Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Michael West on March 15, 2014, 09:59:28 am
-
Those planning a weekend break in Budapest take note. From 15 March anyone taking photographs in Hungary is technically breaking the law if someone wanders into shot, under a new civil code that outlaws taking pictures without the permission of everyone in the photograph. According to the justice ministry, people taking pictures should look out for those "who are not waving, or who are trying to hide or running out of shot".
the rest of the story (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures)
-
This comment below article mentions an interesting point....
What's this then?
http://www.farrer.co.uk/Global/Briefings/10.%20Media%20Group%20Briefing/Privacy%20v%20the%20right%20to%20freedom%20of%20expression%20Clarification%20from%20the%20ECHR.pdf
If publishing photos taken in public is a fundamental free speech right, then taking them of course is.
To be a member of the EU, a country to be a signatory to the ECHR, and its consitution has to be in conformity with it. That is why the UK has the EHRA (because it doesn't have a written consititution). Therefore, the law passed in Hungary can be challenged as unconsitutional. And taken to the ECtHR if necessary.
This happened a while back in Luxembourg, when police tried to seize photos taken by bystanders of an arrest. The supreme court ruled that to be compliant with the ECHR, people had to be allowed to do this.
-
civil code that outlaws taking pictures without the permission of everyone in the photograph.
I think it's basically the same in other European countries.
In France, street photography is said to have been basically dead for some 20 years now. (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/paris-city-of-rights/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) There would not have been, and cannot be another, Henri Cartier-Bresson with the laws they have now.
In Germany, the law states that it's illegal to publish anyone's photo without hir consent, but the actual court rulings imply it's already illegal to take anyone's photo without hir consent.
I suspect it's the same in Hungary and they are factually right when stating that their move "merely codifies existing court practice."
Meaning, of course, that the existing court practice is not covered by existing laws. It looks like the judges can do whatever they want, and after the fact the legislators write into the law whatever the judges do. I'm not sure that I like this principle.
-
Thank God around here (Finland) photography in all public places (and even privately owned properties like shops, malls and restaurants) all photography is totally free and can not be prohibited by anyone.
-
Thank God around here (Finland) photography in all public places (and even privately owned properties like shops, malls and restaurants) all photography is totally free and can not be prohibited by anyone.
Mmm, as Finland is a part of the EU, the European privacy laws are valid and those prohibit keeping privacy details without either consent or strict "valid" reasons. So if someone is recognisable on an image you almost always need consent.
-
To be a member of the EU, a country to be a signatory to the ECHR, and its consitution has to be in conformity with it. That is why the UK has the EHRA (because it doesn't have a written consititution).
Technically, what we don't have is a codified constitution. Our constitution, insofar as it goes beyond "The Queen in Parliament is supreme" is "written" in numerous judgments and studies of constitutional law. The link between the lack of a codified constitution and the necessity (if there was one) for the Human Rights Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/introduction) (which has no word beginning with "E" in its title) is tenuous at best.
Jeremy
-
Mmm, as Finland is a part of the EU, the European privacy laws are valid and those prohibit keeping privacy details without either consent or strict "valid" reasons. So if someone is recognisable on an image you almost always need consent.
No. If there are people in the picture and I do not keep a list or database of the names all the people in my pictures INCLUDING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, I am not in possession of a list/database with requires a permit.
Very distorted and far fetched view of the privacy laws you have there.
-
No. If there are people in the picture and I do not keep a list or database of the names all the people in my pictures INCLUDING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, I am not in possession of a list/database with requires a permit.
Very distorted and far fetched view of the privacy laws you have there.
I didn't wrote you need a permit from the government, I wrote that you need consent from the people in the image if they are recognisable in the image.
-
I didn't wrote you need a permit from the government, I wrote that you need consent from the people in the image if they are recognisable in the image.
I do not need the consent at least here in Finland. Better just believe it. There has been ZERO court cases here where anybody had tried to prevent a photographer, professional or amateur, from shooting any kind of pictures in a public place. It is perfectly legal. I have been doing it professionally for 35 years.
Having a photograph of somebody taken in a public place does not mean I have a possession of their privacy details. How could it if I have no idea who he/she is? As there is no privacy in a public place, having his/her image stored in a file means there is no infringement of (nonexistent) privacy.
-
I do not need the consent at least here in Finland. Better just believe it. There has been ZERO court cases here where anybody had tried to prevent a photographer, professional or amateur, from shooting any kind of pictures in a public place. It is perfectly legal. I have been doing it professionally for 35 years.
Having a photograph of somebody taken in a public place does not mean I have a possession of their privacy details. How could it if I have no idea who he/she is? As there is no privacy in a public place, having his/her image stored in a file means there is no infringement of (nonexistent) privacy.
I know of other laws where there are almost no known court cases, that doesn't mean it's allowed. I know people that have settled outside court after an image off them was used. The publication rather paid a -nice- sum out of court, than go to court.
An image of a face is clearly an identification and thus a privacy issue. Just read the EU-legislation.
It's off course possible that Finland is ignoring the EU-directive and thinking EU-directives are just for the other EU countries.
-
Just read the EU-legislation.
Please quote the part of EU legislation where it says taking a picture at a public place with someone in it is a breach of privacy and illegal? I bet there is no such law, only somebody's lopsided interpretation of some totally other privacy laws, like regarding keeping a database of private information.
Actually here the law regarding public places was made more lax recently. Now all places to where public has free access like restaurants, bars, shops, malls etc are considered public places. On the other hand taking pictures of anybody who is in his/her house or yard is strictly forbidden (that's why we have practically no paparazzi here).
-
Please quote the part of EU legislation where it says taking a picture at a public place with someone in it is a breach of privacy and illegal? I bet there is no such law, only somebody's lopsided interpretation of some totally other privacy laws, like regarding keeping a database of private information.
Actually here the law regarding public places was made more lax recently. Now all places to where public has free access like restaurants, bars, shops, malls etc are considered public places. On the other hand taking pictures of anybody who is in his/her house or yard is strictly forbidden (that's why we have practically no paparazzi here).
Technically you're right it's keeping those pictures stored that's bound by the privacy rules. For example on a memory card, film, LR or any other DAM software or storage system (HDD). The same goes for a cabinet with negatives for example.
Practically it's the same for almost all purposes.
I also think that the fact that you have practically no paparazzi in Finland, could be the reason that there are no court cases.
Look at :
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
see for example :
"Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;"
"Article 7
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or..."
"...or to one or more factors specific to his physical..."
--> a picture seems to fit that part.
-
Remember that paparazzis exist in Europe and if privacy was so onerously enforced as some claim, they wouldn't be quite so busy pestering folk.
-
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;"
"Article 7
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or..."
"...or to one or more factors specific to his physical..."
--> a picture seems to fit that part.
I do not think this covers photographs. Do yo have any cases where it was? Like I said: lopsided interpretation of the law.
-
Look at :
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
see for example :
"Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;"
"Article 7
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or..."
You are not analysing the text properly.
2(a) defines
personal data as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person"; and
an identifiable person as "one who can be identified ... by ... factors specific to his physical ... identity".
2(b) defines processing of personal data.
There is no suggestion that a photograph which includes a person, sufficient to bring him within the definition of "an identifiable person" itself constitutes "personal data". You are confusing the means of identification with the data which are to be protected.
In any event, EU directives, even if capable of direct application within a member state (that is, of being effective without being introduced into domestic law by the state's government) do not create criminal offences and hence do not render anything "illegal".
Jeremy
-
You are not analysing the text properly.
2(a) defines
personal data as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person"; and
an identifiable person as "one who can be identified ... by ... factors specific to his physical ... identity".
2(b) defines processing of personal data.
There is no suggestion that a photograph which includes a person, sufficient to bring him within the definition of "an identifiable person" itself constitutes "personal data". You are confusing the means of identification with the data which are to be protected.
In any event, EU directives, even if capable of direct application within a member state (that is, of being effective without being introduced into domestic law by the state's government) do not create criminal offences and hence do not render anything "illegal".
Jeremy
It's quite difficult to take a picture from someone without "Any information" of her/him, for example race, gender, maybe even religion or absence from religion.
I find you're conclusion of the effect of an EU-directive rather funny. It's then strange that some companies spend an awful amount of money to "defend" against those EU-directives.
BTW. It can be insightful to read some more info from the official privacy institutions within the EU. Naturally mostly in their official language.
-
Remember that paparazzis exist in Europe and if privacy was so onerously enforced as some claim, they wouldn't be quite so busy pestering folk.
There are people killing others, driving drunk, driving to fast, etc... in far higher numbers than there are paparazzis. (While "paparazzis" are often part of a "relationship" between people that want exposure and magazines.)
-
And th
There are people killing others, driving drunk, driving to fast, etc... in far higher numbers than there are paparazzis. (While "paparazzis" are often part of a "relationship" between people that want exposure and magazines.)
And those people get taken to court and tried for their crimes. Doesn't happen to paps and there's plenty of non-c-list celebs who would love not to be bothered, but cannot do anything about it.
-
It's quite difficult to take a picture from someone without "Any information" of her/him, for example race, gender, maybe even religion or absence from religion.
I find you're conclusion of the effect of an EU-directive rather funny. It's then strange that some companies spend an awful amount of money to "defend" against those EU-directives.
Again, you're misunderstanding the directive. And your amusement derives from your lack of understanding of the difference between criminal and civil jurisdiction.
Jeremy
-
Again, you're misunderstanding the directive. And your amusement derives from your lack of understanding of the difference between criminal and civil jurisdiction.
Jeremy
Well my understanding is based on information from local "Supervisory authority" , I doubt that they are misunderstanding the directive. I also know that the "Supervisory authority" has the right to fine and sue and has done so. In my understanding, where English is my 3th language, criminal means that the government has the right to sue when it's not having "damage" itself (and is thus no direct involved party).
BTW. In my country there's even more protection for subjects inside the author protection legislation (but I don't know if it's from the Berne convention itself), but this is about publication of images, not taking them.
-
There seems to be basic misunderstanding about the meaning of "information" contained in a photograph of a person, and a database listing certain exact attributes about the same person. An image is just an image, all "information" contained therein (like gender, height, skin color etc) are just an interpretation which requires a viewer judgement. If I photograph people on the street there is no (publicly) known way to turn my folder of photographs into a database containing "information" about these unidentified persons, as meant in the privacy laws.
I rest my case.
-
There seems to be basic misunderstanding about the meaning of "information" contained in a photograph of a person, and a database listing certain exact attributes about the same person
Indeed there does.
-
In my understanding, where English is my 3th language
Can I respectfully suggest that it is a bad idea to attempt textual analysis of a tightly-drafted document, involving legal concepts which may involve words used as terms of art, in your third language?
Jeremy
-
On the other hand taking pictures of anybody who is in his/her house or yard is strictly forbidden (that's why we have practically no paparazzi here).
or probably more accurately there isn't a market for pap photos. There's not a lot of international A listers there.
-
Technically you're right it's keeping those pictures stored that's bound by the privacy rules. For example on a memory card, film, LR or any other DAM software or storage system (HDD). The same goes for a cabinet with negatives for example.
Practically it's the same for almost all purposes.
I also think that the fact that you have practically no paparazzi in Finland, could be the reason that there are no court cases.
Look at :
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
see for example :
"Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;"
"Article 7
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or..."
"...or to one or more factors specific to his physical..."
--> a picture seems to fit that part.
You are very, very confused.
A photograph may allow a person to be identified - but it does not include any personal data about such persons.
In UK the law is very simple - any citizen can take any photograph of anyone or anything provided they take it from a public place (even if the subject is in a private place).
The Royal Photographic Society, jointly with the Association of Chief Police Officers, provides every member with a card to carry which explains this right as, sometimes, over-zealous policemen can be ignorant of the law. The card also explains when anti-terrorism legislation might be used to curtail photography - which is practically never. It also explains that the public have a right to photograph the police in the discharge of their duties - which some police don't like!
The only area of possible confusion is in the definition of "public place". It does not necessarily include "private places to which the public have access" where the owner can specify the conditions under which the public have access and such conditions might include restrictions on photography.
-
On the other hand taking pictures of anybody who is in his/her house or yard is strictly forbidden (that's why we have practically no paparazzi here).
That tends to be the case in Europe generally. Taking photos of people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is not something that even the paps can get away with.
They may appear to at times, but I recall seeing a magazine cover with some supposedly 'sneaky' shots of Robbie Williams and his latest woman. The shots were made to like like they were taken from a distance by a pap in a tree, but the perspectives were all wrong. The photographer was obviously standing much closer and taking pictures with consent of the subject.