what defines a public person? because i had a gig in local theatre i am a public person? it is not like a celebrity is a profession.
and sex tapes. they were released (some of them of course) without permission. it was not an issue that people showed other people naked without permission. stealing the tapes was an issue.

so no. i had no seen any evidence of law prohibiting posting of "private people" without their permission. i can't quote any laws i admit that. yet complete lack of google being sued by millions of people kinda proves that there is no such law.

and there is a flaw in your argument.
your lawn is a public place.

it is visible from public street so whatever happens there is visible to the public. i said if it was a place where you can expect privacy (secured lawn, your home etc) then there might be an issue.
open lawn area
nah. it is public.
k, etc) need some source otherwise i don't buy it. way too many evidence against there being a specific law prohibiting publishing of nude photos.

Law forbidding publishing any naked person photos without permission is in article 191a of Polish Penal Code.
You can face up to 5 years in prison for this.

The person's nudity is the most intimate part of their lives. If you censor that photo so this person cannot be recognized by anyone - then it's ok to publish it. There is no exceptions in Polish law.

Public person is a contrary to private person. And private person is a person that doesn't take part in public life, and is known only to it's near surrouindings. (a public person is widely known)

don't give shit about poland. i did mean civilized country.

but seriously... it is irrelevant. What poland does. give me source of what you said from Germany, France, UK, US, China, Japan, Russia... (well. i presume russia has similar laws to poland)
aka countries which matters, which make international law.

Then ask SimonG and cjgreen for example. I think privacy rights are similar in Germany, since we share the same international conventions. In US it may be different.

It would be absurd, if you'd need permission to repost a photo from New York Times, buy NYT doens't need any permission to publish a photo of you. Sounds ridiculous to me.

:)
lack of google being sued by millions of people kinda proves lack of existence of laws prohibiting a publications of pictures without permission. at least in USA. and there are those sex tapes. pics of girlfriends etc floating everywhere
i now know that if i break up with my gf i cannot send her nudies to sex sites for few bucks :D at least in poland. so thx for that.


a guy took picture of ironman when they were filming IM1. then filmakers decided to use that picture in a last scene just for fun (cause it was such a big thing on internet)
they got sued apparently and on dvds the scene is changed (different picture)
not an exactly the same situation but if you take a picture you have a copyright over that picture. that was in regards to your NYT comment.

Oh, and for your theatre example.

If you're in theatre, you're not a public person, but you're a part of the crowd.

As I said, there are two exception from permission need:
1) being a public person (public person is a contrary to privte person. Private person is only known to his/hers near surroundings, while public person is widely known)
2) being a part of the crowd (many people on the same picture) When you're a MAIN character on that picture (without you this picture wouldn't make sense) , then you're not a part of the crowd.

If a photo publisher violates these rules, you may go to civil court. But if you're also naked on that photo, then it's a felony.

Oh, but did they ever pretended to?

The court decides basing on evidence. As always :P

that's an issue. subjective. way too subjective. especially in poland which does not have common law.
statute law supposed to objective, clear.

and...
why the hell people are divided like that. why boguslaw linda has less right to privacy than average kowalski?
bullshit law.

Because boguslaw linda has CHOSEN to be a public person. He knew that by acting in movies he NEEDS to leave some privacy rights behind. Before he became and actor he KNEW what it means to become a public person. Nothing bullshit for me.

IF you want to, you may choose to resign from your privacy. I agree that when person is naked in public it should be treated as resigning from privacy. Polish legilature hasn't thought about that. :/

But being naked on your lawn, when Google cars cameras are mostly ABOVE hedgerow (bushes) level, isn't really being naked in public.

can he unchosen it then? became a regular joe? or the public persona according to the law is for life?

Once you go black... wait, wrong sentence ;p

Let me just chime in here and present the "european view" of this whole celebrities and privacy issue.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=open&documentId=900164&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

While the ECtHR isn't officially part of the EU, its rulings are considered binding by most (all) EU countries.

I rarely use it. I have a private account and it's under a fake name anyway, because I never did see the "value" of posting anything too personal online anyway.