Thats what i was assuming, commercial purposes. Except media?
The plot thickens. Who knew a recycling truck accident could get so deep.
2 Likes
It’s not like they gone pay huge sums to get this pic, I think news crews are at the accident rather fast, approaching it from somewhere, they know their way.
1 Like
Its a question of law, not logistics 
1 Like
I don’t know about Taiwan, but in the US you can use a photo of someone in the public square for news, art, and general commercial purposes, but you couldn’t use it to sell or advertise a product, brand, or company.
2 Likes
Cheers. But, is art not a product? General commercial purposes? Seems like one of them intentionally vague type of things to give the legal system some job security.
I’m not quoting the law or court rulings which flesh out the law. Generally, you can sell the photos of people. The restrictions get greater as the distance from art/news gets greater and more directly commercial.
1 Like
Sounds like commercial use is okay, as long as not in ads.
I don’t want to be associated with women’s hygiene products.
The women’s hygiene products industry must be crushed by that news. I guess they’ll have to start looking for a new celebrity poster boy before the market crashes.
1 Like
That’s why you can not use images from strangers in ads without written consent.
Another layer to this issue is whether or not it would be legal for a foreigner to do so in Taiwan.
I ask because I was once offered a tutorial job teaching two white collar office workers (2500/hr and over ten years ago), but the company could only write it off as a business expense if I had a 統一編號 and could issue a receipt. This suggests that any such sale of a photograph might require a more formal business transaction which, in some cases, might be a breach of contract or exceed the rights and privileges granted by an ARC.
If you do it as a job, that’s one thing. If you incidentally sell something you happen to own, that’s another thing. See here:
1 Like
While we’re at it, it’s a bit more restrictive than that in Canada.
Bottom line, “an artist’s right to publish their work is not absolute.”
There have been some interesting cases of people suing for royalties from photos that have made big money for the photographer.
In most jurisdictions though photographers are allowed to take any pictures they want in the public space. There’s seldom a law requiring prior permission.
Be careful here. If you take photo of a crowd, you’re right. If you put a single person or small group focus, in a way that they’re identifiable you’ll need the written consent of said person(s) if you want to publish the photos.
As with most countries it’s all a bit iffy on what is recognisable and what is fair use.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements
" China (Republic of) (Taiwan)[edit]
- Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
- Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: May require consent (see exceptions below)
- Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
In the Republic of China (Taiwan), although there’s no formal definition of “right of portrait”, however the mentioned right is considered as parts of rights of personality or rights of privacy, and protected by civil codes (Article 18, 19, 152, 184 and 195-1).[38]
Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent as favour of public interests or fair usage. In all of these cases, the personality (honour, reputation, public image) of depicted person should not be infringed.
As the ruling of Su No.2476, ROC 91 (2002) by the Taipei District Court (臺北地方法院91年度訴字第2476號判決), “Commercial usage would be seen as an infringement of the ‘right of portrait’, if author does not declare his/her intention at first.” [39] Also ruling of Shang-Yi No.958, ROC 94 (2005) by the Taiwan High Court (臺灣高等法院94年度上易字第958號判決).[40]
However the “right of portrait” cannot be formed and protected, if appearances or features of any individuals which cannot be identified or recognised in the media (photographs, video, etc.), according to the ruling of Min-Zhu-Su No.53, ROC 102 (2013) by the Intellectual Property Court (智慧財產法院102年度民著訴字第53號判決), “Using facial features of a individual without permission in any photographs or visual media is an offence, which infringes individuals own right of portrait. However, the claimed right cannot be formed, if the media contains only partial features which cannot be recognised as an individual, e.g. a photograph contains only part of face from the person being photographed.” .[41]"
2 Likes
Another aspect could be the buildings and other objects on the pictures: Not all countries grant the photographer the right to take pictures of objects and buildings for which someone owns the copyright.
That’s why it’s illegal to take pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night (at least for commercial purposes).
Other countries might have similar laws. Not sure about the situation in Taiwan, though.
this comes under freedom of panorama,
" Taiwan[edit]
Article 58 of the Copyright Act of Taiwan provides for a freedom of panorama exception, wherein architectural and artistic works “displayed on a long-term basis” in outdoor places open to the public may be exploited for any purposes. This does not apply if the reproduction of artistic works is purely for the purpose of selling copies.[78]
This noncommercial restriction was clarified in the 192nd issue of the Intellectual Property Right Journal by the Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs. Accordingly, photographing murals painted on outdoor walls of village houses and using the resulting photographs on commercial postcards without muralist’s permission complies with Article 58. It is the act of selling actual reproductions of artistic works that is prohibited in the law.[79] A similar clarification was also made regarding use of images of Taipei 101. While the name “Taipei 101” is trademark-protected, no architect’s permission is needed for the use of images of Taipei 101 in commercial postcards, as long as the representation depicts the building’s exteriors.[80]"
2 Likes