Should media be able to take photos of, or film people in public, and then use it without asking their permission?

I was photographed once (without my knowledge) in Neuilly-sur-Seine. When I went to buy a magazine at the friendly neighbourhood kiosk the lady said : "Oh ! It's YOU in Paris Match ! Here's your "prize money" !" The equivalent of 10 000 yen came in very useful to this "then" student !

It depends.

If the person is the primary subject in a commercial photo, then permission should be required. This assumes the person isn't a minor and is able to legally provide permission.

If the person is in the background, not in detail, then permission shouldn't be required if taken in a public location - street, public land, public park or with the land owners permission.

I think of the Virgin Mobile ad campaign http://techcrunch.com/2007/09/21/virgin-mobile-ad-campaign-ruins-girls-life/ that stole a flickr photo of an underage girl and printed up 1.5m posters of her at bus stops.

If it's for commercial purposes, then permission should be required. However, I think Japan goes a tad overboard in this area when they blur out even people in the background, not to mention masking voices in TV interviews with the public. Bit ridiculous.

If it's news, then it's okay. If it's a tweet, it's okay. If I took a photo of Daniel Radcliffe and promoted my website with it, that would be too much.

Japan has much too much concern about 権利 (rights), and it clogs up business terribly. It takes months to license a game because of all the permissions that have to be worked out.

No, I don't think so. I always feel sorry for those really fat people (who are usually eating ice cream or something) they use on TV when they're discussing obesity.

Japan has much too much concern about 権利 (rights), and it clogs up business terribly.

Peter, I thought you were ni the import business, not working as a koban cop!

Yes. but in the case of profit been made out of image or subject. like unicef using staving children. copyright should apply so those staving children and should get a decent earn. From top to bottom all these people involved in these NGO are pay a decent wage from these donation.

If I'm in the seats at Tokyo Dome, and I show up in a photo of the grandstands at Tokyo Dome, no worries. If I'm in Ueno Park sitting on a bench reading a book, and someone takes a picture of me with Shinobazu Pond in the background, he/she should get my permission (with or without compensation) for using the photo commercially.

But this causes problems for classic "street" photography. Henri Cartier-Bresson never could have produced the shots he's famous for, if he'd had to stop all those people and get releases signed.

Final answer: it depends.

I think of the Virgin Mobile ad campaign http://techcrunch.com/2007/09/21/virgin-mobile-ad-campaign-ruins-girls-life/ that stole a flickr photo of an underage girl and printed up 1.5m posters of her at bus stops.

While I sympathize with the girl's situation, I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the actual story. Virgin Mobile Australia didn't "steal" the photo. The photo had been uploaded to Flickr by the photographer under the Creative Commons by Attribution license. This license allowed anyone to use the photo - INCLUDING for commercial purposes - as long as the photographer was attributed. VMA included the photographer's Flickr address at the bottom of every poster and so all license requirements were met. The error was actually made by the photographer, who uploaded the picture to the internet and made it available to the world without the subject's permission.

In the U.S. her family tried suing VM Australia, VM America, and the Creative Commons Authority. VM America was dropped from the suit because they had nothing to do with the ad campaign. The Creative Commons Authority was dropped from the suit at the request of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the courts dismissed the VM Australia suit because it lacked jurisdiction over the location where the actions took place. The family would have needed to file suit in Australia.

No...

If it's news, then it's okay. If it's a tweet, it's okay. If I took a photo of Daniel Radcliffe and promoted my website with it, that would be too much.

Japan has much too much concern about 権利 (rights), and it clogs up business terribly. It takes months to license a game because of all the permissions that have to be worked out.

Have to wonder if all those "Kirino-approved" banner ads for your company were properly licensed. :-)

No, they shouldn't if they're using the image to make money directly, i.e., you're in a restaurant and you happen to order a certain kind of beer and they photograph you from a "blind" and use the photo in print ads for that beer. In cases like that they should get your permission and offer you some kind of compensation. If it's just a photo of a location and you happen to be in the background, though, then I think you're fair game.

I think the rules have changed. In Japan in the 1950s and 1960s with film cameras that were obviously fitted with standard or wide angle lenses you could snap away to your heart's content. No-one normally had any reason to object, and probably no-one even thought about that. In the 21st centrury with megapixels, zoom lenses, date stamping and social media it's a whole new ball game and taking unsolicited people shots can be very sensitive. I recently tried to photograph 3 young women dressed in furisode at Kiyomizudera but stopped as they were not happy about what I was doing.