IAAL, but if you write something about anywhere you're very unlikely to be infringing on any copyright laws.

The photographs are less clear - if you're somewhere privately owned then the owner can probably ask people not to photograph.

Like any legal question, talk to a lawyer. It doesn't even have to be all that expensive, and they'll be able to give you specific (and informed) advice.

Of course, you can be sued if you write untrue things about people or places that are likely to be damaging.

In the US, anything viewable from a public space may be photographed. The exteriors of buildings are explicitly allowed.

Private spaces (such as the interiors of hotels) may not be photographed without prior permission.

Pictures of people's faces (other than celebrities) usually cannot be published without obtaining a release first.

Eliz.

You can't take pictures of the Eiffel Tower in France at night.

There are some laws about that. Bizarre!

You can't take pictures of the Eiffel Tower in France at night.

There are some laws about that. Bizarre!

The reason being that the company who are responsible for the lighting consider their work to be a work of art and as such they are the copyright holders ..but in the daytime without the lighting the Eiffel Tower is considered to be a monument public ..french copyright law is complex as is all french law and especially french legalese ..in most but not all cases it's Ok to use photos of buildings here for non commercial reasons ( ie; not on a site with adsense )..the company that owns the rights to the night-time lighting of "la tour" is JCDécaux and they normally insist on a fee of €10.00 per photo per day of use on your website ..they have been known to take what they consider infringements to court ..they usually win ( in France ) they do have very very deep pockets and have won in other juristictions ..their marketing people can be "mean" ..

as to the broader question from the OP ..
"can people sue me for reviewing + photographing attractions?" .answer... is it depends ( on what you shoot and where )..

[edited by: tedster at 12:13 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

This sounds like a real minefield!

Does anybody know which countries copyright laws apply? For example, if I live in country x, my site features photographs from country y, it is hosted in country z and it is viewed by people all over the world - which country's laws apply?

One would presume that country Y 's laws apply ..then the question is can they enforce them in country x and or z ..( in the case of JCDecaux ..( see any reputable ~~ your choice may be different from mine ~~ search engines results for this name to see just how big they are ) they can probably enforce their copyrights just about anywhere ..and G would probably listen to any DMCA notice they might send ) ..

On a connected note Google's street view service's level of intrusiveness depends on the juristictions they shoot in ..
In France they are much less "snap happy" than in the USA ..eg the image of my private house situated in my private road is considered to be my property ..and neither G nor anyone else is allowed to take photos of it without my advance permission in writing..french law does not make this "opt out" ..G knows this and acts accordingly .;)

Although to witness the antics of the paparazzi in some of our "gutter press" one might be forgiven for wondering if all media editors take heed of the law ..

An example would be the shots of holiday beaches ( public ) with hundreds of semi naked bathers ..no one here goes around getting the written permission of everyone in a photo of the public beaches of Cannes or St Tropez before using them in an article wether in the press or on sites ..and they dont "mask" "details " or faces of those who are sunworshipping ..but our TV channels sometimes do mask faces in beach panning shots ..but only sometimes ( usually TV here masks the faces of "suspects" and children ) it appears to depend on the advice of which lawyer they have on retainer and how much flak they expect to get and from whom ..

The cynic in me would say that they assess if the increase in revenue from publishing a picture ( with or without a review ) will be greater than the potential damegs awarded to any complainant ..if the answer is yes then the lawyers say go ahead ..YMMV

[edited by: Leosghost at 2:39 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

But if country y's laws banned not taking photographs, but publishing them - would it still be "responsibe"? The act of publication would be committed in country x or z, right?

Re: the eiffel tower
that's why i think copyright law is crazy. i can understand how you can own the actual lights. but how can you own the view of the thing that the lights are sitting on?

they've effectively taken ownership of the eiffel tower.

Eiffel tower at night [flickr.com]. heh

Pictures of people's faces (other than celebrities) usually cannot be published without obtaining a release first.

This is not right, but the real answer is complex.

In the U.S., people can be photographed and the photo published if they are in a public area or public event.

Here's a fun example in the news this week:
Maria Dominguez filed a $3 million claim against Sean 'Diddy' Combs and America's Vibe magazine after it published topless photographs of her in 2006 with Combs. (I saw the pics. You could run them in a family newspaper.)

Note what the lawsuit said:
--it alleged that Combs and the publication violated her right to privacy by using pictures of her at the rapper's White Party event without her permission.

--it claimed the magazine article amounted to advertising for the rapper and his label, Bad Boy Entertainment Inc.

According to news reports, New York state judge Justice Doris Ling-Cohan threw out the case, saying Dominguez couldn't expect privacy at such a public event.

"Sean Combs and his renowned annual White Party are subjects of tremendous public interest, attracting the steady attention of the public and many news organizations," the judge ruled.

So, what have we got here is "public interest." If what the subject is doing is in the "public interest," or publishing it is in the public interest, then you have a right to publish the photos of people. And, as this case proves, it doesn't have to be Watergate to be in the public interest.

But (as the lawsuit attempted to claim) if you are using the images as advertising or invading privacy, then you can have a problem with the law. But not always. Truth is a factor as well.

It sounds like a review of tourist sites would be seen as "in the public interest."

Interestingly, if your web site stinks, you could be sued. But, if you have good traffic, then you can prove that there is public interest.

Now, in the real world, it's a good idea to tell people what you are doing. Don't ask permission, but say, hello and introduce yourself. "What if they object?" is the question you get. Then listen to their objections and thank them for the input. This biz is not for cowards.

But, this is U.S. law. Other countries have very different views on this.

Is there anything I can do to protect myself from legal action being taken?

Tell the truth.
Be careful with the facts. Get it right.
Label opinion as opinion.
Be kind.
Be fair.
Fix errors up-front and quickly. Note that there was a correction made. If you make a mistake, say you're sorry.
Post reviews of your reviews from readers or the owners; just post them, don't argue.