What is happening with street photographers in the EU?

[AgX]

The Eiffeltower is a bad example as its protective right either expired or not even existed.
But otherwise there is most strictest restriction concerning buildings in France.

However our so resentful US fellows should not overlook that in many EU countries the legal situation is bettter for photographers on this matter (including Germany) than in the USA.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Eiffeltower is a bad example as its protective right either expired or not even existed.
But otherwise there is most strictest restriction concerning buildings in France.

However our so resentful US fellows should not overlook that in many EU countries the legal situation is bettter for photographers on this matter (including Germany) than in the USA.

Do not confuse us with facts. We live in an alternate reality here.

 

[Laurent]

The Eiffeltower is a bad example as its protective right either expired or not even existed.
But otherwise there is most strictest restriction concerning buildings in France.

However our so resentful US fellows should not overlook that in many EU countries the legal situation is bettter for photographers on this matter (including Germany) than in the USA.

The tower itself is not protected, but the lighting is. (Don't ask me what I thionk of this, I may start a rant ;-) ) (Sorry, didn't read matt's comment before)

 

[AgX]

I know.
A lighting as such may be a matter of art and that may not fall under a freedom of panorama where such exists, but keeps the rights related to it.

In Germany we in such cases differentiate between art in public as intended to remain and art to be removed again.
The case of the veiled Reichstag was such as case. Even as legal case, that went to Federal Court ! I know of another most interesting court case based such matter.

As I hinted at above there are exceptions to a freedom of panoroma, and moreover that all varies between the EU member states.
For some years there are attempts to turn such legislation into something identical in whole EU, but the critics are warning of severe restrictions on the existing freedom of panorama in many states as result.

 

[AgX]

So anyone busy with puplishing photos (and that includes posting them on Apug) should be busy with such legislation.
The same time keeping in mind that (so far...) that all is matter of action by the rights holder.

Noone bothered, nothing to bother....

 

[Ces1um]

I'm still quite perplexed over all of this, despite everyone's answers. In fact, Im even more confused now. I assume the French government owns the eiffel tower, and by extension the French people. How can there be legal restrictions keeping the people of France from photographing something they own? I can understand if it was a matter of national security, but this is a tourist attraction. People travel there JUST to see the Eiffel tower. I can perhaps see not being able to commercially profit from the image, but to not be allowed to just snap a photo? That's ridiculous. There has to be more to this than the facts I have currently available to me.

 

[AgX]

Image rights basically do not belong to the owner but the designer of a building (though that may vary by contract).
And a "public" building not neccessarily is owned by the state, let alone its image rights.

For instance the image rights of the Atomium in Belgium (a state lacking freedom of panorama) are with the heirs of its designer. They gave the commercial control to a belgian copyright collective. They again collaborate with a foundation that preserves that building. They again have appointed a sole Brussels photographer as officia photographer of that building. Any other photographer has to do business with that foundation to get his photographs published. If at all. Hoewever in this case non-commercial use is explicitely allowed.)

Another issue is the age of a building. If it was designed before appropriate legislation it will be free (consider for instance Eiffel Tower versus Atomium).
Though again there is an exception to this in Germany...

 

[faberryman]

Image rights basically do not belong to the owner but the designer of a building (though that may vary by contract).
A "public" building not necessarily is owned by the state, let alone its image rights.

For instance the image rights of the Atomium in Belgium (a state lacking freedom of panorama) are with the heirs of its designer. They gave the commercial control to a belgian copyright collective. They again collaborate with a foundation that preserves that building. They again have appointed a sole Brussels photographer as officia photographer of that building. Any other photographer has to to do business with tht foundation to get his photographs published. If at all.

There are 37,744 photos of the Atomium on Flickr, so I don't think anyone has been hampered by what the law is (or isn't).

 

[AgX]

See post #30.


The same time just these days we had a case in Germany were a photographer went to court and won, after a school published on their website a script of one of their pupils who just "took" that photo by him from the net and inserted it into her sceript as illustration..

 

[Raphael]

Hi,
A lot of paranoid and uninformed prognostications here... It seems the subject was already beaten in another thread, but well... let's go.

@Ces1um : You (and me) have completely the right to photography the Eiffel Tower, during the day, without restriction.
When the lighting is in use (i.e, during the night), yes, this lighting is copyrighted as can be a work of Art (I am not discussing the validity of this assertion here - to me, as an astronomer, it's essentially light pollution ), and is protected as Intellectual Property.

This copyright prevents you to use your photos of the illuminated Eiffel Tower in a *COMMERCIAL OR PROFESSIONAL USE*, or to publish without permissions, and should give eventually royalties to the rights owner, which is "Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" and the creator (Pierre Bideau).

So, unless if you plan to takes photo, makes a zillion of postal cards with them, and SELL them, you risk absolutely nothing, with a private, non-profit use.

There is however a subtlety concerning the publication right, coming with anyone publishing anything on internet, instead of printing it in a book or magazine :
Yes, posting a night illuminated Eiffel tower on Facebook or Instagram can be considered probably as a publication.
In reality, to my knowledge, the number of people who get sued or even just worried about a "published" night photo with Eiffel tower on the Net, is probably near Zero, nada, zilch.

If you want to be on the safe side, when "publishing" (for non -profit I insist) your photos, you can add the mention "Copyright SETE/Pierre Bideau" and then you can walk away with a spring in your step

Regards,

Raphael (from France)

 

[Wallendo]

Do any of these rules apply to an amateur photographer taking non-exploitative photographs for his own personally enjoyment from a public area? Obviously "upskirt" and similar photographs would not be appropriate.

 

[MattKing]

Do any of these rules apply to an amateur photographer taking non-exploitative photographs for his own personally enjoyment from a public area? Obviously "upskirt" and similar photographs would not be appropriate.

It isn't the taking of photographs in a public place that is restricted. The restrictions apply to the use of those photographs - particularly the "publication" of those photographs.
In the past, when publication usually involved some sort of commercial endeavour like a magazine, these restrictions were both more clear and for most, less onerous.
In these modern times, when just about everybody with a smart phone or access to a computer in a public library, and when just about everybody can be a "publisher", the restrictions on their face appear to be far more onerous, while at the same time the likelihood of their being enforced is reduced.
I would hazard a guess that back during the day, no-one ever got into legal trouble for "publishing" their Eiffel tower light photographs by showing their vacation slides to their friends in their living room.

 

[Arthurwg]

So if I go to France and take a photo of the eiffel tower that happens to get a few people in it I'll run afoul of the law? If I grab a photo of buckingham palace and someone walks in front of my camera out come the billy clubs? Someone is going to have to explain why these rules are put in place.

It's been that way in France for many years. People have "an absolute right to their image." I don't think you would have a problem unless the picture is published. Individuals have been known to jump into the frame of a new photo with the intent of suing if it is published. Still, a photographer may get harassed, as my girlfriend did when she happened to take a picture of a beautiful young women with an obviously wealthy older man, no doubt his mistress. He was very angry. And BTW, be extra careful photographing children. The French seem very paranoid about that.

 

[Arthurwg]

Also remembering that I was stopped and questioned in the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris by some sort of uniformed security because I had two cameras around my neck. They accused me of taking "professional" pictures.

 

[AgX]

Hi,
A lot of paranoid and uninformed prognostications here... It seems the subject was already beaten in another thread, but well... let's go. ...


This copyright prevents you to use your photos of the illuminated Eiffel Tower in a *COMMERCIAL OR PROFESSIONAL USE*

Can you give a source for this? (Unless you only referred to that special case of the Eiffel Tower Illumination.)
ALL sources on french intellectual rights I checked refer to nonrestricted rights of the rights holder.
Thus, as in Germany, nonwithstanding the alien use is commercial or not.

(A general exception are patents. These rights worldwide only apply on commercial use.)

 

[AgX]

It isn't the taking of photographs in a public place that is restricted.

The prohibition of the sheer taking is a new trend in german court decision and legislation. This will add up to the confusion.
Added to the the law from 1907 that actually speaks of a criminal offence (though scarcely enforced), the new legislation on privacy adds more restrictions to that old legislation including criminal offenses.
The effect of this new trend court decisons will tell. So far that all is too new.

 

[slackercrurster]

The Eiffeltower is a bad example as its protective right either expired or not even existed.
But otherwise there is most strictest restriction concerning buildings in France.

However our so resentful US fellows should not overlook that in many EU countries the legal situation is bettter for photographers on this matter (including Germany) than in the USA.

How is that? Germany is the worst for street photo laws...or so I've been told.

 

[slackercrurster]

Also remembering that I was stopped and questioned in the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris by some sort of uniformed security because I had two cameras around my neck. They accused me of taking "professional" pictures.

I was turned away from an event in the US for having a camera with a detachable lens. A DSLR with a detachable lens made me a pro. Had to leave the building. Once I left the building I could not reenter unless I buy another ticket as my ticket was already scanned. So didn't go back and lost my ticket $$.

I can only pray the EU's laws against candid street photography don't export to the US. We are already having chunks of photogs rights stripped away here. The left / dems are scheduled to take perpetual control of the US political system down the road. Conservative politics is no longer popular with the young people. No doubt the dems will not want anyone offended and have to go to their safe room. So it may only be time before the EU's draconian street photography laws are here in the US.

 

[AgX]

How is that? Germany is the worst for street photo laws...or so I've been told.

Likely; referring to the right on ones own image, a german first on privacy protection.
(More so with the new legislation. Though as said their effect still has to show off.)


With my remark on the USA behind many EU-states, even Germany, I was referring to the freedom of panorama, that in other states even includes public interiors.


One legal institute covers people, the other things.

As street photography typically is about people, the latter here is of lesser interest, but brought into the discussion by others.

 

[MattKing]

I was turned away from an event in the US for having a camera with a detachable lens. A DSLR with a detachable lens made me a pro. Had to leave the building. Once I left the building I could not reenter unless I buy another ticket as my ticket was already scanned. So didn't go back and lost my ticket $$.

I can only pray the EU's laws against candid street photography don't export to the US. We are already having chunks of photogs rights stripped away here. The left / dems are scheduled to take perpetual control of the US political system down the road. Conservative politics is no longer popular with the young people. No doubt the dems will not want anyone offended and have to go to their safe room. So it may only be time before the EU's draconian street photography laws are here in the US.

So many things to respond to.
I expect that the event you were turned away from was essentially a private function such as a professional sporting event or concert. While the classification of your camera equipment as "professional" and therefore against the rules was silly, the decision to prevent professional photography was almost certainly within the event's management's rights, and most likely disclosed to you before you bought your ticket. Part of the way they make their money.
And as for draconian laws, maybe so, but unsurprising given the ongoing and numerous egregious and fundamental breaches of people's reasonable expectations of privacy and civility demanded by the tabloid journalism culture we find ourselves in.
I've been photographing in public for more than four decades. To be able to do so is a freedom that requires a mutual respect - both for the freedom itself and for those who find themselves being photographed. There has been so much abuse of that respect for subjects that it is not the least bit surprising that laws are being put into place to curtail the freedoms of photographers in order to protect the freedoms of those being photographed.
If you have suggestions about other ways to protect both sorts of freedoms, I for one would be happy to hear them.

 

[faberryman]

I was turned away from an event in the US for having a camera with a detachable lens. A DSLR with a detachable lens made me a pro. Had to leave the building. Once I left the building I could not reenter unless I buy another ticket as my ticket was already scanned. So didn't go back and lost my ticket $$.

That is standard operating at concerts, sports, and other events. I can't believe you didn't know it. You need a small compact camera with a built in zoom for those occasions. Just common knowledge.

 

[CMoore]

Yeah...it is all about Intent/Usage
Like with music protection via the RIAA and BMI, if i have those letters right.
You can have a party at your house and play all the CD's you want.
But if you own a Bar/Tavern you Do Not have a right to play CD's.
Hard times for musicians so the companies are doing whatever they can to generate cash for their clients.
I know a few bar owners that have been "hassled" by The RIAA in these last few years.
Not sure what muscle they have to back up their stop-orders, but they have been cracking down on Bars and Restaurants in the last few years.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I was turned away from an event in the US for having a camera with a detachable lens. ...

That is standard operating at concerts, sports, and other events. ... You need a small compact camera with a built in zoom for those occasions. Just common knowledge.

On TV, I see no one in the stands/bleachers who has a camera. I investigated the Major League Baseball site for policy and it really isn't clear what is allowed and what's forbidden. They pass responsibility for the decision to the stadium - I'm afraid that what is allowed is at the discretion of whoever is at the entrance gate. While my F4s is 99.9% likely to be rejected, what about taking an Exakta VX with a 180mm lens (which isn't very imposing and may not even be recognized as a camera)? What about a Pentax Auto 110 with a 50mm? Could one use a Minox III at a PGA tournament?

 

[faberryman]

On TV, I see no one in the stands/bleachers who has a camera. I investigated the Major League Baseball site for policy and it really isn't clear what is allowed and what's forbidden. They pass responsibility for the decision to the stadium - I'm afraid that what is allowed is at the discretion of whoever is at the entrance gate. While my F4s is 99.9% likely to be rejected, what about taking an Exakta VX with a 180mm lens (which isn't very imposing and may not even be recognized as a camera)? What about a Pentax Auto 110 with a 50mm? Could one use a Minox III at a PGA tournament?

The Exakta would probably be rejected. That Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f2.8 is a hunk of metal and glass. The Pentax 110, though it has interchageable lenses, is pocketable so unseen. The Minox III would be confused with a pack of gum.

Seriously, the Sony RX100VI with it 24-200mm equivalent zoom is the one to go with in those occasions. Small and quite capable.

 

[Wallendo]

So many things to respond to.
I expect that the event you were turned away from was essentially a private function such as a professional sporting event or concert. While the classification of your camera equipment as "professional" and therefore against the rules was silly, the decision to prevent professional photography was almost certainly within the event's management's rights, and most likely disclosed to you before you bought your ticket. Part of the way they make their money.
And as for draconian laws, maybe so, but unsurprising given the ongoing and numerous egregious and fundamental breaches of people's reasonable expectations of privacy and civility demanded by the tabloid journalism culture we find ourselves in.
I've been photographing in public for more than four decades. To be able to do so is a freedom that requires a mutual respect - both for the freedom itself and for those who find themselves being photographed. There has been so much abuse of that respect for subjects that it is not the least bit surprising that laws are being put into place to curtail the freedoms of photographers in order to protect the freedoms of those being photographed.
If you have suggestions about other ways to protect both sorts of freedoms, I for one would be happy to hear them.

The real privacy risk for those of us who are not celebrities is the unauthorized use of our images in social media, especially by Social Justice Warriors of all persuations.

After the Charlottesville protests, an innocent college professor was vilified by Social Justice Warriors and many irate idiots called his employer demanding he be fired. In short, there was a right-wing protestor wearing a shirt with a college name on it. SJW's then scoured the college website until they found a picture of a man who resembled the man in the Charlottesville picture. The embiciles then published the man's college site picture and name and encouraged their compatriots to harass him. They never bothered to check out any details, such as the fact that he was several states away at the time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40935419

Photographers are not the issue, people who publish tripe are the issue.