Illegal to take somebody's photo without their consent in Japan?

[MikeH]

So if someone on the street takes a pic of you walking out of a dirty place and you’re not the main person in focus, well, good luck

Actually I wouldn't need good luck in that case, I would just need a good lawyer and I would get compensated.

There are four items they study when it comes to the rights to publicity (肖像権).

1) Can you be clearly identified
2) Have you given consent to the publishing
3) How widely the picture is published
4) What kind of mental damage the publishing caused

Now if you take and publish a picture of me leaving a soapland the judge will throw me out because of 4) but let's say it is some decent person whose picture you take and publish in a magazine or in the net. Now he claims he got problems with the wire, kids, work and neighbours and pay you will.

 

[warubuta]

Actually I wouldn't need good luck in that case, I would just need a good lawyer and I would get compensated.

There are four items they study when it comes to the rights to publicity (肖像権).

1) Can you be clearly identified
2) Have you given consent to the publishing
3) How widely the picture is published
4) What kind of mental damage the publishing caused

Now if you take and publish a picture of me leaving a soapland the judge will throw me out because of 4) but let's say it is some decent person whose picture you take and publish in a magazine or in the net. Now he claims he got problems with the wire, kids, work and neighbours and pay you will.

A picture of you walking out of a soapland is more damaging to the soapland and than to you.

 

[Sudsy]

Just adding my legal knowledge here but in order for the publishing of your photo without consent to be illegal you have to be the main subject of the photo. A picture published of you in a crowd and not centrally focused wouldn’t win you a case. So if someone on the street takes a pic of you walking out of a dirty place and you’re not the main person in focus, well, good luck

Good thing you're not a lawyer.

A couple of key points:

1) The only photos that are "illegal" to publish are ones containing state secrets, uncensored genitalia, obscenity, or state secrets. A photo violating rights to privacy or publicity would be actionable, not illegal.

2) Central focus isn't the primary issue, it's clarity of identity.

There are four items they study when it comes to the rights to publicity (肖像権).

1) Can you be clearly identified
2) Have you given consent to the publishing
3) How widely the picture is published
4) What kind of mental damage the publishing caused

#4 also includes damage to reputation.

There's also the question of whether the publishing benefits society as a whole - an embarrassing photo of the Prime Minister, being germaine to the public interest, would be less likely to be successfully actionable than an embarrassing photo of a lady walking out of a kyabakura she's been working at under the table.

 

[warubuta]

Good thing you're not a lawyer.

A couple of key points:

1) The only photos that are "illegal" to publish are ones containing state secrets, uncensored genitalia, obscenity, or state secrets. A photo violating rights to privacy or publicity would be actionable, not illegal.

2) Central focus isn't the primary issue, it's clarity of identity.



#4 also includes damage to reputation.

There's also the question of whether the publishing benefits society as a whole - an embarrassing photo of the Prime Minister, being germaine to the public interest, would be less likely to be successfully actionable than an embarrassing photo of a lady walking out of a kyabakura she's been working at under the table.

In my experience most of the kyabakura ladies work while sitting next to you or straddling you, but some have worked on me from under the table too.