Fuck!!! Arrested Just Because Taking a Photo of Woman's Back!!!

[Takechanpoo]

In Ueda, Nagano prefecture, 31 year-old man was arrested because he took a photo of [SIZE="5"]woman's back[/SIZE] by his mobile phone. He stated that he wanted to take a photo of the woman because her underwear was showing thorough her wear.....
http://www.sbc21.co.jp/news/index.cgi?page=seventop&date=20090626&id=0148491&action=details

Japanese women are protected too much.

[GomiGirl]

You are not allowed to take photos of people without permission - anybody - men, women, children.

This is the law. Remember that!!

But usually people don't care unless they think that the person taking the photos is creepy.

[Doctor Stop]

You are not allowed to take photos of people without permission - anybody - men, women, children.

If that's true, then that pretty much every Japanese media source, TV, newspapers, magazines, blogs, and FG are in violation of the law.

Or is it only legal if you write the person's name and age on the bottom of the photograph?

[wuchan]

Never did much looking into this here but back home anyone can take your picture if you are in public as long as it is not up-skirt/down-shirt.

[aquamarine]

So in Japan, according to the Japanese lawbooks, I am not allowed to take photos of anybody on the street (such as the masses crossing Shibuya) without their permission? Fuck me sideways... in Canada everybody is fair game as long as they are in a public place!

[Doctor Stop]

So in Japan, according to the Japanese lawbooks, I am not allowed to take photos of anybody on the street (such as the masses crossing Shibuya) without their permission?

I doubt that is true. From my understanding, this arrest, and similar arrests that have taken place were through local anti-nuisance laws.

[nottu]

[dimwit]

In public? Are you sure about this?

Yeap. This is why faces are so commonly mosaiced out of existence in the newspapers. For example, I recently remember some Yomiuri Photo contest where one of the winners had blur faces in the background thanks to the editorial staff.

[GomiGirl]

No you are not allowed to (unless given permission - verbal fine) and if people object they can have you charged. But this only usually happens when people are creepy and are taking upskirt etc..

So if you are taking street photos and people say "No" then you are not allowed to take their photo and they are able to have you charged.

Permission is the key thing here. If people are posing for you then of course they have given their permission.

[nottu]

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

GG is right...sort of.
Under Japanese law, to display a person's photo, you must have their permission. Theoretically, you can take someone's photo without permission, but strictly speaking you're breaking the law if anyone else sees that photo and permission of the subject has not been gained OR the individual cannot possibly be identified.
I use the word "display" here in the sense that once somebody else has seen the photo it is regarded (in legal terms) as you placing it in the public domain, effectively publishing it, even if you only show it to one other person.

[Mulboyne]

GG and dimwit are right. The main point of law concerns what it means to be in public. If you buy a ticket for a baseball game or concert then you are fair game to be filmed or photographed. If you are milling around a public area like Shibuya scramble crossing then you could also be reasonably photographed as part of a crowd. Aside from that, individuals have a lot of rights to privacy. They aren't always claimed but they certainly do exist.

What is interesting about the case Takepoo mentioned is that the photographer is suspected of committing a criminal offence and not just a civil breach of law. I have a vague recollection that the law is being interpreted more strictly so it is no longer just "ninja shot" guys waiting underneath staircases or hanging around toilets with hidden cameras who are falling foul of nuisance laws.

[nottu]

[nottu]

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I think something we've got to remember, though, despite Take's outrage, the guy arrested admitted he was taking the photo becuase the bird's undies were showing.

[Mulboyne]

Do you think the fact that the photo occured at an ATM with the screen in view has anything to do with that?

What makes you think the photograph was taken at an ATM screen? The original article says it was in a book shop.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

GG and dimwit are right. The main point of law concerns what it means to be in public. If you buy a ticket for a baseball game or concert then you are fair game to be filmed or photographed. If you are milling around a public area like Shibuya scramble crossing then you could also be reasonably photographed as part of a crowd. Aside from that, individuals have a lot of rights to privacy. They aren't always claimed but they certainly do exist.

I've gotta disagree here. If you're identifiable, whatever the situation, unless you are a public figure, you've got a right to make a claim for violation of copyright (unfair use of personal image, which everyone here legally "owns") as it stands under the law here. Any defendant in the case could, of course, make the argument that exposure constituted fair use, but would more likely pay up to make any claimant shut up.

[nottu]

[Mulboyne]

I've gotta disagree here. If you're identifiable, whatever the situation, unless you are a public figure, you've got a right to make a claim for violation of copyright (unfair use of personal image, which everyone here legally "owns") as it stands under the law here. Any defendant in the case could, of course, make the argument that exposure constituted fair use, but would more likely pay up to make any claimant shut up.

There was a case in the eighties where the Yomiuri published a picture of someone attending a baseball game which caused them some embarrassment (they were not supposed to be there or something). The courts ruled in favour of the newspaper. Here are two current photos from news websites and they are both legal:





This, however, is not a news photo and would be probably not be acceptable:

[nottu]

[kagemusha]

BTW, I think the guy in the suit is up to something

his bow tie is really a camera

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Here are two current photos from news websites and they are both legal:
While I don't disagree, I stand by my assertion that claims could be made...

...in this case for sure, especially the three women in the foreground.


....not in this case for a few reasons. 1) They have altered their appearance deliberately (and thus provide news value)]http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/images/vbimghost/9794a45e31819502.jpg[/img]

Agreed!

My argument, it must be added, is based on strict adherance to the copyright law, which is the one that applies to the use of image rights (and the one that is frequently referred to mistakenly as protection of privacy). Whether these people would ever complain is moot.
Though the section of the copyright law related to image use has not changed per se since the '80s, courts now pay far greater attention to intellectual property (including image rights) than they did back then. If there was someone anal enough to go after a media organization or whatever for using their photo without permission (I must seem capable of doing that with the anal nature of my posts, but let's put that aside for a second), I'd say they would have a fair chance, provided they were prepared to continue the fight through all the stonewalling they would be bound to encounter.
The fact of the matter is, most people love having their pic in the paper. I was just trying to explain how theoretically they could go to town on the publisher if they had the will to do so.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Screwed-down,

I don't believe an individual taking a picture, say, for a personal collection of random shots of Tokyo would be violating fair-use since he or she wouldn't be making any money off the shot. I don't know about this guy's case in particular since it seems like it may have been his answers and not the photo in and of itself that got him in trouble. However, Japanese laws are way too strict when it comes to this kind of thing.

[AlbertSiegel]

I need to check with the FCCJ about this. As I understand the law, everyone in public is fair game to photograph as long as they are not in location where they can expect some level or privacy (in a hall way, facing into corner, ATM, photobooth/print club, ect..).

You are allowed to publish their image for editorial use (online, newspaper, TV news, art book, personal website) but cannot use them in a commercial way (advertising a product, billboard, poster, ect..) without a release from the individual(s).

I've never had my images published in Japan (all my work is for American media) so I've never really ran into any issues. I did ask another photographer and he seems to agree with my understanding of the law. Still though, I will confirm with the FCCJ to be sure.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Screwed-down,

I don't believe an individual taking a picture, say, for a personal collection of random shots of Tokyo would be violating fair-use since he or she wouldn't be making any money off the shot. I don't know about this guy's case in particular since it seems like it may have been his answers and not the photo in and of itself that got him in trouble. However, Japanese laws are way too strict when it comes to this kind of thing.

I agree entirely. The rights accorded to image use are absurdly strict (my guess is that it's things like this that allows Johnny & Associates to lever so much control over the media). Individual use is fine as long as you never show anybody else.
I'm sorry...I got too anal. But the theory is that strict (practice, of course, is much more lax).

[kusai Jijii]

I need to check with the FCCJ about this... Still though, I will confirm with the FCCJ to be sure.

Albert mate, the only thing the FCCJ is good for is cheap piss. They couldn't find their arseholes with a map.

[Greji]

They couldn't find their arseholes with a map.

They can find your's, but not their own!

[Taro Toporific]

Albert mate, the only thing the FCCJ is good for is cheap piss. They couldn't find their arseholes with a map.

Albert and I have talked about this in the past. When last we spoke, we still hadn't found a succinct, bilingual "Photo Release" form. Even Mr. Ninjashot himself, Masa of Masamania, could not give us a good Japanese version (he has given up on ninjashooting because of Japanese legal ambiguities).

Any ideas?

[Doctor Stop]

I've had my photo in Japanese newspapers and magazines many times, including in a magazine just published this week. I've only been asked for my permission once and never been asked to sign a photo release. Even when I know my photo has been taken I've never been told when it's published, usually I find out from a friend and have to scramble around to find a copy for myself. Complementary copies are rare. I only remember receiving one complementary copy ever.

So is it illegal? I don't think it is. Maybe it is only if you're important enough that you can convince the police to press charges.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Maybe it is only if you're important enough that you can convince the police to press charges.

Or if you're some bitch cunt rag who walks around showing off your underwear and cleavage but suddently get your titties in a twist because some dude snaps a photo of you.