Is GDPR the neck shot for street photography

[Alan Klein]

This is a discussion over the impact of a law on photography, not about the political background of that law.

Read my last post.  The impact is loss of freedom of expression for the photographer.  That is political.

[Ivo_B]

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.

[LesPalenik]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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.

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. 

[Ivophoto]

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.

[Alan Klein]

I found this on another site.  It shows how some people are dealing with the law in their photography.  The photos are actually pretty amusing.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4316028

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

[Telecaster]

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. 

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-

[AnthonyM]

it is not allowed to make pictures without prior consent.

The GDPR does not say this.

[Rob C]

Alan really does have an obsession with gnomes, hasn't he... I wonder if it comes from the bedtime stories he was fed?

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 rags flags.

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!

[Telecaster]

Careful, Rob. 

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-

[Ivophoto]

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.

[Ivophoto]

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.

[32BT]

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! ;-)  ;-)  ;-)

[Ivophoto]

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.

[32BT]

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.

[Ivophoto]

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.”

[Rob C]

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

[Rob C]

As an afterthought to my post above: it's a good reason for indulging in the megapìxel race: you can shoot with a wide and still crop big to get the real subject! Leave at home the conspicuous long lenses and even more silly zooms, and just use a prime wide nobody sees.

Or wear Lycra, and a GoPro on your head.

;-)

[32BT]

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...