The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws

[Alan Klein]

Rob,  I would sincerely like you to explain how you would look at a photographer and designate him as a serious news photographer, a serious artist, a street snapper, a total goof, or a guy who's running down the street with a stolen camera, or whatever, without having the government do that. And if the government does that, guess what? The only "snappers" you'll see are those that the government likes. You're reflecting a little of what I describe as the European taste for authoritarianism -- you apparently want some authority to tell you who can do what. In the US, at least in theory, we reject the idea that the government has the right to tell us what to do, unless that is sanctioned by the people through their legal representatives. In other words, our default position is that we can do what we wish, and there may unfortunately be some restrictions on that. The European position seems to be that the people have no rights in particular, except those defined by the authorities. That's why the queen is called a sovereign, and the Brits in general are called her subjects. (We all know it doesn't work exactly that way in reality, but that's the historical basis for the all-powerful sovereign that reigns over the people, whether it be a king or a parliament.) The US Constitution, on the other hand, says (Amendment X of the Bill of Rights) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

As far as the order/chaos thing goes, Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That's been redone over the years by a variety of pundits, and now is most often seen as "Anyone who'd give up a little freedom for a little safety will soon have neither." That's also our default position here: we'd rather have a little chaos from time to time, as we are having now, than a police state, however warm and cuddly that police state tries to pretend to be.

   

Well said.

[Alan Klein]

In the other East European states, that anti-government sentiment and genes were developed equally effectively under the Habsburgs and then the Communists. However, instead of a violent resistance, the frustrated denizens often fought the ruling bullies with pretending idiocy and incompetence, as well as humour. As reported in the most translated Czech novel The Good Soldier Svejk.

Reminds me of the WWII German soldier Sgt. Schultz of the old TV program Hogan's Hero.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXrpxo4uC0

[Rob C]

Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.

Erwitt: being or not being an amateur when you are already an established pro is not difficult to get: if you do it (that kind of photography - street) for pleasure and without expectations of turning a buck from it, you are doing it exercising your amateur status; if you do it hoping to turn a buck (as could happen to a commercial photographer also well enough known to interest the wider public) by getting published in some magazine somewhere, then you are doing it wearing your pro hat. By that definition, a full-time stock shooter could almost never be able to claim an amateur status for his photography since the agencies tell you anything can be a subject for sales. Which latter is one helluva hook: sure, the subject may be of commercial value, but it doesn't imply that your shot of it is going to be the one that sells! Great business model - for agencies.

;-)

[RSL]

I adopted the “amateur” word because Jim used the term “amateur pursuit” to distinguish that kind of work from, I would guess, “professional” work. I probably shouldn’t have made that kind of distinction because the real difference is why you do it. You, of all people, know that when you’re shooting or writing for pay, you’ve got to satisfy your client or your market. When you’re shooting or writing as an amateur (amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant), you’re doing it for love – because there’s something you want, or better yet, need to say. To me, real street photography is an expression of amor, whether you consider yourself a pro or an amateur. I’d go further and say that real art always is an expression of love. Your professional status has nothing to do with it. Erwitt was an established professional photographer but he did his street photography as an expression of amor. I was an established professional software engineer but I did my street photograph as an expression of amor. The only difference I can see is that Elliott’s professional equipment was usable in his street photography. (On the other hand, ever see a picture of his beat-up Leica?) 

[Rob C]

I adopted the “amateur” word because Jim used the term “amateur pursuit” to distinguish that kind of work from, I would guess, “professional” work. I probably shouldn’t have made that kind of distinction, because the real difference is why you do it. You, of all people, know that when you’re shooting or writing for pay, you’ve got to satisfy your client or your market. When you’re shooting or writing as an amateur (amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant), you’re doing it for love – because there’s something you want, or better yet, need to say. To me, real street photography is an expression of amor, whether you consider yourself a pro or an amateur. I’d go further and say that real art always is an expression of love. Your professional status has nothing to do with it. Erwitt was an established professional photographer but he did his street photography as an expression of amor. I was an established professional software engineer but I did my street photograph as an expression of amor. The only difference I can see is that Elliott’s professional equipment was usable in his street photography. (On the other hand, ever see a picture of his beat-up Leica?) 

Exactly. Pretty much what I tried to express in my post.

Even pro photography, when you are lucky with a client, is nothing more and nothing less than self-expression with the happy additional value of letting you eat another day. Many of us were able to say that, by and large, we picked work genres that were fairly likely to allow that sort of self-indulgence to blossom. It was an aspect of my life that many couldn't understand: in particular, I'll never forget Ann's Dad asking me, in utter incomprehension, why I would no longer shoot weddings; he was a surveyor with a successful business, and I will never forget his immortal line: "a shithouse or a palace - it's the same to me: I get well paid to measure it!" What could I say or even begin to try to explain about why being a photographer in a specific field mattered to me? Fortunately, Ann never, ever, put things like that to me. She understood because we met so young and she knew all about my career desires as quickly as I did. Was I lucky!

[RSL]

Looks as if we agree, Rob. And your story about “…why I would no longer shoot weddings…” hit home. That was why I gave up any idea of turning pro with a camera. And you were indeed lucky to find your Ann. Many years later I found out that after our first date my Autumn told her best friend: “I just met the man I’m going to marry.” I felt the same way, and still feel the same way nearly seventy years later. Few, I think, are that fortunate.

[Jim Pascoe]

Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.

Well Russ the only reason I mentioned money in my post, was that unless you are trying to sell your pictures pretty much nobody in them is going to see them.  So there will never be repercussions from taking the pictures in the first place.  The point being that in spite of some apparently draconian laws in some parts of Europe, for the most part you could shoot away quite happily for your own satisfaction.  My experience is that there are not hoards of police or vigilantes out looking for photographers breaking any laws.  Personally I prefer the type of 'Street' photography where I often engage with my subjects (I know that does not fit with your view of the genre and I have no problem with that), sometimes I will shoot trying not to attract attention to myself, because I want to capture people unawares.  However I'm not fond of 'furtive' photography where I feel the subject may object to or have grounds for, not wanting their picture taken.

So I appreciate it's not a professional pursuit, and although I make all my income from photographing people - it's because they or somebody is paying me for the pictures - 'Street' photography is just for my own pleasure.  And as I say, in the UK perfectly legal.

Jim

[Jim Pascoe]

Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.

That picture is not 'documentary' by my estimation.  It tells me nothing.  As a piece of art it may have some merit - for me it is an interesting juxtaposition of heads.  That is all.  But I'm not especially interested in it.

Jim

[RSL]

That picture is not 'documentary' by my estimation.  It tells me nothing.  As a piece of art it may have some merit - for me it is an interesting juxtaposition of heads.  That is all.  But I'm not especially interested in it.

Jim

Thanks, Jim. A truly objective analysis. And it reinforces what Rob said:

"...with popular culture as expressed on tv or in movies, doggerel is usually the accepted norm. To be honest, too much poetry can create a bomb at the box office."

[rabanito]

As for Europeans, I said that several times in the past, they have serfdom mentality in their genes. Centuries of being subjects of their royal overlords does that to peoples.

I suspect that you are acquainted only with Serbia, a country that isn't even in the European Union. Maybe this irritates you a little?

In my country I am consulted officially 4 times a year (vote) on business pertinent to the country, region or city.
I can collect signatures and make petitions any time I want.
I live in what is called a democracy of consensus, semi-direct democracy, a representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy and it doesn't look like any kind of serfdom. The people participate in determining the political agenda and in the decision-making process itself.
Maybe you shouldn't charter direct flights from Serbia to the USA and next time make one or two stops just for looking around?
Just MHO 

[LesPalenik]

I suspect that you are acquainted only with Serbia, a country that isn't even in the European Union. Maybe this irritates you a little?

In my country I am consulted officially 4 times a year (vote) on business pertinent to the country, region or city.
I can collect signatures and make petitions any time I want.
I live in what is called a democracy of consensus, semi-direct democracy, a representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy and it doesn't look like any kind of serfdom. The people participate in determining the political agenda and in the decision-making process itself.
Maybe you shouldn't charter direct flights from Serbia to the USA and next time make one or two stops just for looking around?
Just MHO 

Not to forget, that anyone in Switzerland can own a gun. 

[rabanito]

Not to forget, that anyone in Switzerland can own a gun.

Well, not "anyone" and even then, under some conditions.

[John Camp]

John, you seem to be suggesting that democracy somehow began as an American idea, and that it is today its flag-bearer. Not so by many centuries, and by a long chalk. Hanging flags from every available support and waving them on every occasion does not a democracy nor a country make, though it may define one or two.

The U.S. is actually the oldest existing democracy, although it you look it up, there are claims by the Isle of Mann and Iceland, but neither of those places was actually independent of a country that *wasn't* a democracy. The earliest was supposedly Athens, but nobody would recognize what they had as a democracy anymore -- voting was simply too limited -- but the germ of an idea was there, I guess.

[John Camp]

Here's an actual question to which I don't know the answer. Assuming that the kinds of riots that we are currently experiencing in the U.S., were happening in Germany, exactly what restrictions would be placed on using riot photos (with recognizable faces) in an art show or in journalism? Does anybody have any idea?

[fdisilvestro]

The U.S. is actually the oldest existing democracy

When was slavery abolished? When did racial segregation ended? All well within the period you consider "democracy"

Democracy =/= freedom
Democracy =/= justice

It is just an illusion

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I suspect that you are acquainted only with Serbia, a country that isn't even in the European Union...

Neither is Switzerland.

For your information, I visited 38 countries, lived in four. Educated enough to read about other countries. 

[John Camp]

When was slavery abolished? When did racial segregation ended? All well within the period you consider "democracy"

Democracy =/= freedom
Democracy =/= justice

It is just an illusion

That is  very discouraging thought, the idea that something must be perfect all the time before it's worth saving. We got rid of slavery, and before that, we got rid of kings. We got rid of male-only voting. It's a progress, not a steady state.

[rabanito]

Neither is Switzerland.

Quite right.
But the point is that the Swiss People voted NO to the EU
For good or worse, it was the Swiss who decided.
Not their imaginary "masters" (While the Serbs are still trying to get in, as far as I know)

For your information, I visited 38 countries, lived in four. Educated enough to read about other countries.

Sounds like just tourism to my ears, above all taking into account your sentence about "As for Europeans... they have serfdom mentality in their genes."
How come, after so much erudition?
That's rubbish, this said with due respect.

[Alan Klein]

That is  very discouraging thought, the idea that something must be perfect all the time before it's worth saving. We got rid of slavery, and before that, we got rid of kings. We got rid of male-only voting. It's a progress, not a steady state.

If the American Consitution was perfect from it's inception, there would have been no need to incorporate an amending process within it. 

[Alan Klein]

Quite right.
But the point is that the Swiss People voted NO to the EU
For good or worse, it was the Swiss who decided.
Not their imaginary "masters" (While the Serbs are still trying to get in, as far as I know)

Sounds like just tourism to my ears, above all taking into account your sentence about "As for Europeans... they have serfdom mentality in their genes."
How come, after so much erudition?
That's rubbish, this said with due respect.

To argue that America was not a perfect democracy back then and compare to European nations seems odd to me.  After all, Germany, England, France, The Netherlands, Spain and other colonialist nations were enslaving entire continents at the time.