I remember reading an interesting article about this, but annoyingly can’t remember where it was.
The gist of it was that there are quite stringent laws relating to personal data, which however do not apply to photos, unless there is further information (like time, place, name of person) attached to the images. (sorry, being a bit vague but going off memory).
But. For some reason there’s a general misconception among the German population that the laws to apply to any photo with a person in it.
This is just what I remember from one article (albeit fairly authoritative as I remember it) so don’t take my word for it!
Couple of links I did find (which don’t entirely agree with what I remember…)
This sounds far more relaxed than I remember it, while on the other hand …
… this article basically states the opposite and even more, like advising written consent before taking the photo.
I think there are basically two different things: 1) you photograph a person (or many) and use them as the subject of the photo. 2) you photograph for example a building, and people are standing in your line of sight. IMHO but IANAL, only the first case requires consent. However, also in the second case it might be not allowed to publish the image online - and I have read about such cases that were then tried in court (i.e., people found their photo online, where they were part of the background)
I think the best solution to the whole issue is having good cameras that appear non-professional. Panasonic has quite a few older micro 4/3 bodies with garish colors, including pink, red, and orange (eg a red GM5 here), Olympus has a few bodies in silver, and so does Sony. I do not know of any other manufacturers, but some Fujis have a silver top part.
But surely no security guard would claim that someone using a pink camera is professional.
I just came across Samuel Streetlife on youtube… he does some rather good interviews, among other stuff. Just started watching this one - which is rather relevant to this thread.
Document the order and identity of order giver, either in writing or video, comply and then sue later. It’s the courts’ job to know and interpret the law.
you get no photo out of this at the end of the day
it is possible that you will have to appear in court
and pay for the legal costs (at least until you recover them, depending on jurisdiction)
Here are my tips for street photography:
Use a small, inconspicuous camera body, and especially lens. Micro 4/3 is ideal and it is not a coincidence that a lot of street photographers favor it. A full-frame megazoom on the other hand will attract a lot of attention.
Don’t carry gear (backpacks etc) that screams “photographer”. Plain vanilla weather beaten backpack is best.
If you can, shoot from the waist, using the LCD. Raising your camera to eye level is conspicuous.
Don’t aim the lens at people close by. You can still get a shot with a modest wide angle lens (24mm eq) aiming it 10-15 degrees to either side and no one will care.
Sit down at a outdoor cafe. Shooting will be indistinguishable from just reviewing photos. Shutters won’t be heard in a typical city.
A modest tele lens (70-150mm) is your friend.
If people look at you, smile. This will make them smile, leading to a better shot, and will diminish the chance of a conflict.
Ask for permission if you want to take a portrait. Surprisingly many people say yes, both in developed and developing countries.
Alan Schaller (well worth a sub) mentions in his recent video that in France any citizen captured in a street photo has royalty rights over the picture (if I remember correctly). Don’t make your money shot a crowd scene!
FWIW, you only need a release form for pics of people taken on public land in the UK if you’re making money with the photo. But as someone already said, more and more public land is being sold to developers who create private space allowing the public in but imposing their own rules
I don’t do street photography for these very reasons. But I was in Charleston South Carolina a couple of months ago, which is a historical city filled with tourists with cameras, and some guy got upset and was literally in my face because he thought I took his photo when I was only taking a picture of a street sign.
I held out my iPhone and he demanded I that I page back. Fortunately he wasn’t in the scene as I was taking the picture. When he was satisfied that he wasn’t in the shot he stormed off. It was an odd encounter, and one that I don’t want to have again.
In fact here are two very distinct set of rules, one for taking pictures and one for publishing them. The URL above is only about the publication. But the rules about taking pictures are much more lax. In practice, unless you are “invading intimacy”, any picture you take from public space is OK
The whole thing with when you can use photos can be very complex. If the architect or artists of something it might actually fall under copyright law. case in point:
Similarly you are not allowed to use e.g. pictures of the Hollywood sign.
Personally I find asking people for consent on keeping the photos is polite. if they say no, just delete the photo and move on. asking upfront might be even better but might destroy the candid moment. Sometimes even asking first and then waiting a while for a candid moment to come again is an easy solution.
I understand that the Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel wants you to think this, but ultimately this is something that is decided in court. In most legal systems, a modification of an existing work has to be substantial to quality for copyright. Whether simply putting lights on a structure does this is an open question. Also, if they want to sue a foreigner, they might end up going to court in another country that takes a dim view (pun intended) of this copyright claim.
This just sounds like scare tactics. (Of course, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice; if you want to publish an album with the Eiffel tower at night, talk to a lawyer. Conversely, don’t take legal advice from people or companies that have their own agenda).
Of course this was very effective as a social media campaign, now a lot of tourists experience the frisson of doing something wicked when they snap a hackneyed photo of the tower using their mobile phones.
In any case, taking the shot is not illegal. Selling them as souvenirs without the author of the lighting getting a cut isn’t illegal either, it just exposes you to a lawsuit by said author.
Yes, there is unfortunately a lot of confused (and confusing) and poorly researched advice on the subject. When I looked into it some years ago, many articles didn’t even specify if they were talking about commercial or non-commercial photography - which is a rather important distinction, since the rules are very different.
In France, if it’s non-commercial, you can take photos of pretty much anyone and anything, as long as it’s in public where there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy. Basically the courts consider that if you’re in public, you have implicitly consented.
Publishing is a bit more tricky, but essentially as long as the subject is not a minor and the photo doesn’t prejudice them, you can publish in a non-commercial capacity without prior consent. There’s also the bit about copyrighted works such as buildings and sculptures.
I suppose that much of the confusion stems from the fact that the law says basically nothing on the subject, and it’s almost entirely down to jurisprudence.
My son is head of security at a large out of town shopping centre (UK) He tells me that because there is unrestricted public acces it is public space (you don’t pay in & don’t need to ask fot entry). He often gets Youtubers taking video’s and generaly trying to upset security. They also have a full time police presence on site. They cannot stop people filming or taking pictures unless they are causing a nuisance.
I suspect allowing phones but not a hand held cameras would also be discrimination. People with phones & small videoing equipment regularly commercially blog with images & video. Interestingly on YouTube you can see bloggers taking video’s at police stations (from outside). They take video’s & pictures of cars, people, buildings, policemen and police women even through the surrounding fencing. Some police officers take offence, they let their ego get in the way of the law, invoking terrorism law to detain and search (they’ve paid out thousands in illegal arrest claims). You will notice the cameras everywhere which surveil us, even recognise us. The UK police authority is right now asking government for access to 50 million passport photographs for use in recognising us. Who would have thought a topic here on pixls would get political.
