Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tomte | Hacker News Reader

The legal situation is similar in Germany, but I wouldn't do street photography here, either.

The article discusses morality and ethics versus personal preference, but that's just high-brow talk.

The point is that today, once someone photographs you, you cannot possibly know where he will post or publish your photo. And yes, that's creepy.

Decades ago photographers maybe showed your picture at a gallery or exhibition. Today everything goes to Instagram, and someone will probably ridicule me for some small thing (a stain on my shirt?), and maybe thousands will pile on, and maybe everyone in my social circle will see it? Embarrassing.

View on HN

In the US it’s pretty well established that art is exempt from privacy laws. It gets muddy[1]when you try to use it commercially: so you can sell a photograph as art, but you can’t use it without consent or permission if the art is for commercial purposes (to advertise, for example).

A well known case is a Hasidic Jew suing photographer DiCorcia. New York State sided with the photographer: http://www.artistrights.info/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia

[1]Whats the rule if you have an exhibit and the gallery or whatever wants to advertise they have an exhibit by the artist. Can they put up big banners with the art? Is that commercial use?

In the U.S., you can use a photo you have taken for commercial purposes without requiring the consent of the subjects in the photo as long as: 1) the subject didn't hire you to take the photo (thus making it their property), 2) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (photo taken in a public place). [0]

Any "muddy" aspects are purely a civil matter, and even then, public photography is a constitutionally protected activity under the first amendment.

[0]: https://www.pixobo.com/photography-laws-can-a-photographer-u...

Yes, however, I believe you cannot take a public photograph and use it as a basis for a commercial advertisement: to sell nappies, or cars, etc…

Then you have to describe a legal definition of art, which is something artists spend their entire life trying to destroy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

I think people are more discussing what the law should be in the modern age than what the law currently is.

Photographers have always had this obnoxious nature to them in many circumstances. Similar to journalists in many ways.

I think the US approach ultimately makes the most sense. There’s a societal benefit to being able to capture images and stories.

Now I must use dark glasses as turning my head could mean “I am a sexual ofender on internet for life”, but I was turning my head! Yes, i’m going to far, but maybe, just maybe, with enough bad luck…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com