Hi, > There are two things you can't publish without permission, and that is persons and > other, copyrighted > material. There is an exception made for architecture. So you can sell a photo of > another > persons property, at least as long as you did not have to break an entrance to get > there (in which case > you have broken another law).
> So you can sell an image of a general crowd of people in front of a building > (without any private persons > standing out in the image), you can sell the picture of the neighbours dog (except > if he > made an effort in styling it), but you can not sell a photo of a sculpture (unless > you have made a > substantial effort to make the photo more than just a photograph of the sculpture). this is oversimplified. Although there are serious problems in France, I think that in most of the rest of Europe you do not need their permission to publish a photo of someone. If you did then there would be no paparazzi, and all other photojournalism would come to an abrupt end. In Britain I believe you can even use photographs of people in adverts without their permission if you have made reasonable efforts to get it, but haven't been able to trace them. This was a source of great argument in Magnum a few years ago when some very unflattering photos by Martin Parr were used without permission in adverts with a very unpleasant copy line. -- Cheers, Bob
