What is happening with street photographers in the EU?

[BMbikerider]

Architecture is intellectual property and thus there is an image right to the architect.

Luckily many countries' parliaments were so wise to exclude that from anything seen from public space. Including Germany, where even photography of details is not restricted, in contrast to respective people-photography.

But of course, as with any legal matter, there are exceptions. Otherwise life would be too easy...


Concerning the guy passing the (free for publication) building, here in Germany it depends whether that guy is essential to that photo or not. A matter of evaluation...

This is very similar here. In UK you can photograph anything, anywhere, so long as it is visible from a public place, that includes any building (see the exception ** below) - or, if on a private place you have permission to take photographs. If not for profit, you are more likely to get the permission you make an appropriate request. If someone randomly passes in front of your camera when you are taking a photograph, again there is no problem so long as that person is not shown in an obvious compromising/embarrassing situation and he/she is not recognisable, such as a well know public figure. But only if it is not published. There is no need to pixelate any information so it is disguised.

Public places can be very difficult to define, but a good maxim is 'Any place where the public can pass or re-pass without let or hindrance'. This means places such as railway stations, airports, shopping malls, theatres, sports stadiums and some municipal parks are NOT public places as defined above and there may be conditions of access that govern how people conduct themselves when on or in these areas. A huge 'No No', is to photograph young children without permission of the parent/guardian. If this is in a public place there is nothing against the law, but you run the risk of being classed (probably incorrectly) as a pedophile so discretion is the watchword.

Additionally some roads are not public places per se Although the public are allowed to use them, they will be privately owned, so under the Highways Act these roads must be closed to the public for one day per year to retain that status.

If you are stopped on any of these pseudo public places, the owners/operators have absolutely no right to demand you delete the images or remove the film and hand it over. Only the police can do that and then only after arrest for an offence or by way of a warrant (Not easy to get in a short time.)

**There is one caveat and that is where Military or other Government establishments or installations are concerned. (Airfields, Army Bases, Navel Establishments and Government Research Establishments). They are generally protected by the Official Secrets Act and there can be quite stiff penalties, even if photographed from a public place, however there are usually notices displayed warning of this.

All this talk about the situation if you take a photograph outside Buckingham palace they will come at you with Billy Clubs is a load of complete nonsense. Just where do people get these ideas? Is it another Donald Trump Fake news issue? It really is total garbage! In UK we like to think we are reasonably civilised.

 

[removed account4]

I was recently in Amsterdam and Norway and had no issues
Photographing street stuff with a digital or TLR was obvious
Not stealthy... the manhole covers are nice too

 

[slackercrurster]

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.

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.

Nope, don't go to many, so was ignorant. It said something on the back of the ticket, but didn't read the small print.

 

[BMbikerider]

I was recently in Amsterdam and Norway and had no issues
Photographing street stuff with a digital or TLR was obvious
Not stealthy... the manhole covers are nice too

I have also traveled quite extensively over Europe including Holland (Netherlands) Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy. Like you in Amsterdam and Norway, I never had a problem. It seems to be largely the impression gained from miss-interpreting what is put out over the media. Some of the media reporters can hardly string a complete sentence together, never mind make a definitive interpretation of some legislation. (Compounded by fake news)

 

[hobbes]

I'd say that the GDPR would be rather a tool to fight back whenever a citizen is caught and published in a manner he/she does not like or it's likely that a publisher would jeopardize the subject's privacy in some way...

 

[AgX]

I have also traveled quite extensively over Europe including Holland (Netherlands) Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy. Like you in Amsterdam and Norway, I never had a problem. It seems to be largely the impression gained from miss-interpreting what is put out over the media. Some of the media reporters can hardly string a complete sentence together, never mind make a definitive interpretation of some legislation. (Compounded by fake news)

No, and Yes...
As I hinted at before there must be some rights-holder bothered. And in the majority of cases there is not.

However I myself decades ago was threatened with a court case after taking a photograph, and I gave examples above of commercial and non-commercial use that actually went to court in Germany (all to the advantuge of those having the initial rights.)
One also must not overlook that there is a lobby of lawyers hunting the net all day long in Germany looking for people downlaoding some copyrighted stuff, nonwithstanding it is used commercially or not, and asking horrendous "fines" (a speciality of the german legal system). Luckily so far these have not yet entered the field of photographs but that may come...

Yes, photographers lived a century with a rather restrictive situation in Germany and there was no outcry. The last decades though there is much more awareness of privacy (and the same time a idiotic exhibitionism...) within society that especially with new legislation in hand the pressure may get stronger here and the rest of the EU.

Google had to stop their Street-View service in Germany due to calls for privacy-protection already 10 years ago. Since this summer police in Germany seemingly already is identifying people just for taking photographs for criminal prosecution under the newly added legislation. So there already is a effect of such change in attitude.

 

[BMbikerider]

In UK, intellectual rights would not be a matter which would involve the police. Anything involving a matter like that (unless there is evidence to defraud) would be dealt with as a civil matter and up to the claimant to instigate any action in a civil court and not a criminal one. (with the exception of offences involving the Official Secrets Act as I mentioned before.)

As for Google Street View, I am not in favour of that insidious operation. It is done for no other reason than they hope to make money out of it at the expense of the privacy of others. They responded to complaints by blurring out faces, car number plates, and you cannot peer into private houses. Even so, with these safeguards, use of street view is to all intents and purposes offering persons will ill intent, a gilt edge guide book to carry out offences, including possible terrorism.

 

[faberryman]

As for Google Street View, I am not in favour of that insidious operation. It is done for no other reason than they hope to make money out of it at the expense of the privacy of others. They responded to complaints by blurring out faces, car number plates, and you cannot peer into private houses. Even so, with these safeguards, use of street view is to all intents and purposes offering persons will ill intent, a gilt edge guide book to carry out offences, including possible terrorism.

I am fascinated watching UK detective shows on TV. The crimes are almost always solved based, at least in part, on video footage. It seems you can't walk anywhere in the UK, no matter how remote, without being under surveillance.

 

[AgX]

In UK, intellectual rights would not be a matter which would involve the police.

Neither they are here in Germany. But new legislation on privacy makes mere unconsented taking a photograph of a person in distress a crime.

And in contrast to the old legisalation from 1907, that refers to publication of ones image without consent, which is a matter of privacy,though makes part of intellectual-property legislation, and prosecutes such only at request, if at all, the new, added legislation from 2015 makes part of the criminal code and as such is a official offence, to be prosecuted in any case.

So far I only got hints at actuall done prosecution,

 

[faberryman]

Is there an active street photography community in the EU. Perhaps if we focused on the street photography community instead of the law, we could get a better sense of things. On the other hand, maybe there isn't one. Perhaps that is why so much of the photojournalism is of the third world.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Except it's not about free speech is it? I suspect it may be more about you demanding the 'right' to be a creepy, boundary ignoring jerk in public. The reactionary whine that it's dressed up in only adds to that suspicion.

Corporate control of imagery on privately owned, yet publicly accessible property is an entirely different story.

 

[BMbikerider]

I am fascinated watching UK detective shows on TV. The crimes are almost always solved based, at least in part, on video footage. It seems you can't walk anywhere in the UK, no matter how remote, without being under surveillance.

UK is reputedly the most CCTV covered country in the world, but do you know, I for one don't think about it. It doesn't bother me one iota. TV crime dramas are all conveniently set up but in true life, CCTV has been responsible for providing even more irrefutable evidence to convict literally hundreds, no, make that thousands of persons involved in serious crime, so on balance I think it is a power for good. Only very rarely does it get abused and to be honest I cannot remember the last time a report of abuse was publicised.

I am not likely to be involved in serious crime, so the presence of a CCTV camera only serves to make myself, and I'm sure the majority of the population feel more secure. Even police officers are now being equipped with body worn CCTV cameras which serve to corroborate what officers said and the replies from suspects and show their general demenour when confronted by a policeman. This has seriously reduced the number of malicious complaints against the officers too.

Some insurance companies are even offering a reduced premium for vehicles if the insured car has a miniature camera mounted on the dash to prove who was responsible in the event of a crash. I have not gone down that route yet, but it is an idea to fit one on my motorcycle. There are so many dumb, make that outright stupid car drivers any protection is worth it.

 

[BMbikerider]

Neither they are here in Germany. But new legislation on privacy makes mere unconsented taking a photograph of a person in distress a crime.

Probably a very good idea. That would have my full support. Persons in distress almost certainly deserve/need a great deal of privacy without some hard nose clown with a camera getting in the way and making the situation worse..

 

[Lachlan Young]

Probably a very good idea. That would have my full support. Persons in distress almost certainly deserve/need a great deal of privacy without some hard nose clown with a camera getting in the way and making the situation worse..

And I suspect it's intended to deal with situations like this - it's behaviour like this that has apparently been increasingly causing the emergency services all manner of problems in reaching & dealing with traumatic events.

 

[AgX]

Yes. However, at least over here the exceptions are that vague that one easily may get arrested and ones equipment confiscated until things may clear up.much later.
Moreover, running around at such scene, who would be able to tell whether you are taking incriminated photographs or not. , Even taking a photo not of a victim but a crying firefighter could be prohibited.

And in contrast to what I wrote above about hardly anyone bothered, at such scenes are police officers, who by new law have to be bothered.

 

[BMbikerider]

On the other hand there have been appeals in the media in UK for images possibly showing evidence or suspects involved in serious incidents. I think it would be difficult to have it both ways.
The terrorist outrages last year in and around central London are typical examples, appeals were put out after each incident.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The tension between security and privacy...

 

[slackercrurster]

Here is a consent chart for the photog, country by country.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

Here is the law as it pertains to street work.

https://idpc.org.mt/en/Documents/Data Protection and Street Photography.pdf

Sounds like it is OK to do street work in the EU as long as you don't do anything with it.

Something from Creative Commons on the subject.

https://creativecommons.org/2015/07/07/will-the-european-parliament-criminalize-street-photography/

 

[AgX]

Sounds like it is OK to do street work in the EU as long as you don't do anything with it.

At least in Germany there is a recent tendency in jurisdiction and legislation to prohibit mere taking of a photograph.
In some cases, which apply to street photography, the mere taking already has become a crime recently.
In general though the practical effect of this trend still has to be evaluated.

Recently labour union of german police agents even urged that mere gazing in certain cases from being nonrestricted at all at the moment to be turned into a crime...

This shows in which direction we are going.