> France has other unusual photo standards also. Americans traveling to France should be aware that in general you CAN'T photograph an individual in public.

Actually I was surprised to learn that in the US you can not only take a photo of another person without their consent, but also publish it.

The line in the US is commercial use. Even in an artistic work, if someone's likeness is in the picture, you have to have their permission to sell it.

> The line in the US is commercial use.

The “line” in the US is more of a complex curve, and commercial use or not is insufficient to make a conclusion either way (for just one common example of conmercial use without subject permission that is allowed, consider journalistic use.)

You can, but you definitely should not share publicly this picture.

Until you leave France, that is.

Unrelated, but France's power in EU results in some weird stuff as well. In order to protect their own wine manufacturers, they've succesfully lobied for a total ban on new wineyards in whole of EU.

When Croatia was scheduled to join EU in July 2013., in the run up to that date its government gave out fat subsidies to anyone who converted their land into a wineyard, because once they joined the EU, game over.

That's a rule that...

a) was introduced in 1725, and carried into the EU at the time of EU formation.

b) was repealed in 2008

c) while it's true france has lobbied to re-introduce the law since then, they have failed so far.

Thanks for sharing, do you have any links about it? My comment is based on what I was told when I visited Croatia couple years ago and asked about all the newly-planted wineyards along the coast.

And you find it OK for people to photograph you without your consent? Unless you are a public figure I can't see why it shouldn't be ilegal.

If I can perceive photons bouncing off of you in public with my eyes, why can't I capture an approximate record of the arrangement of those photons in a digital format?

In the former, I'm storing it in analog form in my mind. In the latter, I'm storing it in digital form on silicon.

If you really don't want to be seen, then don't go in public?

Being seen is not the same as being recorded.

Does your GF mind if you record her in bed without her consent?

Explain her your photons bouncing BS or tell her that if she doesn't want to be recorded she shouldn't undress with someone else in the same room.

It's natural to be curious of others and other things and in the public realm, being able to look at stuff is a basic human right that extends to pictures on the internet. If you engage in society, then society has a right to at least look at you, again only in public spaces.

I believe in privacy. If I'm in my home, a bathroom, a private club or the like then you should not be subject to intrusion or recording without your permission. But I don't have the right to ask someone not to look at me when I am outside on the street and to me it seems weird that anyone would have a problem with that.

Yeah, they have the right to look but not to photograph just like you are allowed to watch a movie but not to record it. If you want a photo of me for your own enjoyment then I may want a fee or I may not want you to have any. Privacy is not only in your own private space/home just like up-skirting is not legal in public spaces.

I find it ok for me to photograph other people without their consent in public.

Why shouldn't anyone be able to record a photograph of whoever (or whatever) they can see in a public place?

If you don't want strangers to see you, don't go out in public.

The public space is not only yours, you know that right? If you want to photograph/record strangers ask for permissions! The public space is not a free zone to abuse other people.

> The public space is not only yours, you know that right?

Yes, of course. That is why I have no right to tell you that you can't photograph what you can see in the public space. You have just as much right to use it as I do.

> The public space is not a free zone to abuse other people.

Taking a photograph of someone in a public space is not "abuse".