Is GDPR the neck shot for street photography

[Ivophoto]

Interesting article:

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)

[32BT]

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

[Ivophoto]

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.

[Ivophoto]

The GDPR specifically mention ‘secretly’ making pictures. This to protect against google glasses, hidden camera etc. Question is if shooting from the chest or even the hip with a clearly visible camera is considered as secretly as well.
Only time and law suits will learn I’m afraid.

[Rob C]

It's a sign of where we are going.

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

[LesPalenik]

In Canada and USA, we don't have and don't know GDPR, but I encountered similar situations in both countries.
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.

[32BT]

If you see the number of surveillance cameras at the new trainstation (the overt ones, mind you) it makes one wonder how they plan to implement "consent". I suppose i personally abide by the old adagium of expectancy of privacy, since i presume that will hold up in court. Not that i'd want to go through the hassle of a precedent, in fact, can't even afford that considering the chance of a loss.

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.

[Ivophoto]

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]

[Rob C]

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

[Ivophoto]

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.

[OmerV]

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.

[Ivophoto]

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

[32BT]

Who ever came up with the colloquialism "shoot" and "capture" for making a photo is apparently to blame for our current demise...

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[RSL]

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.

[Alan Klein]

You walk around New York City and everyone's snapping away especially with their cell phones.  With today's small cameras and phones, it's pretty easy to remain innocuous.  Even with big cameras, I don't think many people complain.  It's all part of the milieu.  Personally I' nervous when I shoot other people and tend to be very circumspect.  I do feel I'm invading their privacy.

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?

[Two23]

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

[Ivo_B]

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

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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