A verdict made by the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights condemns Hungarian Parliament for violating freedom of press with their regulations and banning journalists. The Office of Parliament is ordered to pay legal fees of €4574 (4900 USD). Parliament will not reconsider their house regulations because they claim the verdict approved multiple parts of their defence.
Two Chinese companies had intellectual property legal dispute in the USA. The global leader of drone market, DJI came out shorter and it may cause them a big loss on the US market.
Another instructive court ruling was made about an embeded social media photo. This time a greatly different deciesion was made than in a previous case – but the situation is totally different too, what makes it clear what you may or may not.
The obtrusive working style of a Japanese street photographer stirred big debate after he appeared in a Fuji commercial. The company dropped both the ad and the photographer they used to sponsor. This is an important story with wide-scale aspects of professionalism, legal issues and ethics: can you put you push the camera up in others’ faces and without consequences?
Many of us take photos on the streets and in most cases we don’t run into any trouble doing it. However in some cases even serious it can result in serious injuries if you take photos of people without their consent. Even if the law doesn’t require permission it never hurts to have it.
A British street photographer got beaten and his camera broken because of taking a photo of a couple on a street festival. Laws are on his side, but it meant not much against aggression.
An interesting legal debate started when Steven Spielberg (employees) didn’t allow a photographer to take paparazzi photos of a movie shooting on the streets of New York. Security guards did everything they could to prevent photographing the movie shooting. They installed blockades, canvases, privacy screens and held umbrellas in front of the photographer to block his view. Photographer in return sued the movie company for infringing First amendment rights as New York streets are private property and it is part of freedom of speech to take photos of things happening on the streets.
EU regulations changed recently that (at least in part) caused still cameras to have limitations on video recording length. Administrative obstacles are gone now. It is up to only the manufacturers whether their cameras will have video recording limits or not.
I wrote about the photographing of a lot of various situations on the blog including their regulation aspects too. Now elections are coming in Hungary…
Copyright and personal rights aspects are also interesting and important in this story the Hungarian State Opera House got into drawing photo theft accusations.
The Brazil resident Turkish face of their newest campaign accuses them with unauthorised use of her image. The institute defends itself claiming they have the permission to use the photo from a stock site. The situation is however more complex and unclear.
More and more news are coming about stars getting sued by paparazzis for infringing their copyrights and a series of fan pages being deleted by social media sites for the very same reason. It seems some celebrities and fans have a hard time understanding they cannot just grab photos and use them as they want.
Photographers in the mean time have a hard time accepting these rip off so they go into court against world famous people as well – and they win these cases too. As an end result however after getting burned themselves celebrities started to educate their followers too.