皇后 法拉盛 艾姆赫斯 布鲁伦 曼哈顿 其他
全职兼职 餐馆工 甲店发廊 按摩工 生意转让
二手 二手车 电脑WIFI 防盗报警 失物招领
律师 贷款 旅行社机票 白送 保险 纽约发布
翻译 补习培训 保姆幼儿 搬家 电招车 旅馆
房产 快递货运 美容理疗 考牌练车 印刷招牌
签证留学 移民入籍 会计报税 装修 冷暖水电
美甲笔试 手試 拔毛 入籍 纽约驾照 加州驾

小纽约网

发新帖回复

街拍是否合法?

网友  发表于 2020-01-15
联系时就说在【小纽约网】看到的!
街拍是否合法?
根据Gordon Firemark大律师的解释,街拍的版权属于拍摄者,如商业用途(比如把照片或视频用做杂志)则需要征得被拍摄者同意.
关于隐私权的解释,当人处于家中,处于卫生间,处于更衣室,则被认为主观上有隐私的期望.而公共场所,则被认为无隐私的期望.
但有隐私标识的场所,如星巴克,如有禁止拍摄的标识,即使被认为公共场所,也是禁止拍摄的。
所有建筑和公共场所的人都是可以拍摄的。受新闻自由的保护。
当然要公开的话也受限于以下情况
1)对被拍摄者的生活造成了影响.Gordon Firemark大律师给出的例子:如你的视频中出现了儿童在公园内玩耍,视频也显示出了公园的位置,儿童的父母属于离婚状态,母亲带孩子,父亲看到视频后根据视频提供的位置暗中达到该公园等候,直到儿童再次到公园玩耍时趁母亲不注意将孩子带走.这种情况给儿童和母亲的生活带来了影响,拍摄者可被起诉。
2)视频中出现诋毁,对被拍摄者的人格造成影响.Gordon Firemark大律师给出的例子:一个人并没有犯罪行为,但视频看起来某人像是在犯罪,由此会对被拍摄者造成影响.拍摄者可被起诉。
3)视频中出现对被拍摄者形象造成影响,Gordon Firemark大律师给出的例子:如某人正在挖鼻子,被拍到,如果公开视频.则拍摄者可被起诉。
参考:https://alj.artrepreneur.com/is-street-photography-legal/
            https://www.photouno.com/a/tips/18/street-photographers-rights/
            https://expertphotography.com/street-photography-laws/
Is street shooting legal ?
According to Barrister Gordon Firemark, the copyright of the street shot belongs to the photographer. For commercial purposes (such as using photos or videos as magazines), the consent of the photographer is required.
Regarding the interpretation of the right to privacy, when people are at home, in the bathroom, and in the locker room, they are considered to have a subjective expectation of privacy, while public places are considered to have no expectation of privacy.
However, places with privacy signs, such as Starbucks, are prohibited from taking pictures even if they are considered public places.
People in all buildings and public places can take photos. Protected by the freedom of the press.
Of course, if you want to make it public, it is limited to the following situations
1) It has affected the life of the subject. Example given by counsel Gordon Firemark: if your video shows children playing in the park, the video also shows the location of the park, the parents of the child are divorced, The mother took the child, the father secretly reached the park and waited according to the location provided by the video after seeing the video, until the child went to the park again while the mother was not paying attention to take the child away. This situation affected the lives of the children and the mother, The photographer can be prosecuted.
2) Defamation appears in the video, affecting the personality of the subject. Example given by counsel Gordon Firemark: a person does not commit a crime, but the video looks like someone is committing a crime, which will cause the subject Impact. Photographers can be prosecuted.
3) The appearance of the video has an impact on the image of the subject. Examples given by Barrister Gordon Firemark: if someone is digging his nose and being photographed, if the video is made public, the photographer can be prosecuted.
Reference: https://alj.artrepreneur.com/is-street-photography-legal/
            https://www.photouno.com/a/tips/18/street-photographers-rights/
            https://expertphotography.com/street-photography-laws/


回复

使用道具

发新帖 回复

小纽约网

GMT-4, 2020-9-24 22:20

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表