Is GDPR the neck shot for street photography

[RSL]

Wow! In other words, the EU doesn't understand "expectation of privacy" and that when somebody goes out in public he leaves that behind. HCB must be spinning in his grave.

[OmerV]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

[Telecaster]

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-

[Rob C]

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...

[Rob C]

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

[32BT]

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... !!!




;-)

[Rob C]

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.

[Alan Klein]

P&S's are good for street work as they give lots of DOF. DSLR's are unwieldy. 

[jeremyrh]

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 :-)

[Ivophoto]

You use autofocus Gosh, 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.

🤪

[Alan Klein]

Manual mode is overrated unless there are specific reasons for it.  For example, when I'm shooting through a dirty car window, I don;t want the focus to set on the window. But I let the aperture set itself.   I use shutter priority mode set at 1/60 when shooting videos at 30p (double the frame rate).    If I'm shooting landscapes, I'll use A priority for DOF.   For normal shots when traveling around, P mode is fine and quick.  Modern cameras are mostly smarter than me. 

[AnthonyM]

The GDPR requires member states to create an exception for, among other things, artistic works.  The UK has created such an exception, but I think that some states may be in default on this.

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.

[Ivophoto]

There are three overlapping areas.

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)

[Alan Klein]

What happens if you're taking a picture of your spouse with the Eiffel behind her and you get strangers in the shot?

[Alan Klein]

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?

[32BT]

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?

[Alan Klein]

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?

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. 

[Ivo_B]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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?