Am I a criminal?

[Andrea Taurisano]

Two days ago, in Oslo, I got slightly in trouble with a hotel receptionist for taking one of the photos below (which unfortunately isn't even that nice). She meant I was not allowed to photograph the hotel window from the public street. I protested that even though the hotel was a private property, it’s perfectly visible from the public street and there’s no sign forbidding photographs of it.

After I got back to my hotel, I did some research to find out what the Norwegian law says about street photography. Am I only doing this now after 10 years of street photography? Yes in fact, never had the slightest trouble before.

What I found out is that the Norwegian law is very strict in protecting personal rights, apparently stricter than most other countries' law. Here it’s perfectly legal to photograph anyone (except children) without asking for a permission, but it’s not allowed to publish photographs of identifiable persons without their permission. Commercial or not commercial purposes don't make a difference.

Only exceptions are photos where the identifiable persons are taking part in street protests, parades or similar, photos that have a public usefulness (whatever that is), and photos the main content of which isn’t the person – although identifiable – but the situation or the context this person is involved in. Hopefully, most of my pictures will fall within this last category for the judge who gets my case the day someone sues me for doing street photography and sharing it. The alternative is photos like the ones below, without a face or a soul. Feel free to leave a thought on this, if you like.

 

[Speedfreak]

Same as in Germany.

 

[yoyo22]

Same as in Germany.

Wrong. Images that are not made ​​to order, as long as the distribution or display serves a higher interest in art may also be published without explicit permission of the photographed.

--> § 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 KUG

 

[jaredangle]

In my opinion, this may have not been an issue a year ago, but considering Norway's recent tragedy, people in the larger cities may be wary of people photographing buildings, especially ones like hotels and offices.

Pretty similar to the treatment that some photographers face in America's largest cities, like NYC, Los Angeles, or Atlanta.

 

[zauhar]

That's miserable.

I have to say I greatly admire Norway's sane response to the insane and horrific attacks in Oslo and at the Summer camp; but this preservation of an individual "right" not to be recorded seems overboard.

Does Norway also prohibit the use of surveillance cameras in public places?

Randy

 

[user237428934]

That's miserable.

I have to say I greatly admire Norway's sane response to the insane and horrific attacks in Oslo and at the Summer camp; but this preservation of an individual "right" not to be recorded seems overboard.

Does Norway also prohibit the use of surveillance cameras in public places?

Randy

Sir, this is absolutely not the same. The goal of photography (especially street photography) is most of the time publishing. The goal of using surveillance cameras is not publishing. In Germany and as we see here in Norway they are very restrictive regarding publishing.

 

[mdarnton]

In my opinion, this may have not been an issue a year ago, but considering Norway's recent tragedy, people in the larger cities may be wary of people photographing buildings, especially ones like hotels and offices.

Why? Are you equating photographers with bombers and snipers? Do you have evidence to make that connection?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Identifiable persons? Not in these shots.

On top of that, yoyo22 has it.

To answer your question: yes, quite possibly you are a criminal, but not on the evidence presented. I particularly liked the second pic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[zauhar]

Sir, this is absolutely not the same. The goal of photography (especially street photography) is most of the time publishing. The goal of using surveillance cameras is not publishing. In Germany and as we see here in Norway they are very restrictive regarding publishing.

Admittedly not the same, but if I object to my image being potentially viewed by others via publication, why would I be more comfortable that the authorities could review my image in private, for whatever hidden purpose?

Randy

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Admittedly not the same, but if I object to my image being potentially viewed by others via publication, why would I be more comfortable that the authorities could review my image in private, for whatever hidden purpose?

Randy

The "law" is not about making you feel "comfortable" - they're not interested in how you might feel.

 

[Teuthida]

Simple solution to the paranoia surrounding photography in public places: Use your iPhone. Nobody has any idea you're taking a picture. You can literally take pictures of anybody, anywhere without repurcussions.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Identifiable persons? Not in these shots.

On top of that, yoyo22 has it.

To answer your question: yes, quite possibly you are a criminal, but not on the evidence presented. I particularly liked the second pic.

Cheers,

R.

These shots were exactly examples of photos where no one is identifiable, that is the only kind of street photos (well in addition to macros and architectural with no people at all) one may be publishing if one wants to feel completely safe. I take my chances instead and publish a lot of better photos with identifiable persons on my blog. Hope the judge who gets my case one day is an amateur photographer too.. 😉

Simple solution to the paranoia surrounding photography in public places: Use your iPhone. Nobody has any idea you're taking a picture. You can literally take pictures of anybody, anywhere without repurcussions.

Taking photos of adult people is completely legal in Norway too. Strictly legally, you don't even need to stop if someone yells at you for that. So I don't see why I'd swap my Summicron with an iPhone. Whatever tool you used to take that photo, it's the publishing of it that may get you into some trouble. As said, I rely on sensible people and judges..

 

[btgc]

considering Norway's recent tragedy, people in the larger cities may be wary of people photographing buildings, especially ones like hotels and offices.

I really can not believe people in Norway are scared beyond common sense and think terrorists use film cameras to document their targets. Do they think this days it's hard to obtain equipment allowing taking pictures completely secretively, ot it is prohibitively expensive? Unfortunately I may be wrong as in some other countries people have gone off the tracks and believe terrorists are using film cameras just because they are nice to use.

It's amazing how consciousness vanishes when fear appears. This just shows how volatile is equilibrium which we take for granted.

 

[haempe]

I really can not believe people in Norway are scared beyond common sense and think terrorists use film cameras to document their targets. Do they think this days it's hard to obtain equipment allowing taking pictures completely secretively, ot it is prohibitively expensive? Unfortunately I may be wrong as in some other countries people have gone off the tracks and believe terrorists are using film cameras just because they are nice to use.

It's amazing how consciousness vanishes when fear appears. This just shows how volatile is equilibrium which we take for granted.

The rules, which forbid publishing of photos without permission, is intended to protect the privacy rights.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Europeans are usually not that scared about terror, it is a longtime tradition here.

 

[btgc]

The rules, which forbid publishing of photos without permission, is intended to protect the privacy rights.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Europeans are usually not that scared about terror, it is a longtime tradition here.

I referred to case with receptionist. If I'm correct taking pictures isn't same as publishing them.

 

[haempe]

Wrong. Images that are not made ​​to order, as long as the distribution or display serves a higher interest in art may also be published without explicit permission of the photographed.

--> § 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 KUG

Read Absatz (2) and you will see, You can't rely on that.

 

[beyond]

Honestly, If someone is feeling pissed withe me taking their pics, I ll just smile and wave an apologetic gesture and move on.

 

[haempe]

I referred to case with receptionist.

You are right, I inadmissible merged that with the talk about the law.

If I'm correct taking pictures isn't same as publishing them.

Yeah, the german law is here really abstrus. It is allowed to take the photo. But after the photo is taken, the person, photographed without permission, can demand the destruction of the photo. 😕

 

[Chris101]

... distribution or display serves a higher interest in art ...

American lawyers have put large families through ivy league schools with this kind of language.

-----

(sound of insufflation) "I'll give you higher interest in art ..."

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Yeah, the german law is here really abstrus. It is allowed to take the photo. But after the photo is taken, the person, photographed without permission, can demand the destruction of the photo.

I suppose it's a case of balancing rights. I think in this case, if your assertion is correct, the balance is a little off. To do a little reducto ad absurdum: if someone with an eidetic memory and good drafting skills saw you and made a cartoon, could you insist on the destruction of the drawing? How would that fit with the German Basic Law's Articles 5 and 18?