Death, Photos and Internet Privacy

[Grey Fox]

What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.

If agree, this decision doesn't seem to infringe on freedom of the press to me.

There is no such thing as "freedom of the press". There is only freedom of speech. If a newspaper or a tv programme could show a picture, any internet blogger or user should be allowed to do so as well (subject only to IP  rights, of course).

In fact, broadcasting a picture on national television should be subject to bigger restrictions, privacy-wise, than just sending it in an email, because of the public impact. That's why many jurisdictions have a concept of "public interest" which for example precludes the media from publishing gossips from private life of the celebrities if no public interest can be showed, but do not prevent people gossiping about them in private, as long as they are true (see Max Moseley's case, for example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[dps]

Question to Americans (especially lawyers and law students): does your law have the concept of "image protection", i.e. that a picture showing a person cannot be published without their consent (or that of their legal heirs, in case of a dead person) unless some of exceptions apply (e.g. a public figure, or a person in a picture is just a part of the crowd, rather than showed as an individual etc.)? We have this concept in Poland, and this would deal sufficiently with most of the cases of someone publishing a "death rattle" photo.

Not really.  You can't use someone's image for commercial purposes, or charge people to see the it, without the consent of the person (or their heirs), but that doesn't cover posting it for free on the internet.  Also, publishing it for news purposes is (and a few other things) are exceptions.

[Razgovory]

Maybe there is no freedom of the Press in Poland.

Question: If photos surfaced of Marty being beaten to an inch of his life by militant lesbian golfers would that violate any privacy laws.

[Ed Anger]

Maybe there is no freedom of the Press in Poland.

Question: If photos surfaced of Marty being beaten to an inch of his life by militant lesbian golfers would that violate any privacy laws.

Hott.

[Martinus]

Well, I for one disagree that freedom of press should go further than freedom of speech. This essentially means granting corporate entities (such as media companies) more rights than enjoyed by individual people (not to mention makes these rights dependent on a nebulous concept of "press" which becomes more and more difficult to define in the information age).

[Scipio]

We do inthe US California.

FYP.

[Barrister]

Question to Americans (especially lawyers and law students): does your law have the concept of "image protection", i.e. that a picture showing a person cannot be published without their consent (or that of their legal heirs, in case of a dead person) unless some of exceptions apply (e.g. a public figure, or a person in a picture is just a part of the crowd, rather than showed as an individual etc.)? We have this concept in Poland, and this would deal sufficiently with most of the cases of someone publishing a "death rattle" photo.

Your example of a picture is problematic - ownership of the photo belongs to the photographer, and thus can be used however the photographer wants.

I believe there are restrictions on the use of the 'image' of a person (e.g. I couldn't make an animated movie or a computer game about a recently deceased person without the consent of the estate), but not on specific photographs or pieces of video.

[dps]

What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.

If agree, this decision doesn't seem to infringe on freedom of the press to me.

Well, I for one disagree that freedom of press should go further than freedom of speech. This essentially means granting corporate entities (such as media companies) more rights than enjoyed by individual people (not to mention makes these rights dependent on a nebulous concept of "press" which becomes more and more difficult to define in the information age).

Well, I'd answer both of these comment by pointing out my previous contention that freedom of the press isn't just something that applies to professional journalists--it applies to all of us.

[Oexmelin]

Your example of a picture is problematic - ownership of the photo belongs to the photographer, and thus can be used however the photographer wants.

I believe there are restrictions on the use of the 'image' of a person (e.g. I couldn't make an animated movie or a computer game about a recently deceased person without the consent of the estate), but not on specific photographs or pieces of video.

What about Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 R.C.S. 591 ?

[Oexmelin]

bumped, because I am still curious about the Canadian cases above, which worried to no end my artistically inclined friends. Malthus, I believe you are working in IP (or at least, I know this is a strength of your firm), perhaps you know best what's the status of a photograph taken by an artist re: privacy.

[Malthus]

bumped, because I am still curious about the Canadian cases above, which worried to no end my artistically inclined friends. Malthus, I believe you are working in IP (or at least, I know this is a strength of your firm), perhaps you know best what's the status of a photograph taken by an artist re: privacy.

My apologies - not really my area of law. I do more medical regulatory work. Though I'll look into it if you like; it is an interesting question.

[Oexmelin]

My apologies - not really my area of law. I do more medical regulatory work. Though I'll look into it if you like; it is an interesting question.

Only if you do it for free 

But it is an interesting question and I would be curious to hear your thoughts (or those of any other) should you be curious enought to look at it.

[Barrister]

Your example of a picture is problematic - ownership of the photo belongs to the photographer, and thus can be used however the photographer wants.

I believe there are restrictions on the use of the 'image' of a person (e.g. I couldn't make an animated movie or a computer game about a recently deceased person without the consent of the estate), but not on specific photographs or pieces of video.

What about Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 R.C.S. 591 ?

Link for the curious:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html

The case revolves entirely on the Quebec Charter of Rights, which guarantees:

4.  Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.

5.  Every person has a right to respect for his private life.

There are no similar provisions in the Canadian Charter, and I don't believe any other province has such an expansive Charter of Rights.  As such the ruling would seem to be very much limited to Quebec.

I of course stand to be corrected as this is outside of my area of expertise.