Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws  (Read 3472 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2020, 05:45:47 pm »

Rob, kudos.

Well said.
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2020, 06:41:24 pm »

But one thing I've noticed in Europe (including the UK) is that people there seem to have a taste for authoritarianism. I think it gives them a sense of stability . . .

I suspect that's an oversimplification, but I do think the monarchical tradition of top-down government in Europe has influenced cultural attitudes in a way that differs from the libertarian tradition of bottom-up government in the United States.

I've long had the impression that the tendency in Europe is to assume that everything which is not permitted is forbidden, while in the United States the assumption is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted.  The Brits and the Dutch strike me as tending more toward the libertarian approach than the middle and Eastern Europeans.

But cultural generalizations based on personal impressions rather than objective evidence should always be made with caution and skepticism, not least by those offering them.  North American* and European democracies all value personal freedom and all of them impose restrictions on the unfettered exercise of it.  And the populist movements that have recently popped up on both sides of the Atlantic all seem to have authoritarian overtones.

―――
*Apropos of the original subject of this thread, if I recall correctly the laws regarding freedom to photograph from public spaces in Canada and México are very similar to the law in the United States.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 07:23:55 pm by Chris Kern »
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2020, 06:57:21 pm »

<snip>

Knowing what's going on is an admirable concept, but hardly supports being a street snapper. I think there's a world of difference between a so-called street shooter doing it largely for kicks, and a news photographer doing it for information that can, in turn, be relayed to the world.
<Snip>

Authoritarianism as a European taste? Don't know about that, but certainly the more intelligent voter realises that without order you have chaos, and that chaos brings no good to anyone.

<snip>


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.

   
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2020, 07:53:41 pm »

I suspect that's an oversimplification, but I do think the monarchical tradition of top-down government in Europe has influenced cultural attitudes in a way that differs from the libertarian tradition of bottom-up government in the United States.

Not sure about that. "Monarchical tradition" will mean a lot of different things to different people. The European Monachs of now, are not in the same position as they were once. After all, "Enlightenment" is a "European" concept of the late 17th and 18th centuries, and thinking has evolved since then.

Quote
I've long had the impression that the tendency in Europe is to assume that everything which is not permitted is forbidden, while in the United States the assumption is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted.  The Brits and the Dutch strike me as tending more toward the libertarian approach than the middle and Eastern Europeans.

Generalizing, that could be a correct observation (although we do test the boundaries of what's allowed/forbidden, depending on nationality), and I can really only speak as a Dutchman, not for the Dutch, let alone for Europeans  ;D.
In generall, the Dutch can come across as relatively blunt/sober, but honest.

Quote
But cultural generalizations based on personal impressions rather than objective evidence should always be made with caution and skepticism, not least by those offering them.  North American* and European democracies all value personal freedom and all of them impose restrictions on the unfettered exercise of it.  And the populist movements that have recently popped up on both sides of the Atlantic all seem to have authoritarian overtones.

Quite so.

I (we?) consider that one's freedom ends where it infringes on that of another. Of course we cannot consider anyone's freedoms, because there are a lot of idoits around. But there are a lot of shared values, and visions to improve on those.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 08:02:02 pm by Bart_van_der_Wolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2020, 11:25:33 pm »

The reason the US has a "liberal" position on such things as street photography goes much deeper than the problems of photographers or the concept of privacy. It goes to the whole idea of a democracy...

Thanks, John, well said.

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.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2020, 05:41:21 am »

1. 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.

2. 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."

3. 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.

 


1. The government's pronouncements on a photographer's status seem the last things I seek to guide my own definitions; I can hardly imagine any government having the least interest in such definitions except for one thing: access to the shooting of official images of kings, queens, presidents etc. where some hope of good photographic quality is the least that can be asked, along with the expectation of some decent personal behaviour while in the presence of the subject. As an aside: I must say, those holding positions of office that deserve respect should themselves respect that position they temporarily hold, and not confuse themselves with the office: dressing like slobs does not uphold the dignity of office.

A news photographer is a guy who gets paid to shoot news pictures as a full-time job. A photographic artist is a guy who expresses his artistic bent through images made via cameras; he may be a recognized professional in this endeavour. A simple, amateur photographer may be an artist or he may not; not all photographers have the ability to create works of art. So-called art photographers don't always create art either: some of their works are total failures whether they see that or not; the label doesn't always guarantee the contents of the tin when they appear on the plate.

If you are speaking about propaganda photographers, then yes, but they are already in the commission of political parties; their power is facilitated or limited by the owners of the media wherein their work may or may not be published. The media owners are key, and partly why so dangerous: witness Brexit. That media ownership is always at least as powerful as government and may, in certain instances, actually dictate government action or reaction.

2. That supposition strikes me as odd: in the course of my life I seldom give a thought to whether a thing is or is not legally listed as allowable or not - it's almost always a matter of common sense. Of course, when it comes to taxes, contracts etc, that's an entirely different world to normal living, and a great deal of care should be exercise to get it right and not screw up. It's why we need lawyers and accountants. When one is breaking the law, as is happening all over American cities today, seems to be a fairly obvious: folks running riot and looting shops because of the opportunity afforded by genuine protests at the killing of a black prisoner by police provides nothing but ammunition for those who declare that all blacks are criminals. It requires no listing on a piece of paper to brand it criminal behaviour.

Regarding who decides what can be considered legal or not: I think that in general terms Europe resolved most of that (again, in terms of daily life) a long time ago. I think your American preoccupation with such matters is nothing more than a result of the newness of your country, the trashing of what went on before, and of trying to catch up and get yourselves a new set of observable, liveable rules: I think you are still trying to settle what works best for the majority and what does not. Your national status quo (where you are stuck with some relatively recently penned guidelines some hold sacrosanct) is far from the final version. I am convinced, for example, that the day will come when public opinion finally does decide, and more strongly than vested business interests, and brings into being the banning of guns as the commonplace playthings and sometimes "final solutions" of Joe Soap.

I can think of no official list that Europeans have where is listed the things that Europeans are allowed to do, nor of a European mindset that seeks one or believes in one. (Obviously, I do not include here lists of international agreements as to what is or is not permissible.) The only lists I can think of are those where things are specifically prohibited as criminal activities. I imagine you have the latter in America too? You do have traffic laws, traffic lights? Thinking that Europeans are any different in their expectations of freedom is either a mistake, the result of misinformation or simply a conceit of imagined US superiority in such matters. As for "sovereign" John, a flippin' collector's coin is a sovereign too!
 
Actually, British jails are overcrowded too. I hardly think that reflects a society of conformist, spiritual slaves. A society of many morons, and/or some examples of miscarriages of justice, yes.

3. Why do you see things as possible only in such extremes? It doesn't even reflect life in America or Europe: all it does is permit the choosing of some political decisions and the branding of them as essential freedoms or the opposite. It's an invitation to simplistic thought.

Rob



Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2020, 05:52:46 am »


"The reason the US has a "liberal" position on such things as street photography goes much deeper than the problems of photographers or the concept of privacy. It goes to the whole idea of a democracy..."

Thanks, John, well said.

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 thought you were of European birth and extraction; how come you see yourself as the only one thinking differently?

It doesn't compute.

Europeans are as diverse within Europe as people are everywhere. In fact, there are more Europeans who travel outwith Europe than Americans who travel outwith America. Guess who is the more insular, and judging the state of the rest of the world having never been to any of it?

;-)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2020, 06:25:47 am »


I thought you were of European birth and extraction; how come you see yourself as the only one thinking differently?

It doesn't compute.

It does.

You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.

This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2020, 07:15:53 am »

It does.

You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.

This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.

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.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2020, 08:30:58 am »

Photojournalism, which is allowed, even encouraged, is photographic prose, often banal prose. Real street photography is photographic poetry. Not allowed any longer in Europe, even though that's where the whole thing started. Stupid and tragic.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2020, 09:29:58 am »

It does.

You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.

This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.

But Slobodan that's not indigenous governmental oppression: that's invasion. And after 500 years it hardly matters because nobody remembers what went before. Memory is tragically short - or should that really be thankfully transient? Can you then state convincingly that some Brits voted for Brexit because they still smart from the Roman invasion that brought them their early tastes of culture? Perhaps the Balkans are a special case: the region has always been a hotbed of intrigue: ask James Bond.

Look at black America: do those imported still harbour a trace memory of Africa, or do they instead look at their oft dire economic situation and hate the system that keeps them there? Is it a system that keeps them there, or is it their own fault, as is usually the case in white trash situations repeated across the western world? Can a successful black American swanning around in his Porsche still, reasonably, feel the same angry emotions as does one still twiddling his thumbs in a ghetto? How much is real and how much of it is perpetuated by class/race traditions where seeing oneself as oppressed often compensates recognition of, or hides all personal shortcomings? And how much of racial tension exists because there are ever those who profit from its perpetuation either socially, through the power of the influence they can wield by being spokesmen for a movement? Where there is opportunity for personal advancement there is often an ulterior motive lurking in the background. Why do you think so many black politicians in Britain adhere like limpets to the Labour party? Even when they become well-off? Catchment areas, baby; natural votes: the local demographic.

Now regarding mistrust of government: of course one must have it: from when the fledgling's eyes open he has to be aware of the realities of why things are as they are: the altruistic eagle, snake, jackal or tiger is, so far, unknown. That should not imply that rules and regulations that help the possibility of harmonious relationships between citizens should either be abandoned or new ones not introduced where improvements are discovered. It takes a modicum of realism and open-mindedness from people to get along together. Should we own our private island, things might realistically be viewed through a different prism. Though even there, unless it's also a private country...
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 09:48:21 am by Rob C »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2020, 09:43:54 am »

Photojournalism, which is allowed, even encouraged, is photographic prose, often banal prose. Real street photography is photographic poetry. Not allowed any longer in Europe, even though that's where the whole thing started. Stupid and tragic.


Russ, there is so little real street photography around that its demise would pass unnoticed. What we have in place of poetry is doggerel. I think it's a lost cause, not because of government but because of visual language shorcomings where, as with popular culture as expressed on tv or in movies, doggerel is usually the accepted norm. To be honest, too much poetry can creat a bomb at the box office.

But all is not actually lost; influence can survive:

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/news/a36106/how-a-forgotten-photographer-inspired-carol/

Rob

P.S.

As I have oft remarked, motion scores heavily over stills in the instance as quoted in the brief article: the approach of a person as seen in a reflection. All a still can do is show a moment, not a continuity of a few seconds of high emotional charge.


Here's another link you may enjoy:

https://www.provokr.com/photography/saul-leiters-new-york/
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 10:28:56 am by Rob C »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2020, 11:50:36 am »

Photojournalism, which is allowed, even encouraged, is photographic prose, often banal prose. Real street photography is photographic poetry.

Well put.

Quote
Not allowed any longer in Europe, even though that's where the whole thing started. Stupid and tragic.

That's nonsense. Voyeurism and invasion of privacy is not appreciated but that's photography in the street, not streetphotography, 
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2020, 12:17:33 pm »

That's nonsense. Voyeurism and invasion of privacy is not appreciated but that's photography in the street, not streetphotography,

Bart, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in that sentence. Voyeurism is not street photography and street photography is not voyeurism. I agree with Rob: the real problem is that few people are familiar with real street photography any longer. Which is a terrible shame. On the other hand, I wrote poetry for many years, got a lot of it published, and subscribed to Poetry magazine for decades -- until the stuff in the magazine descended to the same level of stupidity at which current street photography finds itself. The essential problem is that the ability to be moved by the subtlety of poetry -- either written or visual -- has been lost. The English language has become pretty badly corrupted by the deficiencies in our "education" systems, and visual language has been degraded by the cell phone and selfies.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2020, 12:59:01 pm »

It does.

You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.

This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.

500 years. Native Americans could say the same about white Europeans.
Logged
--
Robert

fdisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1852
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2020, 06:08:08 pm »

The irony is that apparently HCB didn't particularly like to have his picture taken.

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2020, 06:34:43 pm »

In case nobody else here actually resides in the UK, can I point out that photographing anybody in the ‘street’ here is perfectly legal. And in France and Italy I’ve never had any problem photographing people out and about. Whatever the strict legal position might be, I think you’re highly unlikely to be apprehended for doing the sort of documentary photography being discussed. And as Rob says, nobody is buying this stuff so it’s basically an amateur pursuit anyway.

Jim
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2020, 07:46:51 pm »

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.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2020, 01:14:35 am »

I am speaking from the perspective of the US, where the German/European rules seem crazy. Also speaking from the perspective of the street photography as a genre, which seems impossible in Europe, where it originated. HCB must be rolling over in his grave.
Didn't he use a German camera?

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Lunacy of German/European Street Photography Laws
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2020, 01:20:27 am »

If pictures are illegal, can a cell phone video of a cop killing a perpetrator while arresting him on a German street be used as evidence since the video was illegally taken? What if an American tourist takes a picture of a German statue with a stranger standing nearby.  Is he guilty of anything?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up