I’ve been reading the Metropolitician for about a month now, having been turned onto the blog through his SeoulGlow video podcasts.  The other night, I was browsing through the archives and came upon a really interesting post from January.  He thoroughly discussed the rights of photographers in Korea.  Specifically:

• Can you take a picture of anyone on the street?  Or do you need their permission first?
• If they DO catch you taking a picture of them, can they make you delete those photos?
• Can a security guard take your camera away from you?
• Can you take pictures inside a store?

These are all questions I’ve wondered about, especially since I carry a camera with me at all times.  Michael (Metropolitician) answers all of this in his blog post.  Definitely check it out.  Below is an excerpt:

“So here’s what I have known since first started taking pictures here – see, I do my homework – and what paranoid citizens, journalists, and even the cops seem to be unable to understand: taking a picture in itself, barring mitigating circumstances, is not a crime. And I’ve know the law since my ass deplaned here in late 2002.

Here’s the relevant text, taken from a book for photojournalists called ????????, or, roughly translated, “Korean Photojournalism Theory.” It deals with the tricky question of “???/choseungkweon” or “the right to one’s (facial) image,” which is a concept about which the average Korean citizen holds an inflated, paranoid, and nearly erroneous misconception. From the book, here’s the relevant section that talks about the subject as it relates to Korea:

?? ?10?: “?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??”

?? ?16?: ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???.

?? ?32? ?4?:??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ? ??(??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?750?? ?? ????? ??? ? ??.)

?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??. ?? ?? ?750?? ?? ????? ??? ? ???? ????? ?, ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????.

So what I see here are some basic things, and you legal eagles out there, please tell me if any of this is wrong, and/or add to the conversation.

1) According to the 10th and 16th articles of the Korean Constitution, which defines a “right to happiness” and “right to privacy,” respectively, as this is expressed in concrete terms in article 32, clause 4 of criminal law, a person entrusted with a picture of someone can’t use or reproduce it without one’s wishes or according to commercial whims, but “because there are no stipulations for punishments, one can only seek compensatory damages according to clause 750 of civil law,” for which you have to show clear and concrete damages to one’s person or reputation. That means, you gotta have lost a job, gotten a divorce, or something else to which you can put a dollar (or won) sign.

2) According to the book, since there are almost no actual precedents for seeking damages to “chosangkweon” alone – most of the cases shown in the book that set significant legal precedents were all cases in which individuals’ images were used without their permission for commercial purposes – it is “little more than an academic issue.”