3 ms·
Isn't publishing someone's photo without their consent, like, illegal? I'm aware that copyright of the picture rests with the photographer, but if you want to p
by growse 14y ago
Isn't publishing someone's photo without their consent, like, illegal? I'm aware that copyright of the picture rests with the photographer, but if you want to publish someone's picture (and, as far as I understand it, tweeting is 'publishing'), don't you need their explicit consent?
- rmrfrmrf 14y agoNo.
- growse 14y agoThen why blur faces in some published photos / video footage? I live in the UK, could be a different legal situation here...
- danielweber 14y agoDefinitely different in the US. I don't approve of what she did, but there was nothing illegal about it.
- pwthornton 14y agoIn the U.S., you might see blurred faces on a reality TV show because the show is making money. In that instance, a signed release or contract would be needed to show people's faces. But an individual posting a photo in public for not-for-profit uses is protected under the 1st Amendment.
- rdtsc 14y agoDepending on country (state). From what I remember in US in general (I am not a lawyer blah blah). There is little protection for taking pictures in public. But there are protections from profiting from those pictures. I can see, given her position, that she thought she could profit very nicely from it, there might make an interesting case.
- pwthornton 14y agoNo, you don't not need consent to publish a photo of someone. You need consent to make money off of that photo because you're making money off their likeness. But even in that case, it's a civil, not criminal offense. This applies to photography in public. A conference can have their own policy about what is and isn't okay. Although if the convention center is a public building that may complicate things. Even if the conference had an issue with it, it's not illegal.