GDPR and Photography

Lounge
1

As I mentioned in this post we have our elder daughter with us for the weekend, she is a seriously high-powered employment lawyer.

We got into discussion as to what pictures one is allowed to take in a public place, and I responded given what I remembered from an RPS document on the subject. She asked what it says on GDPR. The answer is, that it says nothing, since it was published in 2009, and GDPR was only introduced in 2016.

I looked for an update, but I could only find something from the Institute of Photography.

TL;DR You are probably OK if you are taking pictures for personal use, but there doesn’t appear to be any settled case law on the subject.

3 Likes
2

You have to state the country that you are talking about. Law varies.

2 Likes
3

The GDPR is a European initiative

1 Like
4
1 Like
5

Having the right to take a picture is one thing.
To distribute/publisize a picture is another.

3 Likes
6

When the GDPR was introduced, I worked for an organised that rather quite a bit of personal data of people. That was a fun process of figuring out what was covered, what we needed to change etc.

No It is not an initiative, it is rather law, organisations have to comply and the penalties can be heavy.

Incorrect. The GDPR doesn’t really make that distinction. It is all about processing data. If you take a picture and store it, that is according the GDPR processing.

BUT AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART FOR OUR DISCUSSION

The GDPR is applicable if (1) You are a ‘data controller’ and (2) if the data controller, or processor, or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. The regulation also applies to organisations based outside the EU if they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the EU

So the question here is (1) are you a ‘data controller’. Well, according to the law: a data controller is an organisation that collects information about living people, whether they are in the EU or not.

So, it clear from the law that if you as private person, take photo’s of people in public, GDPR does NOT apply.

However, if you are running a photography business and you make you are making a living with street photography, then GPDR DOES apply.

And responding to the earlier statements…The GDPR applies when you are ‘data controller’, regardless if the data was collected before or after the introduction data of GDPR.

Having said this. There are more regulations in place regarding photography in public places, but they vary from EU country to country.

  1. In various country is not allowed to take picture of military assets even if they are on the public road. (If I recall correctly this applies to Germany)
  2. In some situation there are additional regulations in place. In Netherlands for example they are about to pass a bill that it is forbidden to share pictures in which victims of accidents are identifiable (on social media for instance)

But, you have to check that from country to country.

5 Likes
7

You are correct about GDPR, but my statement was of a general nature. Many people ask, and answer, the question of which picture one may take and store, but are not aware that if one rightfully has obtained a picture, one is not necessarily free to use it as one want.

8

Ah! discussions on the legality of photography regarding human subjects, my beloved, especially in regards to street photography…

I would love to have the GDPR where I live, in Iraq, it is de Jure completely illegal to photograph ANYONE without prior consent, in public space or not, in fact all cameras/gadgets carrying cameras such as mobile telephones are illegal to bring into educational institutions like highschools

Furthermore it’s very vague, if the picture was intended to be sensationalizing, it is almost certainly illegal, but if it was not, then it may be passable in the eyes of the law - go figure as to what counts as sensationalizing or not

in practice, noone really minds, neither the Iraqi Society for Photography nor the Iraqi Photography Center have come under legal pressure for their 50+ some years of publishing street photography, but it’s not a very comforting thought that - at any point in time, if someone shows up in one of your pictures; intended or not, they fully have a case to fuck you over in a court of law, it’s not happened yet but I can only feel that it is a question of when rather than if

2 Likes
9

I was in England, where I was born and lived for 53 years. I visit Cornwall, where I did part of my growing up, and where my parents lived until I became an orphan 20 years ago. There are beaches, and such, where all sorts of people of all sorts of ages, frolic and have fun.

My best friend still lives there. My best-friend-in-law is a keen photographer. She warned me of how things had changed in a decade or two: “Absolutely never take photos of children.”

I said, what, even you as a middle-aged woman? She said yes, just don’t

Here in India, people often seem to like being photographed. I always remember two young women at the local zoo, who rushed up to us (their husbands looked embarrassed) and said (translated by my wife), “You are taking pictures of monkeys! Photograph us! We are prettier than monkeys” :rofl:

I don’t about Indian law on photography on the street. As in driving (me too), I don’t think people are much bothered about rules.

In England, I think that the law is pretty much on the photographer’s side. Unless the photograph is for commercial use. But life is not all easy. There are lots of places that seem like “public” that turn out not to be.

1 Like
10

My first thoughts were. No-one should be videoing a person who is for example dying through having an accident or through violent attack. But then no, the recent episodes of violence towards a poor boy falsely accused and left to die because the police were racist, needed to be filmed. As did the airport attack on police which was reported on mainstream media as the police being racist when they clearly weren’t. No, I think filming & image taking should be fully legal but! it must not interfere with emergency services or cause unnecessary distress to loved ones. As for GDPR, when I was a swimming teacher for my local council I was also photographer of the swimming classes at the end of term (all ages). I took great care, I even edited images to make them suitable for display. Parents loved them but one day I was told I had to delete all my images after a year. I told them to find another photographer. I looked at my collection like the local newspaper does, I wanted them for posterity, for the kids or parents to be able to find them later. We are erasing the present, can you imagine old photos with faces blurred out, it’s nonsense, what have we got to hide.

2 Likes
11

If this is about the Henry Nowak murder, then there is a fair amount of misinformation flying about:

  1. The camera footage that has been released is from the police body camera. Nowak apparently filmed the incident, but as far as I am aware it hasn’t been released.
  2. The police were following anti-racism guidance. There is an ongoing investigation into their conduct, but this has yet to be completed.
  3. Henry Nowak’s father urged people not to use his son’s death to create division.
  4. Despite this, the far-right in the UK and the US has seized on the incident to unsubstantiated claims of “two-tier policing” and have blamed immigrants (the killer was not an immigrant).
  5. This misinformation has led to rioting, in which 11 police officers and a police dog have been injured. So far, 11 people have been charged with violent disorder

The latest Devil’s Panties is apposite:

966×466 63.9 KB

4 Likes
12

I haven’t seen a lot of propagandist information about this in the US. But to be fair, we have plenty of our own examples and don’t need any from the UK.

2 Likes
13

The usual suspects, Vance and Musk.

14

That’s because it’s aimed at UK consumption. For ‘some reason’ Musk, in particular, is trying to stoke racial discord here by promoting a tiny racist party, that splintered from an already pretty far right party. I’m not being partisan here. Their policies, personalities and statements are brazenly so. The Financial Times has done data analysis showing X has been promoting its leader Rupert Lowe over the already anti-immigrant Farage:

IMG_0336
IMG_0336750×1294 96.2 KB

IMG_0337
IMG_0337750×1294 135 KB

1 Like
15

It’s just a personal preference. I gather that more-or-less anything can be discussed in “the lounge.”

Yes, I too hate the political trends, and underlying social causes/harmonies going on in many parts of the world and have participated in online discussions.

But could the diversion into politics in this thread be, at least, hived off into a separate thread?

The legal issues of who can photograph what and where are important.

The social issues of who can and should photograph stuff, from road accidents to police violence, that may turn out to have relevance in law, is also important.

Horrific leadership and leadership policies can never be totally detached, but could it be discussed elsewhere?

And if this is just-me, then fine. Happy to be wrong.

@paperdigits to action/ignore :slight_smile:

16

My view is that the original swerve into this particular event was off topic and frankly weird. On my part, I was offering data to @paperdigits and don’t plan to engage in any further debate on the subject because there is no debate to be had. Racism can get in the bin.

1 Like