Is it illegal for photographers to sweep the streets?

Answer 1

As for whether a photographer was breaking the law or not, it could not be simply judged as illegal or not. It needed to be considered from the perspective of the shooting process and the purpose of the photo.

** 1. Filming process **
1. ** Law **
- In a public place, the photographer had the right to take photos. From this perspective, the act of simply taking photos was usually not illegal. For example, they could film and record the surrounding scenes on the bustling streets.
2. ** Morality **
- Although filming might be legally allowed, there were also some ethical disputes. For example, shooting an old man without the consent of others (especially if the old man may not be willing to be photographed), although the old man may not resist the camera, this kind of behavior without prior communication is morally questionable. Some people think that this is similar to secretly taking photos.

** 2. Use of the photos **
1. ** Portrait rights involved **
- Citizens naturally had the right to use their portraits. Without permission, they were not allowed to use their portraits for commercial purposes. The profit-making purpose here included direct profit-making methods, such as commercial advertisements, film production, direct sales of photos, book production, and so on.
- If the street photos involved portraits of people, and if they were to be shared online or exhibited, they might profit from increasing their reputation (although there was no clear regulation on whether this method of profit was for commercial use), they also needed to be treated with caution. For rigorous commercial photography, the photographer had the obligation to clear the rights of the photos. If there was someone in the photo, he had to sign a clear authorization agreement or contract with the relevant person to avoid subsequent disputes.
- According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the shooting of street photography works and the exercise of their copyrights must, in principle, be based on the consent of the portrait owner. Shooting without the consent of the portrait right owner or exercising the copyright of street photography works without the consent of the portrait right owner, except for the five reasonable implementation acts stipulated in the Civil Code, are all acts of violation of the portrait right of the photographed person. These five reasonable actions were:
- For personal study, art appreciation, classroom teaching or scientific research, to the extent necessary, use the public portrait of the portrait owner.
- In order to implement news reports, it was inevitable to create, use, and publicize portraits of portrait owners.
- In order to perform their duties in accordance with the law, the state organs shall produce, use and publicize the portraits of the portrait owners within the necessary scope.
- In order to display a specific public environment, it was inevitable to create, use, and publicize the portrait of the portrait owner.
- Other acts of making, using, or publicizing the portrait of the portrait owner in order to safeguard the public interest or the legitimate rights and interests of the portrait owner.
- Without the consent of the portrait owner, portraits and documentary photography works could not be published or exhibited in principle. Even a simple exhibition that was not for profit could constitute an invasion (because the Civil Code increased the protection of portrait rights and abolished the "for profit" in the General Principles of Civil Law as an element of violation of portrait rights).
- If the act of taking photos constituted an invasion of the person being photographed, and the person being photographed had already reminded him to delete it, if he refused to delete it, it might constitute an invasion of rights. At the same time, using portraits to create emoticons and other acts are also suspected of violating the portrait rights of others.
Read more exciting novels for free