GaryLH
Veteran
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/20/alert-freedom-of-panorama-under-threat-in-europe/#more-170333
As amateur and a tourist when I am abroad, I am assuming this pretty has no affect on me unless I publish something. I guess the grey zone is what gets put on Flickr, Facebook, or rff pic posting..etc..etc..
For sure this sounds like a pretty bad situation for professional photographer. From the color coded map, some countries are already pretty restrictive.
If I remember correctly, we have had posts about those other countries here on rff in the past. But this new legislation seems to being trying to unify the restrictiveness of this type of law across the EU.
Any insights??
Gary
As amateur and a tourist when I am abroad, I am assuming this pretty has no affect on me unless I publish something. I guess the grey zone is what gets put on Flickr, Facebook, or rff pic posting..etc..etc..
For sure this sounds like a pretty bad situation for professional photographer. From the color coded map, some countries are already pretty restrictive.
If I remember correctly, we have had posts about those other countries here on rff in the past. But this new legislation seems to being trying to unify the restrictiveness of this type of law across the EU.
Any insights??
Gary
lukitas
second hand noob
The plain answer is yes. Restrictive laws are being proposed, people, especially the younger generations, are more wary of the camera. The question I hear most is :'Why are you taking pictures', accompanied by a suspicious frown.
Belgium is marked as red, as is France. As I understand the law, I have the right to shoot a picture of anyone in a public space. If that person objects on the spot, I cannot publish that picture. If no objection was made, I then publish, and the subject deems the publication hurtful, I must desist and cease publication.
The law isn't perfect, but it gives some protection to subjects, and some freedom to photographers.
What happens in the real world is something else again. In touristy places, cameras are pointing every which way, people are posing all over the place. A friend of mine is keeping up an album with hundreds of shots of people sleeping on the train, published on Facebook. (Dormeurs sur le train, if you want to google it). Problems rarely arise, and only when a picture gets a lot of notoriety will it be challenged - most of what is published on Facebook rarely gets seen by more that twenty people, and from my experience, RFF gallery and my blog have a similar-sized public. The probability of being seen is low, the chance of being caught for an 'offensive' image even lower.
But there are locations where walking around with a camera is tantamount to having a long pink tubular gizmo strapped to your nose. Something I'd rather avoid.
I suspect the proposed legislations purpose is mainly to allow corporations to challenge, or profit from, pictures including their brands. Landmarks and musea are often publicly owned, Art in public spaces is mostly property of the public. I cannot see very much litigation coming from that corner, the public sector knows tourism is the business. So the target 'victim' must be privately owned 'artwork' in public spaces : the arches of a hamburger chain, the red and white logo of a brown fizzy sugary acid concoction.
Cheers
Belgium is marked as red, as is France. As I understand the law, I have the right to shoot a picture of anyone in a public space. If that person objects on the spot, I cannot publish that picture. If no objection was made, I then publish, and the subject deems the publication hurtful, I must desist and cease publication.
The law isn't perfect, but it gives some protection to subjects, and some freedom to photographers.
What happens in the real world is something else again. In touristy places, cameras are pointing every which way, people are posing all over the place. A friend of mine is keeping up an album with hundreds of shots of people sleeping on the train, published on Facebook. (Dormeurs sur le train, if you want to google it). Problems rarely arise, and only when a picture gets a lot of notoriety will it be challenged - most of what is published on Facebook rarely gets seen by more that twenty people, and from my experience, RFF gallery and my blog have a similar-sized public. The probability of being seen is low, the chance of being caught for an 'offensive' image even lower.
But there are locations where walking around with a camera is tantamount to having a long pink tubular gizmo strapped to your nose. Something I'd rather avoid.
I suspect the proposed legislations purpose is mainly to allow corporations to challenge, or profit from, pictures including their brands. Landmarks and musea are often publicly owned, Art in public spaces is mostly property of the public. I cannot see very much litigation coming from that corner, the public sector knows tourism is the business. So the target 'victim' must be privately owned 'artwork' in public spaces : the arches of a hamburger chain, the red and white logo of a brown fizzy sugary acid concoction.
Cheers
Last edited:
gbealnz
Well-known
I've read a bit here and there about the restrictive nature of photography in Europe particularly, and was surprised when I did as we had just returned form a 7 week stint in France/Italy/Med area.
Saw many a camera, and was careful not to intrude if I was taking a picture too.
Gearing up for another visit in just under 2 months, another 5 weeks in Europe, and hoping this new legislation doesn't get in the way of what we love doing. Hopefully Lukitas' assessment is correct, mainly dollar driven by corporations, rather than public safety.
Gary
Saw many a camera, and was careful not to intrude if I was taking a picture too.
Gearing up for another visit in just under 2 months, another 5 weeks in Europe, and hoping this new legislation doesn't get in the way of what we love doing. Hopefully Lukitas' assessment is correct, mainly dollar driven by corporations, rather than public safety.
Gary
mfogiel
Veteran
Europe is hardly homogeneous on any subject, including photography laws. As an American tourist you are likely to be well tolerated, perhaps except for Russia. I would not worry barring trying to photograph the police or the military, and maybe young unattended kids.
VisualDarkness
Established
Prepare for an outrage in Sweden if this gets close to true.
VisualDarkness
Established
I can take photos of both military (when you manage to find any) personnel and the police here in Sweden without worry. I keep in my mind that they may ask me not to if in a particularly sensitive situation, but I haven't been asked not to yet. On the other hand I don't point a camera in that direction when traveling abroad, too risky. All in all there is a huge span in how open different countries are to photography.
This goes way against the approach here in Sweden and with countries like Germany on the same side there's a lot of mandate to shut the proposal down, barring any heavy lobbyism.
raid
Dad Photographer
I took many photos in southern France and in northern Italy the first two weeks in June this summer. Nobody bothered me at all about it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly.
This is a "Yurrup" question, and "Yurrup" exists only in the minds of the xenophobic and ill-informed -- such as Americans who have not travelled enough, and supporters of UKIP (U.K. Independence Party) or the French National Front. Other partially witted right-wing parties are available.
Cheers,
R.
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
it's only about buildings and sculptures etc., isn't it? who would take pictures of such lifeless and boring things?
GaryLH
Veteran
I have travelled abroad on business and as tourist w/ family a lot in the past both to Asia and Europe...I haven't done anything past the Hawaiian islands in the last 4 years. Never had any problems myself outside of almost being pick pocketed 
.
But these laws have come up in the time I have last travelled. From what everyone has said, my original premise seems to be correct, as a tourist, not to worry. It seems mainly related to the intent of publication.
Thanks all
Gary
. But these laws have come up in the time I have last travelled. From what everyone has said, my original premise seems to be correct, as a tourist, not to worry. It seems mainly related to the intent of publication.
Thanks all
Gary
pepeguitarra
Well-known
My art does not include your art!
My art does not include your art!
Couple of my rules for photographing: 1) I do not take photo of art (sculpture, painting) to show as part of my art. If any, as a reference that I was there. There is something about seeing a piece of art in "person" that cannot be replaced by a photo of it; 2) Never photograph children at all. Some communities are extra sensitive and it is better to avoid trouble; 3) I do photograph people on the street, intentionally or un-intentionally, but I would not publish unfavorable photos of them (my wife's rule: if she does not look good, delete it); 4)When in the Prado Museum in Madrid on a Thursday, I just walked in as a local, spoke the language and asked if I could take photos, they said yes, and were proud of my request to photograph Spanish art. When I returned with my wife on Saturday, there were extra long lines and photos were not allowed (go figure!); 5) In London, people seemed fine with having their photo taken (except for certain immigrants). Outside London, I met the most wonderful people and they loved it; 6)In USA, it is OK in big cities to take photos (there are so many people), in rural and other states, it depends on how light your skin looks like, and how big your camera is. 7) Police in Los Angeles California will pose for and with you if you ask them. They are so used to the Hollywood effect
My art does not include your art!
Couple of my rules for photographing: 1) I do not take photo of art (sculpture, painting) to show as part of my art. If any, as a reference that I was there. There is something about seeing a piece of art in "person" that cannot be replaced by a photo of it; 2) Never photograph children at all. Some communities are extra sensitive and it is better to avoid trouble; 3) I do photograph people on the street, intentionally or un-intentionally, but I would not publish unfavorable photos of them (my wife's rule: if she does not look good, delete it); 4)When in the Prado Museum in Madrid on a Thursday, I just walked in as a local, spoke the language and asked if I could take photos, they said yes, and were proud of my request to photograph Spanish art. When I returned with my wife on Saturday, there were extra long lines and photos were not allowed (go figure!); 5) In London, people seemed fine with having their photo taken (except for certain immigrants). Outside London, I met the most wonderful people and they loved it; 6)In USA, it is OK in big cities to take photos (there are so many people), in rural and other states, it depends on how light your skin looks like, and how big your camera is. 7) Police in Los Angeles California will pose for and with you if you ask them. They are so used to the Hollywood effect
uhoh7
Veteran
I'm incredulous at these laws, which are obviously divorced from reality, and join the many other silly laws which are seldom, if arbitrairliy enforced.
If I have to look at a building in public I should be able to shoot it.
Next we will be required to wear a special google glass which filters out copyrighted neighborhoods.
If you don't want your giant ferris wheels shot, cover them please.
From the Comments:
"I know the Atomium in belguim is copyrighted building. and there have been lawsuits to people who placed a picture of the atomium on a website
"The image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions.
The not-for-profit organisation, Atomium does what it can to
make sure that the image of the Atomium, protected when it was built by its engineer, the late André Waterkeyn, and a symbolic icon, is not
misrepresented, misused or used ill-advisedly (for racist,
anti-democratic messages etc.).
The rights are managed by SABAM and by Atomium asbl, both appointed by Mr André Waterkeyn, in his lifetime, and now by his trustees. Consequently, any use of the image of the Atomium must be submitted to the organisation before it is published.
Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose"
That monstrosity, the Atomium, should be in a burka so we won't be tempted LOL
where does press photography fit into these laws, after all it's professional photography?
If I have to look at a building in public I should be able to shoot it.
Next we will be required to wear a special google glass which filters out copyrighted neighborhoods.
If you don't want your giant ferris wheels shot, cover them please.
From the Comments:
"I know the Atomium in belguim is copyrighted building. and there have been lawsuits to people who placed a picture of the atomium on a website
"The image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions.
The not-for-profit organisation, Atomium does what it can to
make sure that the image of the Atomium, protected when it was built by its engineer, the late André Waterkeyn, and a symbolic icon, is not
misrepresented, misused or used ill-advisedly (for racist,
anti-democratic messages etc.).
The rights are managed by SABAM and by Atomium asbl, both appointed by Mr André Waterkeyn, in his lifetime, and now by his trustees. Consequently, any use of the image of the Atomium must be submitted to the organisation before it is published.
Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose"
That monstrosity, the Atomium, should be in a burka so we won't be tempted LOL
where does press photography fit into these laws, after all it's professional photography?
Sparrow
Veteran
... what the UK police say about it;
'Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.
Freedom to photograph and film. Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.'
... the full text is here but given this is the internet I expect people prefer the made up version
'Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.
Freedom to photograph and film. Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.'
... the full text is here but given this is the internet I expect people prefer the made up version
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: Really? Why not? And in any case, where outside the English-speaking world?Couple of my rules for photographing: 1) I do not take photo of art (sculpture, painting) to show as part of my art. If any, as a reference that I was there. There is something about seeing a piece of art in "person" that cannot be replaced by a photo of it; 2) Never photograph children at all. Some communities are extra sensitive and it is better to avoid trouble; 3) I do photograph people on the street, intentionally or un-intentionally, but I would not publish unfavorable photos of them (my wife's rule: if she does not look good, delete it); 4)When in the Prado Museum in Madrid on a Thursday, I just walked in as a local, spoke the language and asked if I could take photos, they said yes, and were proud of my request to photograph Spanish art. When I returned with my wife on Saturday, there were extra long lines and photos were not allowed (go figure!); 5) In London, people seemed fine with having their photo taken (except for certain immigrants). Outside London, I met the most wonderful people and they loved it; 6)In USA, it is OK in big cities to take photos (there are so many people), in rural and other states, it depends on how light your skin looks like, and how big your camera is. 7) Police in Los Angeles California will pose for and with you if you ask them. They are so used to the Hollywood effect
Several of the pictures I took today included children. In some, the child was the subject. No-one raised an eyebrow. Why should they? People in public get photographed. Children are people too. They are not some separate order of creation.
Why did I take pictures of children? Well, for one example, a girl of maybe six with amazing face paint (there was a free face-painting stand) who was riding a tiny Shetland pony (it was a village fête and vide grenier). Or a girl of about 14 and her brother of about 10 sheltering from the sun under a table. In some cases I spoke to the parents; in others, I didn't. But this is the point: NOBODY CARED. As soon as you start imposing ridiculous rules on yourself such as "Never photograph children at all" you are not only giving in to paranoia: you are subscribing to it.
I first encountered this "Never photograph children at all" garbage in New York City some 25 years ago. It has since become widespread in the USA and the UK (where I last lived from 1992 to 2002). But it seems to be an affliction of English speakers. I have NEVER had a problem in continental Europe. I live in France and have travelled in many European countries: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Kosova, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. Aggregate time in each ranged from less than a day (Kosova) to years (Malta). Nor have I ever had a problem in India (aggregate: many months).
Cheers,
R.
padam
Member
Hungary is problematic as well with regards to street photography - at least in theory.
Because I haven't heard of any kind of lawsuit regarding to this.
There are so many smartphone pics (videos) taken day by day that I don't see how they can enforce any of these restrictions anywhere. The worse thing that can happen is that the picture gets deleted (or maybe taken down from the interweb)
Because I haven't heard of any kind of lawsuit regarding to this.
There are so many smartphone pics (videos) taken day by day that I don't see how they can enforce any of these restrictions anywhere. The worse thing that can happen is that the picture gets deleted (or maybe taken down from the interweb)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As you say, in theory. In reality? The part I have highlighted sums it up. And in any case we're not talking exclusively about children.
What you rarely get outside the English-speaking world is brain-dead vigilantes threatening to smash your camera if you photograph their children.
Cheers,
R.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I photograph a lot in what I suppose we must call the horse "community".
There are children all over the place and nobody says a word.
However I did once try to photograph at my local cricket club and was stopped from doing so.
Apparently the English Cricket Authority forbid photography at cricket grounds on account of the "possible" presence of children.
On the occasion in question I was advised to have a word with the local chairman ...which I did ...telling him that it was nonsense.
He agreed and allowed me to continue provided that I avoided if possible getting any children in the frame .
Oh, but if I could provide evidence that I belonged to a local camera club apparently that was ok .
So not a lot of thought being applied me thinks.
There are children all over the place and nobody says a word.
However I did once try to photograph at my local cricket club and was stopped from doing so.
Apparently the English Cricket Authority forbid photography at cricket grounds on account of the "possible" presence of children.
On the occasion in question I was advised to have a word with the local chairman ...which I did ...telling him that it was nonsense.
He agreed and allowed me to continue provided that I avoided if possible getting any children in the frame .
Oh, but if I could provide evidence that I belonged to a local camera club apparently that was ok .
So not a lot of thought being applied me thinks.
I still get my pix up front or on the sly. If your in the US and are not commercial I think you can shoot as you please...until the police start confiscating your gear anyway.
Addy101
Well-known
When something is posted on petapixel, why do I feel the need to check the information? I could't find it on the site of the EP, but that is because of that site....
Anyway, the information about the "English Cricket Authority" seems to be wrong. Ì assume you mean the England and Wales Cricket Board, which is the governing body of cricket in England and Wales. They have photography and video camera guidelines (pdf) which states "The ECB is keen to promote positive images of children playing cricket and is not preventing the use of photographic or videoing equipment". There is more in there, but they don't "forbid photography at cricket grounds on account of the "possible" presence of children".
There is a lot of FUD on this subject...
Anyway, the information about the "English Cricket Authority" seems to be wrong. Ì assume you mean the England and Wales Cricket Board, which is the governing body of cricket in England and Wales. They have photography and video camera guidelines (pdf) which states "The ECB is keen to promote positive images of children playing cricket and is not preventing the use of photographic or videoing equipment". There is more in there, but they don't "forbid photography at cricket grounds on account of the "possible" presence of children".
There is a lot of FUD on this subject...