No photography

Without the consent of the parties, the reporter can't shoot casually.

It is reasonable from the perspective of personal morality for the parties to ask reporters to delete scenes that may appear soon. But pay attention to the methods and reasons.

In terms of work, shooting only serves for your own report, so the shooting space can be large or small. When the space is large, the parties ask for deletion, and it is a big deal to remake; When there are few rooms, they are mosaics. Journalists have the responsibility to record real events, and of course they have the obligation to ensure the privacy of the people being photographed. This has nothing to do with the right to portrait.

The questioner added that the content mentioned was nothing more than that the parties did not know how to communicate, and the reporter was upset at this time. This can be solved in more ways.

1, copyright of portrait works

According to Article 2 of the current Copyright Law: "The works of China citizens, legal persons or other organizations, whether published or not, shall enjoy copyright in accordance with this Law", and Article 6 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law: "Copyright shall be generated from the date when the works are created".

Therefore, whether asked or found, individual photographers have the copyright to their portraits.

2. The portrait right of passers-by.

According to Article 100 of the General Principles of Civil Law, "citizens have the right to portrait, and their portraits shall not be used for profit without their consent".

Therefore, passers-by have the right to paint themselves.

3. Conflict of rights of street portraits.

In the portrait works produced by street shooting, there are actually three rights. One is the photographer's copyright, the other is the portrait right of passers-by, and the third is the ownership of the owner of portrait works. From the title, the ownership of portrait works belongs to the photographer himself.

It is generally believed that the exercise of the photographer's copyright and ownership should be subordinated to the portrait rights of passers-by.

Article 100 of the General Principles of Civil Law has clearly stipulated that "portraits of citizens shall not be used for profit without their consent". Such use includes but is not limited to exhibition, publication, reproduction and sales.

Whether the photos are used for commercial purposes or not, as long as they are taken in public without the permission of the parties concerned, and the video materials such as photos and videos taken are publicly disseminated, the portrait rights of others have been infringed.

Extended data:

Case introduction: After a Nanjing beauty modeled for a photographer friend, her friend wrote an evaluation report on the digital camera, but the report was "photographed" by Netease and hung on the webpage of her website. Recently, the Nanjing court ruled that Netease lost the case.

Xie Chong (a pseudonym) has a group of good friends who engage in photography. At the end of 65438+February last year, a photographer friend found Xie Chong with a new camera and wanted to take a group of photos with her as a model to complete the evaluation report of this camera. With the wall of Hanzhongmen Square as the background, Xie Chong helped his friend finish the work quickly.

The two sides agreed that the copyright of these photos belongs to the photographer's friend and the portrait right belongs to Xie Chong. After that, Xie Chong conveniently reprinted the evaluation article to his personal webpage.

Not long after, she found that her friends' evaluation reports were all used by Netease, and 40 photos taken by herself as a model were also put on the webpage. Since then, she has repeatedly negotiated with Netease, but there is no result. This year, she took Netease to court.

After hearing the case, Maigaoqiao Court of Qixia Court held that Netease, as the owner and operator of the website, has the obligation to edit and review the content of the website.

Netease used the plaintiff's photo on its profit page, which attracted comments from netizens. Objectively, it improved the click-through rate of the website and gained benefits for the website. The use of the plaintiff's photos was not allowed. Netease violated Xie Chong's portrait right.

A few days ago, the court ruled that Netease compensated Xie Chong for 9000 yuan, and published an apology statement on the news channel of Netease website for 48 hours within 30 days after the judgment came into effect, and the content must be reviewed by the court. It is understood that Netease refused to accept the appeal.

References:

Baidu Encyclopedia-Copyright Law

Baidu Encyclopedia-General Principles of Civil Law