droit a l'image" (image rights) that says you're entitled to use your own image as you see fit. This right is enforced by article 9 of the civil code that says everyone is entitled to its privacy.
For instance if someone takes a pic/films you without permission you can ask them to delete the footage or sue them (in worst case).
However this at its limits. You can take pictures of people (plural) in public spaces if:
-You don't focus on them (group shots or people can't be identified)
-It serve some information purpose (like a reporter taking a picture of the crowd at a festival)
-It is not degrading or shameful for the person
-EXTRA BONUS you are a public person and the picture depicts you in your professional life (like the president at some public event)
Where Tom's presentation of the facts get tricky is that in the french law system we use a lot of jurisprudence. In case of trial lawyers will use jurisprudence - rulling from the court in previous cases - to help support their plead.
Those jurisprudence can be very different from one another because the judge that rules examines the facts of the ongoing trial and situations are never the same. It all depends on the criteria of the pics.
The other thing a bit wrong here is about the eiffel tower. It's protected not by image right but by author rights. The law says that the "light artist" that designed the lighting system for the eiffel tower to make it look good at night as rights over his work. Therefore if you take a pic to use it in any professional or commercial way you have to pay for it just like you pay when you buy a CD. Author right in France last until 70 years after the death of the author. Since the good old Eiffel died in 1923 you're good to go.
Side note: French law tries to be as reasonable as it gets so if you sue someone you must have a good reason. If your reason for sueing don't makes sense judge can actually dismiss it and the other party could sue you for harassment and missuse of the law.
Side note 2: Sueing in France costs a lot at is suppppeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr long so ... Nobody would sue you without good reason especially if the penalty is nothing.
Most stars that get their private film exposed in magazine sue and get fomal apologies and like few thousand euros compensation. It cost them way more to sue that what they earn from it but it's their only way to control the invasion of their privacy.
Olivier Bilodeau that's common law isn't it? Ruling through precedent? Whereas French law is civil law? Laws are written and case law isn't used?
I may be a bit late but whatever.
The practice of law is different in France compared to the UK or US. In France there is no such thing as common law. You basicly always rule according to the written law but sometime the law isn't very clear (or not even made yet, think internet related law back in the 80's) also some case may be really complex, thus in these situation a case may be appealed to a supreme court which will settle it. These "supreme" rulings set a trend for the cases to follow. Still they do not hold the same "importance" as the written law, for example a judge is allowed to settle a similar case in a different way.
(If you're curious about that stuff, look up the differences between the Romano-Germanic law tradition and the Comon law tradition)
Olivier Bilodeau he said 'worst defined'
What about eyes, and memories? What's the legal distinction between the types of objects intercepting photons, or the types of storage allowing for access at later times?
Most likely the law specifies electronic, physical film, etc, and maybe says something about things invented in the future.
It probably doesn't list eyeballs or brains TBH.
Me: *Takes a pic of Eiffel Tower during the night. *
France: Oi! You got a licence for that?
Same in Spain, license plates, logos, people etc..
Good to know. I shall go on not publishing any of my video.
Surely copyright is very different to privacy though... the legal system is there to see the protection of value for copyright (profit made from design), whereas for privacy it is about anonymity which has no financial claim unless I am expected to pay the unwitting "actors" (unlicensed) for their "performance" even though my production has no revenue.
I would suggest that we should all have a right to video anything we see; for personal posterity. The problem would be showing the result for financial gain. Suing because "my face is clearly visible for 0.1 second" in the background of a YT video with 30,000 views is hardly a performance worthy of payment, permission or not.
Ahaha, yes... you are right, the light at night is a creative light design that is protected. But the French people have more pressing matters to handle right now so they are not gonna be after you...
That explains why for movies shot in Paris, Eiffel Tower is visible in every scene.
It seems to b complicated, but these laws were made far before internet, when only newspapers diffuse photos. And if someone won't to appear on a photography, laws say that he could say : no, I want to be blured.
Even nowadays, when you see a reportage which is in a classroom for example, journalists ask if anyone will not appear.
Now, everybody could take photos and put them on Internet. This might causes some juridic problems. If someone appears in a photo or a video in some place where he should not be, he could have some problems, and, technically, the photograph could be sued.
But these cases are rare, cause if you are in a place where you should not, you hide ;)
I think it is a good law if observed by people not if forced by gov.
What is a person's damages? To sue in America you need to have damages (and be able to convince people of those damages).
I thought it was Dugan who was at the bottom in City of Death, The Doctor and Romana are at the top
All three were up there together. The Doctor and Romana go down first, and wave to him.
parents have to sign an authorization to be filmed/photographed for their kids if they want them to be on photos on schooltrips and whatnot actually
The Doctor Who reference at the end...
Oh the same exact law is in Italy too
I'm not sure French courts can instigate laws - this is usually only the case with common law states.
I GOT THE REFERENCE! It's from the Dr Who episode "The City of Death".
Totally awesome. I recognized the reference instantly - Tom Scott, nicely done :)
I got it on DVD only about a week ago! Very well played indeed sir!
You have to take a page out of the, can't sue me if I dont show up for the case book. Or my favorite, just try to make me pay book, or the good luck trying editions, I live in a world of.. if you try to take it, I will make you pay 10 times plus trying to get me to pay.
Sad, but I understand the French and their privacy.
well, I got sued when I was picturing the march on a 14th of july....had to delete all the photos on scene.
Ther is no 14th of July March in Paris, only the US, why did you get sued??
Is your comment a lie or am I missing something
haashir kabeer what do you mean there’s no 14th of July Marching. It’s the National day, and we have défilé at the arc of triumph. I was sued because someone reported me photographing people without their consent.
The buildings you can see in france and the architecture itself is the only reason i would go there, and then its forbidden to take pictures?
You can take a picture, and probably even do some limited things like showing it to friends or Facebook. Where you go into murky waters is when you professionally publish/make money/use in advertising.
But let's face it; I'm a pretty decent photographer and I'm under NO dillusion that my snaps of the Eiffel tower are going to be any better by far than the ones you can buy a license of for a few bucks...
It's a tourist attraction, you can't keep up with the amount of so called law breaking through photography the same as trying to catch everyone who breaks covid rules. It's too popular. Just like singing "Happy Birthday" is illegal yet everyone does it, it's not worth the hassle to sue. Or watching movies for free on illegal apps, yet another example of popularity beating the system.
I took loads of pictures with people in the background during my trip to Paris in 2015, especially around the Eifel Tower area and nobody from France has yet come knocking on my door stating that they'll see me in court.
Did you take the lifts of fly?
It just sounds like a complicated mess.
With RUclips would it matter, not that they have offices in France but where the content is hosted?
If RUclips is doing anything right (which they seem to be), their content is hosted on a network of servers distributed to as many places as they can. So if there's a French office, there's probably content hosted there, and you have no way of knowing which server your video goes to when you click Upload.
Did you just make a 'City of Death' reference?
oh my god just watched this for the second time and caught the Doctor Who reference. Did you take the lift or fly?
Never liked Duggan; always punching people.
"Goodbye, Mr. Duggan"- Edward's Fox's Jackal.
He should go into business with a glazier. They'd have a truly symbiotic relationship.
Since when did my country decided to copyright everything?
fun fact:
i had my oral exams last week and they were about the uk (i'm from germany and so it's not normal for me :D)
the basic question was: how far does the eu election in may affect the uk general election in 2015 considering the outcome for the Conservatives and the UKIP.
Tom you didn't say "and that's something you might not have known" :(
When the word "publish" is used are we talking about posting on your Facebook account or using it in a way that earns money?
Edward Morrison both
Same exact thing in germany