Is GDPR the neck shot for street photography

[Rob C]

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

[AnthonyM]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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.

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. 

[Rob C]

The problem with the concept of the "public interest" is that it has become confused with the public curiosity.

Rob

[32BT]

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"

[Ivophoto]

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.

Thanks, much appreciated.


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?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[RSL]

Exactly, Slobodan. Let's hope nothing this destructive happens here in the U.S. It's at least a hope. At the risk of criticism I'm going to quote the last paragraph of my article "On Street Photography," which LuLa published in December 2015:

"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."

[Rob C]

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)?

;-)

[Rob C]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Unless I just can't see your sarcasm warning signal, Slobodan, what other purpose can an amateur photographer have?

Sharing.

[OmerV]

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. 

[AnthonyM]

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.

[RSL]

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.

[AnthonyM]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Once again, politicians are looking for a distraction, red herring, scapegoat, and low-hanging fruit, i.e., photographers, when it comes to protecting privacy.

[RSL]

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” 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.

[Rob C]

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?

;-)

[Telecaster]

One of my favorite meals in recent years, which I ate in my hotel restaurant in Kona (Big Island, Hawai'i) while *watching the wild & crazy 7th game of the 2016 baseball World Series. Ahi (Big Eye tuna), grilled rare. Yum!

 

-Dave-

*Correction: this meal was 4 days later. T'was so good I ordered it again.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Please people (photographers, of all things!), stop posting underexposed pics.