Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it be practical for someone in another country to sue someone in civil court in the US for taking a photo?
I would think the person being sued would have to be a resident in the plaintiffs country. What laws would be used? The laws of the plaintiffs country or the defendants country? What is illegal in another country may be legal in a different country, it would be confusing. For instance, I understand in France they are hard on published street photography, but in the US it is fine.
Even if a lawsuit could be made, could someone from another country collect on the judgment in another country?
I don't think it's right to take a photo with or of someone who doesn't want their photo taken with you (or is otherwise asleep/unconscious and cannot say for themselves) in a public place. If you're taking a selfie where the focus is you and/or you and someone else, and someone nearby happens to be in the picture, that's a different story. But the subject in this particular instance is the sleeping politician, as well as the dancer taking it, and to me that's not okay. It's a rude invasion of privacy.
I think the lawsuit would and could come up in the US, but I would think the politician would have to prove the photo somehow damaged his chances at winning for anything to actually come out of it.
I rather like the privacy law. I'm sick of being in public and seeing people photographing/filming people who aren't even aware that it's happening. And I can only imagine it's posted on some social media. I go through great lengths not to plaster my business all over the Internet and don't appreciate people violating that for stupid stuff like this. I don't think the guy lost because of this but he certainly has the right to be upset.
He's in a public place, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I found it hilarious that the French are now saying that kids may be able to sue their parents for taking photos of them an posting them online. Mostly a totally foreign concept here. With some exceptions for television. A signed release must be obtained if it's for-profit.. If you happen to be in the shot in a news story.. No problem. Of course, those people that happen to be in a news shot are generally waving their arms and making an ass of themselves on the news.. Or running up and yelling "Baba Booey" into the mike.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,601 posts, read 16,654,539 times
Reputation: 29753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
The laws of the place where the incident happened are used.
I like the law. If we don't insure people's privacy, this could get out of hand.
That this guy was Madonna's boyfriend is very telling.
New York's C.P.L.R. Sections 302(d) and 5304(b)(8) proscribe, at least in New York, enforcement of judgments of this kind obtained overseas. I have read that similar Federal legislation, 47 U.S.C. Section 230 has the same result. I have not read or researched this legislation.
As a lawyer admitted in New York I can only give my opinion on the effect of New York and Federal law as it operates in New York.
In the US, the court where the incident took place has jurisdiction; it is irrelevant what citizenship the parties hold or claim. I cannot imagine a US court taking jurisdiction over a photograph taken in another country that otherwise has nothing to do with the US.
In the US, if you are legally standing where you are standing when you see something in public, it is not an invasion of anyone's privacy. That rule has held whether you take a photograph or not. However, what you do with a photograph after you took it may subject you to some liability. For example, if you use it to demean someone and they suffer damages from it, they might have a civil case against you.
In the US, a court's finding of damages is considered a 'license to hunt.' If a US court determines that the respondant owes damages to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff can hunt for the respondant's assets and attach them in the US. However, if the court that awards the damages is from another country, I think it would be a matter of treaty law between the the other country and the US as to whether you could pursue a foreign verdict in the US - and what steps are required to conduct such a pursuit.
Short answer - from what is in the linked photo and article, a lawsuit is the US would probably be a waste of time.
If French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen lost an election as a result of this photo, then he did not have much credibility with the voters to begin with. I agree that a lawsuit in the US would have no grounds as the photo was taken in a public place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
