Is taking a photo of somebody without their permisson against the law in the USA? What about EU and Romania?
144759
If the photo is taken in a public venue (in public) you can take and publish the UNRETOUCHED photo.\n\nIf it is a private photo (Restroom, dressingroom, etc) then you cannot take it.  The difference is that there are places where you have "a reasonable expectation of privacy"
194360
Probably many people will be offended by the picture. However you cannot stop people from taking photos, and posting them. Look away!
774648
I have been an amatuer photog all my life and worked for a newspaper for four years and never once did I ask for permission of a subject to sell their picture.  A few complained after I took a picture and threatened to sue if I used it.  I have never heard from them again despite using their picture.  I publish hundreds of pictures a year on my website depicting literally thousands of people, none of whom have I asked permission.
648421
The copyright does belong to the photographer, unless that person has assigned rights, and then the copyright belongs to the current rightsholder.\n\nYou may have your own state rights, such as a right of publicity, that could keep others from distributing photos where you are the subject. \n\nIn general, though, just because you're in the picture does not mean you have the copyright.\n\nAnd yes, there is a copyright, even if the photograph or the page does not say so.
1107538
Dear Joe\n\nIn answer to your qustion, there are different aspect's with regards to the law of taking photographs in public places.\n\n1st.....Although such places as Courts, the Houses of Parliament etc are classed as public buildings with public access to them, it is quit legal to photograph the exterior of these building's, but it is illegal and prohibited from photographing any part of the interior for security reasons.\n\n2nd.....Banks & Building Societies have a complete restriction on there premises being photographed either on the inside or the outside of there buildings for security reasons.\n\n3rd.....With regards to the photographing of any building, whether it as public access or not, you should in the first instance seek the consent of the occupier or owner first before taking any photographs.\n\n4th.....With regards to your question regarding statues, first of all statues are created by Sculptor's, whereas Artist's paint picture's. If you merely want to photograph a statue for example in a public park and do nothing more than that with your photographs, then you will not Breach the Copy Right's Regulation's and therefore there is no grounds for the Sculptor to bring a Copy Right's Action, because in law the only thing you have done is to take a photographic image of a solid creation.\n\nHowever, if you take the photographic image of a statue in it's solid creation form and then deside to use that photograph for the purpose of re-creating that statue in either wood, clay, timber, cement, concreate, paper, cardboard, plastic etc, then you will breach the Copy Right's Regulation's and the Sculptor will have a legal right of action against you under the Copy Right's Act.\n\nI therefore trust that this answer's your legal question.\n\nRegards\n\nMR STEVEN NEWBERT JP\nHER MAJESTY THE QUEEN'S\nJUSTICE OF THE PEACE\nfor\nENGLAND & WALES
155439
A picture. Someone has to take a picture before you can get it.
649223
There aren't any rules, just don't break any obvious laws that you won't be able to explain later.\n\n1. Always keep your distance. Don't invade anyone's space and do not engage in any overtly violent act no matter how justified you feel.\n\n2. If you're going to take photographs make sure you are in a public place and your targets are also in a public place. If they are in a restaurant, bar, or car that's okay. Taking photos of them through the window of a private residence is a definite no-no. You could be charged as a voyeur ("peeping Tom").\n\n3. Do not resort to any kind of electronic audio bugging. The 'evidence' could land you in jail. Never 'wiretap' a phone or similar. This is a Federal offence and will land in serious trouble.\n\n4. If you are engaging in covert work on behalf of a client obtain a Private Investigators license. It'll keep you out of trouble later and you can deduct taxes too.\n\nOver all, use common sense and objectivity.
428585
In most states there is no statute (law) to regulate this.\n\nRegardless it should be spelled out in your contract.\n\nIt's a shame that so many people get burned by photographers who want to leverage their position over you.  I wish explicit contracts were required in every state.
870223
Yes it's illegal as you are filming people without their consent
831302
what are you saying ? first of all nobody is allowed to make a copy of your passport without legal authorization ? and why do you not have your passport with you ? \ni do not understand your request ?
924878
This is what juries are for.\n\nIt is stupid and dangerous to take pictures of nude children that include their private parts with or without consent, with the possible exception of one's own children (even that has led to threats of prosecution -- stupid but true).
129688
Yeah of course...\n\nAlthough there's just one small condition that is required:\n\nIn order to be able to do that you have to work for CIA, NSA or the goverment.\n\nOR, you can simply ask the guy to send you the pic ;))
1040168
Put it this way, if you did not release your image to be published by anyone, you can sue them.  If you ever DID sign a release to a photographer, it may be then that you released the image to whomever the photog wanted to sell it to.  The rare exception would be in a fair use situation, such as a street scene publised in conjunction with a newspaper story.
521822
Well, it really depends on the court.  Many courts allow news media and photography.  However, federal courts do not and that is why you only get an "artist's rendition" when the matter is covered on TV.
569376
Um, your question seems a bit incomplete. \n\nAre you refering to nude pictures? Well, that's obvious, lecivious conduct.\n\nHow about taking pictures of other children against the parents permission, that is exploitation, and against the law.\n\nYour question leaves quite a bit to be decifered.
67507
A lot depends on where.\n\nIn New Jersey we need to have several forms of id.. they use a point system and simply having a photo id is't enough anymore.\n\nMaybe:\n\nBirth Certificate\nMilitary Id\nMaybe a credit card or a bank card.\n\nI think Im going to have this problem in a few months.
15717
Sometimes it's difficult to understand why people take pictures of these poor people. But whatever the reason, I don't think that they should be banned. A ban on taking pictures curtails freedom to expression, which I think is a bad thing. The fact that there are homeless and poor people in India doesn't mean that it's a bad country. Maybe we should have more incentives for people to take pictures of happier things, for example, I think many of our Indian cities need a makeover. They need to be cleaner and greener.