This is definitely a good idea. I had neighbour trouble many years ago in the UK and it stood greatly in my favour that I was on record as having reported the matter early to the police (basically the same as a ‘main courant’) and asked their advice. Later, when the situation became much more serious, the police were on my side when the matter came to court.
1 Like
I’ve always wondered about this claim. In an age when nearly everyone has the means to create video in their pocket in one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations.?q
A fixed camera on your own property videoing the public highway is very different from taking a video on your mobile phone
1 Like
Google turned up this information posted by a French security camera supplier:
The cameras can therefore only be directed towards the interior of the property, with the exception of the immediate surroundings of the home such as the facade or the sidewalk in front of the entrance gate. A sign must be hung in the residence to inform visitors of the existence of the device. Another obligation: the images collected may under no circumstances be disseminated via the Internet or social networks, their function being limited to the security of the home. Finally, a declaration must be filed with the National Commission for Computer Freedoms (CNIL) by the owner of the facility when a third party comes to exercise a professional and paid activity at the home in question.
Source: Video surveillance: the rules to know before any installation - Systèmes de Sécurité
So filming the “facade or the sidewalk” or “immediate surroundings” of your property is not illegal - I would have thought this would cover the OP’s situation above, where they would be primarily filming the outside of their property and the street only incidentally.
But IANAL of course. 
3 Likes
IANAL! I thought it was something to do with one’s arse until I googled it 
2 Likes
Well I might be a bit anal about some things, but that’s another story. 
I’m glad your Google result was SFW. 
I did this when my new neighbour started to make threats about me not paying for half of the dividing fence and sent all sorts of complaints including personal details of myself and my children, our banks,addresses and dates of birth which he had got via the builder who he was also in dispute with - me, not a word said to anyone about anything! The gendarmes told us he had broken the law by gaining personal info from a third party and could be taken to tribunal and penalised but I said no, gotta live with the bloke as we share co-proprietè on the land and the gendarmes logged it in case things cropped up again, took copies and gave us a receipt for said complaint. After that, things started to improve and now we seem to be on very good terms and he gives me lemons and always speaks but that complaint about breach of info will remain logged plus it turns out he is well known as a complainer to both the mairie and the gendarmerie when they saw his name and he is only mid 30’s
Different, but not very different as the end result is the same. Only the camera support is different. The law seems quite content with Google maps and dash cams. To be clear I’m not disputing the legality, just the rationale.
If you are standing by the eiffel tower there is a presumption that you are in public and can be photographed non- Commercially.
Then doesn’t that presumption carry across Paris to cover other monuments, buildings, boulevards, metro entraces, street art, graffiti etc. I’d expect my lawyer to argue such a case.
The same goes for the OP. It’s more than reasonable for him/her to take pictures as precaution, against a real threat, taking care not to breach the privacy of adjacent private properties.
If I were in this situation I would get all the proof I can of everything that happens and blow the aftermath if someone tried to sue especially with this situation that might end up with seriously damaging private property. I don’t think any judge would rule against that if the damage was substantial and the perpetrators were found to be at blame and also the local mairie for allowing it.
I think it depends if the person is the main subject of the photo or not. if they are, strictly speaking under French law you need their permission even if they are in a public place, both to take their picture and to make use of it afterwards (two separate permissions).
Photographing a crowd scene in public however should be OK, although if it comes to a court case each image is considered on its merits. News photos have a special exemption, but can lose their exemption once deemed no longer newsworthy!
There are also laws around copyright that apply to photographs of buildings, artistic works etc.
The classic example is the Eiffel Tower - it’s fair game during the day as it’s out of copyright - but the lighting display at night isn’t, so you can’t (officially) photograph it without permission!
Of course it’s very unlikely that someone would sue a tourist who was making an image for private use, but it does affect folks like me who sell photos via stock libraries. I have to be quite careful in France, much more so than in the UK.
2 Likes
Our commune puts up signs when they are holding events to say that this is a public event and people should be aware they may be photographed.
1 Like
Yes that’s sensible - if someone is really fussed about not being photographed then they can either ask the photographer to avoid them, or just stay away.
3 Likes
UPDATE FROM OP
So i went to each mairie involved as there is an imaginary border crossed by the lorries. I left a letter - which I had a copy signed and stamped to say they had received it. I include the paragraph added to the second mairie who have more say in the matter :
“ J’ai déposé une lettre à la mairie de Lasfaillades qui a été signée en personne.
Mme la mairesse du lasfaillades m’a conseillé de demander à un huissier de se rendre sur place pour constater l’état actuel de ma propriété. Il ne s’agit pas d’une solution préventive et je pense qu’il est injuste d’attendre de moi que je paie pour cela et, en tout état de cause, il sera trop tard lorsque les dégâts se produiront. Je ne peux pas non plus être présent pour surveiller le passage des camions 24/7, et je n’ai pas le droit de placer une caméra de surveillance en raison des implications juridiques liées à la surveillance d’une voie publique. Le risque pourrait facilement être évité en modifiant l’itinéraire des camions et en imposant une restriction permanente à l’utilisation de la route.
J’apprécierais d’être informé par écrit du résultat avant le 24 mars 2025 afin de me donner la possibilité d’obtenir une assistance supplémentaire au cas où vous ne seriez pas en mesure de soutenir ma démarche qui me semble logique pour le bien du village et de ses habitants”
Now, given that the mayor of my own village was quiet dismissive and some have suggested I at least open a main courante : what would you advise I ask of the gendarmes because they wont accept me favourably asking them to note something which might not happen but has a strong risk of happening! I do intend to give the second mayoress the chance to reply and say she thinks the proposal of rerouting the lorries (it would mean they have to add a 500m layer of gravel to the forest lane which is larger than the road in the village!) to join up to the main road through the village, a detour of 1km for them but no houses or roads degraded.
I looked at putting up a camera but the only place it could be mounted to meet with all legality wouyld mean it would be hit by the first lorry. Placed at the opposite end of the house it would register too much information……
Thanks for all of you comments so far…its good to have a sounding board
I have had an appalling experience with the gendarmerie too.
Best avoided if at all possible.
They might even have mates doing the logging.
Not really appropriate for my specific problem …to get any evidence worth using I would need to be able to detect a number plate and if in the second possible position it would film the driver….
It’s extremely unfair that we have to think like that. I did look up the law and unless someone is hurt the gendarmes would not get involved. An option is to put my armchair in the corner most likely to be destroyed and then I might get some support from them…pretty drastic though.
The Mairie’s must have a duty of care as well as the forestry commission that they grant permissions to…but is it criminally neglect or a civil issue
But you could still put up a large “sous video-surveillance sign”?
2 Likes
Like I said earlier, it will be a screen showing the wall and potentially the moment the camera is hit by the lorry…but it won’t give any other details because to do that it would have to cover more than 1m of the 2m wide lane. If positioned to cover an oncoming lorry, again to capture any useful information the road and T junction would be visible catching even more people who wouldn’t always be able to see the signage unless it was plastered in three different positions. The locals would complain and I’m sure my neighbour who drives passed twice a day would not be in favour….