Post by: Ivophoto on September 03, 2018, 02:44:28 am
https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/how-bad-is-gdpr-for-photographers/ (https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/how-bad-is-gdpr-for-photographers/)
Yesterday I was making a candid shot on a public market. One of the market vendors asked me what I was doing and if I was press. I said I was not press and yes I was taking picture as street photographer.
As trader he clearly had some recent reading of the GDPR and asked to delete all my pictures on the card. I said I didn’t take any pictures of him or his business. He replied I committed a crime against EU regulation and if I didn’t delete he would call in the cops. Since I only make crappy pictures I didn’t saw the benefit to start an argument and deleted the card, more over because he started to shout that maybe I was a pervert.
So that’s where we are, according to GDPR it is strictly forbidden to take pictures from somebody without prior permission.
In recent discussions about street here on Lula, I mentioned that social and legal circumstances are changing street photography and even put it in illegality.
And now the peoples on the street are hearing the bell and sniffing an extra ‘right’ and some just will force every right they’ve have, the moribund street photography will soon die. (Or evolve to a new visual language)
Post by: 32BT on September 03, 2018, 03:57:07 am
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/technieuws/duitse-vrouw-filmt-verkeersovertreding-maar-krijgt-zelf-boete-voor-dashcam
Post by: Ivophoto on September 03, 2018, 04:12:39 am
It apparently was skewed prior to the gdpr as well:
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/technieuws/duitse-vrouw-filmt-verkeersovertreding-maar-krijgt-zelf-boete-voor-dashcam
Before GDPR it was local legislation and it differed from country to country. Now it is harmonized EU legislation.
Prior GDPR there was jurisdiction and sufficient precedents to put photographers at ease. This is not valid anymore.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 03, 2018, 04:19:14 am
Only time and law suits will learn I’m afraid.
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 05:12:52 am
Today, Sky News told us that in Britain, there are 80,000 people who pose danger as sex offenders towards children.
If saving even a couple of those kids means that we are discouraged from street snapping, then so be it. Yes, there may well be a link there, and I refuse to photograph kids at all now, even refusing parents requests when they know I am a photographer.
And it comes in handy: I have no desire to photograph their brats, and this atmosphere gives me the perfect reason to avoid the requirement as self-protection. It's an ill wind...
Rob
Post by: LesPalenik on September 03, 2018, 05:28:26 am
In Ontario, at a nearby lake, one jerk accused me of peeking at his sister's breast as I was photographing a distant ferry boat, and on the beach in Naples in Florida young couple worried that I photographed their young daughter and demanded to see the pictures on my camera card (I wasn't even aware of those two girls).
Time to switch to shooting birds or to get a right-angle lens adapter.
Post by: 32BT on September 03, 2018, 06:22:45 am
But i do see a change in attitude towards photographers: there's definitely more suspicion bordering paranoia. It may also be a disproportionate reaction to the instagram era in general. They take it out on the visible photographer even though they have probably been unknowingly captured on multiple phones in roughly the same area.
I did wonder if it makes sense to go the other way for capturing street. Wear one of those fluoresecent vests and/or a large tag with the word "PRESS" in bold lettering, in which case people seem to be fine with it or even slightly flattered that they might end up in a publication somewhere.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 03, 2018, 06:54:32 am
I did wonder if it makes sense to go the other way for capturing street. Wear one of those fluoresecent vests and/or a large tag with the word "PRESS" in bold lettering, in which case people seem to be fine with it or even slightly flattered that they might end up in a publication somewhere.
Well, street photography in it’s obsolete definitions is actually illegal in a fair part of the world.
As in the pre iron curtain period, social critique or observation was refined and concealed, wrapped in visual rebus, etc. I guess this is the way to go.
Commenting on human behavior can be in a less literal way, more a Plato way of showing the shadows and reflection.
At least that is what I try to achieve in my not candid street work and given my latest experience, I will focus on that. I guess it is an opportunity to move on and handle [dramaqueen mode] the de facto censorship of street photography. [/dramaqueen mode]
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 07:19:36 am
The Jean-Claude van Damme vehicle, Hard Target, touches on it in a far more literal and deadly way, but the intent, I still think, is identical: trophy.
Rob
Post by: Ivophoto on September 03, 2018, 08:05:04 am
The thing is, we all understand that we do it as a form of hunting. Possibly benign, it still makes one helluva lot of assumptions about our rights or otherwise to hunt down our fellow creatures.
The Jean-Claude van Damme vehicle, Hard Target, touches on it in a far more literal and deadly way, but the intent, I still think, is identical: trophy.
Rob
Well we touched about this earlier. It is not necessarily a hunt. It can be observation as well.
The classic street photography and the sibling candid is a hunt, for sure.
Post by: OmerV on September 03, 2018, 08:31:29 am
Well we touched about this earlier. It is not necessarily a hunt. It can be observation as well.
The classic street photography and the sibling candid is a hunt, for sure.
No, street photography is not a hunt. It is a benign exploration of life in an effort to create a meaningful statement or poem.
But if we photographers compare ourselves to hunters, hopping to shoot and bag trophies, then it makes sense that the public perception of us is antagonistic. Christ *&$#@!, we are our own worst enemies.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 03, 2018, 08:38:10 am
No, street photography is not a hunt. It is a benign exploration of life in an effort to create a meaningful statement or poem.
But if we photographers compare ourselves to hunters, hopping to shoot and bag trophies, then it makes sense that the public perception of us is antagonistic. Christ *&$#@!, we are our own worst enemies.
It should not be a hunt, but you point to the sore spot in you second paragraph. So true!
Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
Post by: 32BT on September 03, 2018, 08:52:35 am
But i suppose it is correct: if we are worth our salt, then it must be possible to "capture" our comment in a representative picture. If we don't manage to do that, then we don't have any case to make either.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 03, 2018, 09:56:55 am
... If saving even a couple of those kids means that we are discouraged from street snapping, then so be it...
I was always puzzled by this underlying logic. Just how is taking pictures in public “endangering” children? And vice versa, not taking “saving” them?
The rise of the uber-government (“uber” in its traditional meaning, i.e., “über”) is even more worrisome, by we can’t discuss that.
EDITED TO ADD: By the same token, why not ban all pictures of all women in all publications and media? That might save them from potential rapists.
Post by: RSL on September 03, 2018, 10:39:37 am
No, street photography is not a hunt. It is a benign exploration of life in an effort to create a meaningful statement or poem.
Well said, Omer, but you're not going to get most LuLa posters to understand that. Most of them think street photography is a "gotcha," and they haven't studied the subject enough to understand how wrong they are.
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2018, 11:38:19 am
I'm curious how security cameras mounted on the front of buildings and stores will be handled in the EU? After all, they're shooting everyone who's passing by and certainly that compromises their privacy. No?
Post by: Two23 on September 03, 2018, 11:46:06 am
As for photo'ing kids, I am careful about it. It's not against the law here but it can arouse suspicion. In some contexts there is no problem though. I don't see where not photo'ing kids will somehow "protect" them. I have two myself and had bigger worries than that. I once worked as an occupational therapist in a state mental hospital and personally knew over 40 pedophiles. I don't recall any of them having a record of going out and randomly photo'ing children. They were far too sneaky to do something that would attract attention like that.
Kent in SD
Post by: Ivo_B on September 03, 2018, 11:59:59 am
I really don't see how any of this can be enforced, considering the world has become saturated with people shooting billions of photos every day with their cell phones. I remember when I was in Glasgow ten years ago there were signs saying no photo'ing the subway. The subway was one of the reasons we traveled to Glasgow! We were on the verge of simply leaving there and going to another town when I found out the ban had been put on hold. If I can't take photos, I really don't see any point in going to those countries. The world is full of interesting places more inviting.
As for photo'ing kids, I am careful about it. It's not against the law here but it can arouse suspicion. In some contexts there is no problem though. I don't see where not photo'ing kids will somehow "protect" them. I have two myself and had bigger worries than that. I once worked as an occupational therapist in a state mental hospital and personally knew over 40 pedophiles. I don't recall any of them having a record of going out and randomly photo'ing children. They were far too sneaky to do something that would attract attention like that.
Kent in SD
It is not about how it can be enforced, I think it is more about in what kind of situation a photographer can end up without a legal fall back on what he is doing. I'm not in for the Bruce Gilden 'run hard' solution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2018, 12:42:13 pm
I really don't see how any of this can be enforced, considering the world has become saturated with people shooting billions of photos every day with their cell phones. I remember when I was in Glasgow ten years ago there were signs saying no photo'ing the subway. The subway was one of the reasons we traveled to Glasgow! We were on the verge of simply leaving there and going to another town when I found out the ban had been put on hold. If I can't take photos, I really don't see any point in going to those countries. The world is full of interesting places more inviting.
...
Kent in SD
Good point. If it really gets restrictive, foreign visitors will stop going to those countries. When hotels and other industries that rely on foreigners realize they're losing business, they'll stop this nonsense of restricting photography.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 03, 2018, 02:07:37 pm
I'm curious how security cameras mounted on the front of buildings and stores will be handled in the EU?
They are regulated depending on who is making the recordings. In principle recordings by the cameras in public space cannot be accessed by anyone other than a few listed individuals, and only municipal authorities are granted the right to record the public space in the first place. Shops may only record their own storefront and interiors. The recordings have to be deleted after a specified amount of time (which reduces the risk of them falling in the wrong hands), and that period varies. Upon request, the authorities/shop-owners will have to disclose what has been recorded (and has not yet been erased), when, and who has accessed those recordings and why.
Cheers,
Bart
Post by: RSL on September 03, 2018, 02:39:50 pm
Post by: OmerV on September 03, 2018, 03:34:36 pm
I was always puzzled by this underlying logic. Just how is taking pictures in public “endangering” children? And vice versa, not taking “saving” them?
The rise of the uber-government (“uber” in its traditional meaning, i.e., “über”) is even more worrisome, by we can’t discuss that.
EDITED TO ADD: By the same token, why not ban all pictures of all women in all publications and media? That might save them from potential rapists.
The truth is that 85-90% of child abuse is perpetrated by someone the child knows. Even pedophelia is largely committed by an acquaintance of the victim. In other words, parents, neighbors, relatives, and even siblings are the majority of child abusers. Strangers with cameras are not, though they make good scapegoats, apparently.
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2018, 04:46:18 pm
I was always puzzled by this underlying logic. Just how is taking pictures in public “endangering” children? And vice versa, not taking “saving” them?
The underlying logic is simple, as you know, and not contentious unless one chooses to make it so just for the sake of argument.
The problem, in the public snapping of them, lies in the step after the snapping: where the hell do the pix go, how are they used and to which wish lists do they become appended? Possibilities for later?
Personally, I can think of no reason why I would want to photograph a child not my own. There may be the odd HC-B or Ronis moment when something cute happens, but I'd rather pass and think of the mother if she's photogenic.
I have to admit that successfully snapping a pretty adult without permission does seem to me to be a trophy of sorts; I don't think it's even sexually motivated - it hardly causes me sleepless nights at my age - but definitely has something to do with getting away with something stealthy; yeah, that's the buzz: getting one over the established modes of public conduct. That said, I never feel any desire to shoot males. Never. Not even those I was paid to shoot - I hated it. I didn't know how to talk to them; I didn't and don't give a shit about sport, so all casual, pointless male conversational ice-brealers were beyond me.
I think I have two unknown-male shots in my website: one of an old guy hurrying past, head down, which I think I shot to check out if I could work my camera's af features, and another shot of an equally old guy looking at a baby-like thing in a window, which came across to me as a kind of metaphor for birth and death.
Yes, I photographed some musos, but they were regular players I got to know through the cameras, and I wasn't trying to photograph them as much as their instruments and the music, a project just as useless as Annie Leibovitz declared the fate of dance photography: you can't photograph dance. I think she's right. It's about time, not acrobatics per se; I said that bit, not she. I think it was what she was alluding to, but I might be mistaken.
Post by: Telecaster on September 03, 2018, 05:24:35 pm
-Dave-
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 04:27:23 am
This could be an opportunity for anyone who wants to apply the Crewdson approach to observed human interaction in public places. Do the observing sans camera, then recreate it in front of a camera with friends or family or hired talent. :)
-Dave-
That would immediately remove the buzz, the thrill of the chase. The antithesis of street, then?
The street shots that have pleased me most (of my few) were made by catching sight of an interesting face/outfit in the local market and following at a distance - or going on ahead (following from the front, as Peter Sellers says in What's New, Pussycat).
The charge was in creating something with an unaware actress. So, yeah, in one sense or more the idea of manipulation was ever there. Does that make a street shoot an exercise in control freakery or just a simple case of finding something not boring to do? Either way, it allowed me to enjoy the company of women at steps so far removed as to be on the saintly side of distant, no harm done the lady and a few minutes passed enjoying the graphic processes! At least photography can still offer that - as long as the processes are for the sake of an interesting (to me) subject, without which they become even greater wastes of precious time.
I think all people have the ability to express inner feelings facially; the difference is that when challenged to do so, most freeze or exaggerate to the ridiculous. That's where actors win, and some models too. Only by being unaware can the non-pro subject really manage to make convincing expressions for the camera. I think. Self-consciousness ties people up in knots.
P.S.
For some reason, I only use the central focus-point of the af system. Simple cameras, probably...
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 06:07:18 am
Good point. If it really gets restrictive, foreign visitors will stop going to those countries. When hotels and other industries that rely on foreigners realize they're losing business, they'll stop this nonsense of restricting photography.
You think? So far, doing exactly that in terms of pointing out how dependent the catering industry (and the health service) is on cheap, foreign labour has not stopped the madness of Brexit. Your premise is dependent on governments caring about issues more than they do about staying in power. Never happen.
Rob
Post by: 32BT on September 04, 2018, 08:17:55 am
For some reason, I only use the central focus-point of the af system. Simple cameras, probably...
You use autofocus??? Gosh, you're such an amateur... !!!
;-)
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 09:46:19 am
You use autofocus??? Gosh, you're such an amateur... !!!
;-)
Yep, I have two lenses with it: the 1.8/50 and the 2.8/180. I can't focus the long one by hand - hardly even frame with it without resorting to a 'pod of sorts - and the rest of the manual lenses tend to stay in the box a lot. Which is a pity, because I like my 2/35 a great deal, but the screens on the two bodies really suck. A split-image screen would have saved me from this focussing tyranny, but not from my lack of ability to frame well, hand-held, with long lenses. Age takes no prisoners. The scythe's not there for nothing.
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 10:23:08 am
Post by: jeremyrh on September 04, 2018, 10:32:24 am
Who ever came up with the colloquialism "shoot" and "capture" for making a photo is apparently to blame for our current demise...
I was nearly to blame for my own demise - on my way to an arrangement to take some photos at the House of Commons I wasn't sure which entrance to use and was on the point of asking a policeman about a "shoot". Luckily I rephrased my question in the nick of time :-)
Post by: Ivophoto on September 04, 2018, 10:32:31 am
You use autofocusGosh, you're such an amateur... !!!
;-)
Well, most full time pro’s photographers (Journalist, sport, events) I know shoot at TTL, P and AF zone. And if available TAv and auto ISO. Ok some will go in Tv with their flash
M, Av, manual focus and, God may help them, spot metering is for amateur first class who likes to practice intellectual masturbation.
🤪
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 11:14:54 am
Post by: AnthonyM on September 04, 2018, 12:48:53 pm
Here is a link to Article 85 of the GDPR https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/
In the UK street photography continues to flourish.
The reports of the death of street photography are an exeggeration.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 04, 2018, 01:56:27 pm
Portrait right
Author right
Privacy.
It is the combination of the three that makes things complex. At this moment there is no jurisdiction yet and no precedence. It is waiting to see how lawsuits turn out.
Apart from the his, GDPR is brought under a lot of peoples attention and they only remember what they want: it is not allowed to make pictures without prior consent.
That makes discussions very cumbersome and up forehand not worth the effort.
But I would be interested in Jeremy’s point of view (as lawyer)
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 02:57:55 pm
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 03:02:54 pm
Post by: 32BT on September 04, 2018, 03:47:44 pm
Why would Europeans in one particular country accept what some bureaucrat gnome in Brussels thinks is best for everyone? Don't Germans, Frenchmen, British, Spaniards, etc want to control their own destinies? Why do you put up with this nonsense?
Because the original intent had nothing to do at all with photography. That's just a freak side effect of these all encompassing, sweeping attempts to capture the digital age in an ancient judicial system. The original intent was protection from data harvesting by large commercial entities operating (on) the internet.
But this just gets into politics, Alan, whereas the OP had a specific concern. We wouldn't want to get the thread locked, no?
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 03:52:13 pm
Because the original intent had nothing to do at all with photography. That's just a freak side effect of these all encompassing, sweeping attempts to capture the digital age in an ancient judicial system. The original intent was protection from data harvesting by large commercial entities operating (on) the internet.I was concerned about making it more political. But the whole issue is political. How can you discuss it without discussing the politicas of it? This is about government policy. Politics comes from the word policy.
But this just gets into politics, Alan, whereas the OP had a specific concern. We wouldn't want to get the thread locked, no?
Post by: Ivo_B on September 04, 2018, 03:55:42 pm
I was concerned about making it more political. But the whole issue is political. How can you discuss it without discussing the politicas of it? This is about government policy. Politics comes from the word policy.
This is a discussion over the impact of a law on photography, not about the political background of that law.
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 04:03:07 pm
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 04:05:03 pm
Read my last post. The impact is loss of freedom of expression for the photographer. That is political.
This is a discussion over the impact of a law on photography, not about the political background of that law.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 04, 2018, 04:07:04 pm
This whole thing has to do with freedom. Every time government regulates, someone's freedom is limited or removed. While so-called protecting the person being photographed (in public), the government is restricting the photographer's freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If I want to take a picture of a cop berating a citizen, this law will also prevent me from shooting it. So it also limits freedom of the press and protects government abuse of their authorities. This is not just about the person who is photographed. Don;t box in or limit who is being hurt or helped with this law. This would be unconstitutional in America. Why do Europeans put up with the government, gnomes in Brussels, taking away their liberties?
Alan,
Again:
This is a discussion over the impact of a law on photography, not about the political background of that law. And about freedom: Someones freedom ends where someone else freedom start.
Post by: LesPalenik on September 04, 2018, 04:10:26 pm
What happens if you're taking a picture of your spouse with the Eiffel behind her and you get strangers in the shot?
It would get even more complicated if you tried to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night and one of the strangers were a Chinese toddler dressed in open-crotch pants.
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 04:22:56 pm
Alan,I'm not discussing "background" of how and why the law was developed. I'm telling you how the law effects photographers today who want to shoot pictures in the street. They can't! Their rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech are being denied. That IS the impact of the law on photography. Everything else is just conversation and stupidly meaningless.
Again:
This is a discussion over the impact of a law on photography, not about the political background of that law. And about freedom: Someones freedom ends where someone else freedom start.
I'm glad you mentioned "freedom ends when someone else's freedom starts." So Europe prefers protecting people walking around in public and having their picture taken over people's right to express themselves and speak freely, among the very basis of the freedoms of man? That's nuts! Well it is your continent.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 04, 2018, 04:37:37 pm
I'm not discussing "background" of how and why the law was developed. I'm telling you how the law effects photographers today who want to shoot pictures in the street. They can't! Their rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech are being denied. That IS the impact of the law on photography. Everything else is just conversation and stupidly meaningless.
I'm glad you mentioned "freedom ends when someone else's freedom starts." So Europe prefers protecting people walking around in public and having their picture taken over people's right to express themselves and speak freely, among the very basis of the freedoms of man? That's nuts! Well it is your continent.
I’m not going to elaborate on this because it would end in examples of nuttiness we in Europe don’t understand the way freedom is understood on your continent. And we are not conflict sick here on Lula, aren’t we, Alan?
So, I’m not interested (Here on Lula)in why there is a legal restriction but I’m interested in how to deal with it.
If we lived a few miles away, I would invite you in a local pub and happily discuss till next day about the whole shit, but not here on a forum.
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 04:59:08 pm
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4316028
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 04, 2018, 05:13:43 pm
This guy, for instance, would have been arrested today, charged with sexual battery and a dozen other "crimes," would end up in court, jailed possibly, fired from work or dishonorably discharged from the navy, and required to register as a sexual predator for the rest of his life. The photographer, however, would be ok, since it happened in the States. In Europe, on the other hand, he might end up in jail too :(
Post by: Telecaster on September 04, 2018, 05:46:52 pm
That would immediately remove the buzz, the thrill of the chase. The antithesis of street, then?
Yup. But if your goal is to show "what's goin' on out there" rather than hunt per se, it'd do the job. Or at least a job. Anyway you (the general "you," that is) could still do the chasing, just not with a gizmo in your hands. And the documentarian in you could have some satisfaction despite the verboten status of visual documentary tools. :)
Quote
I think all people have the ability to express inner feelings facially; the difference is that when challenged to do so, most freeze or exaggerate to the ridiculous. That's where actors win, and some models too. Only by being unaware can the non-pro subject really manage to make convincing expressions for the camera. I think. Self-consciousness ties people up in knots.
I find younger folks are less self-conscious, increasingly down with playing to the camera. I don't mean the "posing for Instagram" phony stuff either. Just being themselves but yet knowingly on display too. YouTube is chock-a-block with 'em. (And with phonies too, of course…it's all there.)
-Dave-
Post by: AnthonyM on September 04, 2018, 05:58:31 pm
it is not allowed to make pictures without prior consent.
The GDPR does not say this.
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 06:13:14 pm
They used to belong in Zurich, but then Switzerland isn't a member, an inconvenient little fact overlooked by the idiots who refuse to see beyond the confines of national
All that "fighting for the national freedom" which was never lost, simply means that the UK citizens will, if this goes through as some pray, lose the rights they had gained within a greater Europe. Yep, lose more to gain less. But why am I surprised? The Mallorcans have long wondered why the Brits in the 80s used to drive all the way down to Palma and it's single megastore (Continente) of the era, spending all that dough on gas just to save a few pesetas on a bottle of wine. No, they still don't get it, but at least they admit that the Brits seem consistent.
You see? We have resolved and exorcise the childhood gnome problem as well as the British thirst for the faux bargain, so all is well down in the barn and I can turn off the ears and put the iPad to bed and follow suit.
Buenas!
Post by: Telecaster on September 04, 2018, 11:50:10 pm
Our tragedy is that there are good points to be made on all sides of these issues (there are generally more than two sides, BTW) but they tend to get drowned out by rhetorical heat. In the public sphere, that is. I'm heartened that they're starting to be made with greater frequency behind the lines.
-Dave-
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 12:38:56 am
The times have changed, and not for the better.
This guy, for instance, would have been arrested today, charged with sexual battery and a dozen other "crimes," would end up in court, jailed possibly, fired from work or dishonorably discharged from the navy, and required to register as a sexual predator for the rest of his life. The photographer, however, would be ok, since it happened in the States. In Europe, on the other hand, he might end up in jail too
Yup. That is a nice and comprehensive resume. Hopefully the girl was over 18 and you are not getting to be prosecuted by Getty Images or so.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 01:31:18 am
The GDPR does not say this.
Can you explain what the GDPR is saying, if you have a clear sight on the situation? It would help a lot to understand.
As I understand it from the dozens of explanations, it is not allowed to collect personal data without prior consent. And biometrics are considered as personal data. A face is personal data. Hence it is not allow to take a picture of somebody’s face without prior consent.
It is true there is debate about it, but experts seems not aligned and thing are ambiguous.
Point is, GDPR is complex and people are made aware last weeks by the trillion of mails and letters and only remember the easy part and understand it how it fits them in a particular situation.
I spoke our local police about it and they’re simply don’t know. I asked how they would react in case of escalated discussions on the street. They would go for the conservative approach and instruct to delete all pictures.
After all, there is a huge gap between having a right and getting it. And this dagger cuts on both sides.
Post by: 32BT on September 05, 2018, 02:37:33 am
As I understand it from the dozens of explanations, it is not allowed to collect personal data without prior consent. And biometrics are considered as personal data. A face is personal data. Hence it is not allow to take a picture of somebody’s face without prior consent.
Well, actually the gdpr pertains to the processing and storage of personally identifyable data, which is to say: you can take a picture of a face no problem, but it becomes a problem if you'd next apply algorithms with facedetection to idenify the person and store that info in your image db. You would then have obligations to protect that data and ask for prior consent. I suppose a facedetection sorting algol in your favourite dam sw is now out of the question, but you can still take and store pictures...
What then about the new Nikon Z in-camera face detection option? I guess it just proofs that Sony's eye-af was superior all along! ;-) ;-) ;-)
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 03:46:39 am
Well, actually the gdpr pertains to the processing and storage of personally identifyable data, which is to say: you can take a picture of a face no problem, but it becomes a problem if you'd next apply algorithms with facedetection to idenify the person and store that info in your image db. You would then have obligations to protect that data and ask for prior consent. I suppose a facedetection sorting algol in your favourite dam sw is now out of the question, but you can still take and store pictures...
What then about the new Nikon Z in-camera face detection option? I guess it just proofs that Sony's eye-af was superior all along! ;-) ;-) ;-)
And if I understood it correctly here you have an overlap with portrait right and if a person is the main recognizable subject or merely a accidental presence on a scene.
Post by: 32BT on September 05, 2018, 03:56:33 am
And if I understood it correctly here you have an overlap with portrait right and if a person is the main recognizable subject or merely a accidental presence on a scene.
I recently had a person shout at me: hey, i have portraitrights you know.
And i was like: well, then i first need to sell that ugly face of yours, no?
But that was just in my head, mind you. In actuallity i flashed them a friendly smile and asked them how they enjoyed their stay in our beautiful town and some such smalltalk.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 04:05:59 am
I recently had a person shout at me: hey, i have portraitrights you know.
And i was like: well, then i first need to sell that ugly face of yours, no?
But that was just in my head, mind you. In actuallity i flashed them a friendly smile and asked them how they enjoyed their stay in our beautiful town and some such smalltalk.
It depends a lot on how you react. Absolutely correct, sadly, we live together with a community very negative towards photography. In Antwerp, Cocaine trade is booming, involved people doesn’t like to be on a photo and don’t give a shit if it is for the sake of art.
If I have someone objecting and asking if He is on my photo, I chimp look surprised and then: “o, but that’s ok, you didn’t ruin my pic.”
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 04:07:54 am
Rob
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 04:14:51 am
Or wear Lycra, and a GoPro on your head.
;-)
Post by: 32BT on September 05, 2018, 05:42:08 am
In the end, for those of us (is it only I?) who still believe that most street is basically hunting - so did HC-B: "à la sauvette" anyone? - it adds yet another layer of frisson... what's not to like? You are now almost betting the farm on your stealth prowess!
Rob
There's a certain romantic angle to the idea, i have to admit. Getting killed in the act, and the last picture they pry from your dead hands is an absolute masterpiece...
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 06:00:14 am
There's a certain romantic angle to the idea, i have to admit. Getting killed in the act, and the last picture they pry from your dead hands is an absolute masterpiece...
Would I still have copyright that can be transferred to my "estate"?
I laugh when people refer to someone's estate which, as people live ever longer (and banks pay ever less for making ever more from your money) on diminishing returns, usually means next to bankruptcy...
;-)
Rob
Post by: AnthonyM on September 05, 2018, 06:02:27 am
Can you explain what the GDPR is saying, if you have a clear sight on the situation? It would help a lot to understand.
As I understand it from the dozens of explanations, it is not allowed to collect personal data without prior consent. And biometrics are considered as personal data. A face is personal data. Hence it is not allow to take a picture of somebody’s face without prior consent.
It is true there is debate about it, but experts seems not aligned and thing are ambiguous.
Point is, GDPR is complex and people are made aware last weeks by the trillion of mails and letters and only remember the easy part and understand it how it fits them in a particular situation.
I spoke our local police about it and they’re simply don’t know. I asked how they would react in case of escalated discussions on the street. They would go for the conservative approach and instruct to delete all pictures.
After all, there is a huge gap between having a right and getting it. And this dagger cuts on both sides.
The GDPR does not apply to data collected for personal purposes. So there is no general restriction on street photography.
In addition, the GDPR requires Member States to have exemptions for freedom of expression, journalism and art (and a number of other matters). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/
The UK's implementation of this exception is here, in part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2
The type of street photography which appears on this site would fall under the art exemption (there is no quality threshold!). Street photography continues to flourish in the UK.
The bigger issue is privacy. In general there is no right to privacy in a public place, but some qualifications on this have been imposed in recent cases, with the Sir Cliff Richard case being the most recent and prominent. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799. The Naomi Campbell case is also important, but even here the European Court of Human Rights (which is not part of the EU) partly upheld the right of freedom of expression. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12218338
Please note that the law in other EU member states may contain significant differences.
Post by: Alan Klein on September 05, 2018, 06:16:26 am
The GDPR does not apply to data collected for personal purposes. So there is no general restriction on street photography.The bolded link removes some of my concerns about freedom of expression. Additionally, how can their be privacy issues in a public space if only a picture is being taken? If this article holds fast, street photography should continue pretty much as it has been. It will only become a problem if people use the GDPR as an excuse to impose restrictions that aren't intended.
In addition, the GDPR requires Member States to have exemptions for freedom of expression, journalism and art (and a number of other matters). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/ (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/)
The UK's implementation of this exception is here, in part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2)
The type of street photography which appears on this site would fall under the art exemption (there is no quality threshold!). Street photography continues to flourish in the UK.
The bigger issue is privacy. In general there is no right to privacy in a public place, but some qualifications on this have been imposed in recent cases, with the Sir Cliff Richard case being the most recent and prominent. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799). The Naomi Campbell case is also important, but even here the European Court of Human Rights (which is not part of the EU) partly upheld the right of freedom of expression. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12218338 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12218338)
Please note that the law in other EU member states may contain significant differences.
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 06:19:46 am
Rob
Post by: 32BT on September 05, 2018, 06:23:35 am
The problem with the concept of the "public interest" is that it has become confused with the public curiosity.
Rob
Why did i just read "pubic curiosity"???
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 08:57:03 am
The GDPR does not apply to data collected for personal purposes. So there is no general restriction on street photography.Thanks, much appreciated.
In addition, the GDPR requires Member States to have exemptions for freedom of expression, journalism and art (and a number of other matters). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/
The UK's implementation of this exception is here, in part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2
The type of street photography which appears on this site would fall under the art exemption (there is no quality threshold!). Street photography continues to flourish in the UK.
The bigger issue is privacy. In general there is no right to privacy in a public place, but some qualifications on this have been imposed in recent cases, with the Sir Cliff Richard case being the most recent and prominent. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799. The Naomi Campbell case is also important, but even here the European Court of Human Rights (which is not part of the EU) partly upheld the right of freedom of expression. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12218338
Please note that the law in other EU member states may contain significant differences.
Probably the crux here in Belgium and maybe other countries is the lagging national legislation.
On the other hand, what about part time pro’s (as I am) and the free work they are shooting?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 09:29:47 am
The GDPR does not apply to data collected for personal purposes. So there is no general restriction on street photography...
That might be true, but totally irrelevant, as long as the public believes, as it does, that no one has the right to take picture of someone else without prior consent.
The only solution is arest for haressment of anyone who aggressively approaches a photographer in a public space.
Besides, nobody shoots for “personal purposes.” Vivian Maier notwithstanding.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 09:41:51 am
"Although good street photography is a powerful art form, it’s also a way of recording what people really are like and for those after us, a way of learning what we were like. It seems to me that besides the satisfaction it can give you, those two facts alone make it worthwhile."
Of course we'll have newspapers and other publications, won't we? People will be able to look back a hundred years in those media and see what we were like then. Right? As Wellington said, "Madam, if you believe that, you will believe anything."
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 10:34:32 am
Why did i just read "pubic curiosity"???
Wishful thinking of times past, when a little mystery added content (to use Internet photo-language on such a delicate matter)?
;-)
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 10:40:11 am
That might be true, but totally irrelevant, as long as the public believes, as it does, that no one has the right to take picture of someone else without prior consent.
The only solution is arest for haressment of anyone who aggressively approaches a photographer in a public space.
Besides, nobody shoots for “personal purposes.” Vivian Maier notwithstanding.
Unless I just can't see your sarcasm warning signal, Slobodan, what other purpose can an amateur photographer have?
Russ' historian take makes fine reading, but certainly never crossed my mind at any time!
Rob
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 11:14:42 am
Unless I just can't see your sarcasm warning signal, Slobodan, what other purpose can an amateur photographer have?
Sharing.
Post by: OmerV on September 05, 2018, 11:27:22 am
That might be true, but totally irrelevant, as long as the public believes, as it does, that no one has the right to take picture of someone else without prior consent.
The only solution is arest for haressment of anyone who aggressively approaches a photographer in a public space.
Besides, nobody shoots for “personal purposes.” Vivian Maier notwithstanding.
Yep, and unfortunately police intervention may be the only way to educate some folks. I’ve done it, and thankfully with a cop who totally understood that taking pictures in public is legal. Still, the disbelief of my antagonists was disheartening.
Post by: AnthonyM on September 05, 2018, 12:10:54 pm
Additionally, how can their be privacy issues in a public space if only a picture is being taken? If this article holds fast, street photography should continue pretty much as it has been. It will only become a problem if people use the GDPR as an excuse to impose restrictions that aren't intended.
Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view. However, there are many people who feel that even in public there are some situations where privacy should prevail, and the Naomi Campbell and Cliff Richard cases are examples. There is, after all, a lot of difference between doing something which only one other person might see and doing something which the whole world can see. And a brief moment can be converted into something permanent. So while I agree with you, I can accept that other views may also be reasonable.
Some countries already have strict privacy laws which extend to the public space, France is, I believe, an example of this.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 12:18:46 pm
Post by: AnthonyM on September 05, 2018, 02:12:29 pm
Hi Anthony, You don't deign to tell us where you are, but both the the Naomi Campbell and Cliff Richard cases are British problems, not American problems. U.S. law understands that when you're out in public you have no expectation of privacy. Europe and England used to understand that too. Unfortunately, the EU has muddied the waters. Of course the idea of no expectation of privacy doesn't extend to something like making a woman on the street at night look like a streetwalker, but in the U.S. as long as you don't screw around with your photography to make your subjects look like something they aren't, you're in clover.
Hi, Russ, I am in the UK.
The UK is certainly much closer to the US than to much of Europe, but the real driver of the privacy issue in Europe is national culture. Cartier-Bresson is probably turning in his grave over the current French law of privacy.
Another fact is the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects both freedom of expression and privacy. There are clearly plenty of situations where these rights can conflict, and it is then up to the judges to balance the competing rights. In the last fifteen years or so the balance has tilted more towards privacy, but in the UK at least this tends to be in fairly extreme cases. There have, however, been many examples of officials and individuals stepping over the mark in trying to stop photographers, often on alleged security grounds, and I believe you have had similar situations in the USA as well.
We need to encourage photographers to continue to shoot street, and not to be frightened off by misleading statements about the law or by unwarranted demands from officials.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 02:20:04 pm
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 03:39:11 pm
Hi, Russ, I am in the UK.
The UK is certainly much closer to the US than to much of Europe, but the real driver of the privacy issue in Europe is national culture. Cartier-Bresson is probably turning in his grave over the current French law of privacy.
Another fact is the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects both freedom of expression and privacy. There are clearly plenty of situations where these rights can conflict, and it is then up to the judges to balance the competing rights. In the last fifteen years or so the balance has tilted more towards privacy, but in the UK at least this tends to be in fairly extreme cases. There have, however, been many examples of officials and individuals stepping over the mark in trying to stop photographers, often on alleged security grounds, and I believe you have had similar situations in the USA as well.
We need to encourage photographers to continue to shoot street, and not to be frightened off by misleading statements about the law or by unwarranted demands from officials.
Thanks, Anthony for your straightforward answer. And you’re right. There have been cases in the U.S. where, incredibly, judges have stepped over the line and found that even though you’re in the middle of a crowd you still have an expectation of privacy. Happily, as far as I know, those judges always have been shot down on appeal.
There’s even the Svenson case in New York, where a photographer shot pictures of his neighbors through their windows. Svenson lost the case, but the finding later was reversed by the New York Supreme Court. He did agree to remove the pictures from his website. I think the NY Supremes were wrong in reversing, because inside your house you SHOULD have an expectation of privacy, and similar cases in other states have gone the other way.
But, bottom line, here in the U.S. you should be okay shooting street in public places. Happily, U.S. photographers have Bert P. Krages’s “The Photographer's Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)” to download and keep handy in case some rent-a-cop gets over-eager. Bert’s an Attorney who’s also a photographer, so he stays up on law that applies to photographers.
Post by: Rob C on September 06, 2018, 05:10:24 am
Sharing.
Hopefully, that's a very secondary motivation, though if we think about the pictures of restaurant meals that travel the ether, perhaps it's not. I really want to share those dishes of fish with other people... pavement pizzas, on the other hand, have investigative merits, don't you think?
;-)
Post by: Telecaster on September 06, 2018, 04:20:31 pm
;D
-Dave-
*Correction: this meal was 4 days later. T'was so good I ordered it again.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 06, 2018, 04:31:20 pm
Post by: LesPalenik on September 06, 2018, 09:00:49 pm
Please people (photographers, of all things!), stop posting underexposed pics.
It's not only the underexposure, but also the amount of mercury and charcoal particles. For next time, I'd recommend a poached yellow snapper.
Post by: Rob C on September 07, 2018, 04:24:10 am
Please people (photographers, of all things!), stop posting underexposed pics.
You want more nudes?
;-)
Post by: Telecaster on September 07, 2018, 03:09:44 pm
:D
-Dave-
Post by: LesPalenik on September 10, 2018, 09:47:19 am
Post by: JNB_Rare on September 10, 2018, 10:47:21 am
Never mind street photography, here is a whitewater river image, shot last weekend on Gull River in Ontario showing quality family time.
Re-posted on the Internet as 'Man forces terrified child to participate in dangerous shoot-the-rapids gamble'. ;)
Post by: LesPalenik on September 10, 2018, 11:15:40 am
Re-posted on the Internet as 'Man forces terrified child to participate in dangerous shoot-the-rapids gamble'. ;)
And I suspect, he doesn't even have a whitewater paddling licence.