Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Bertram2 said:
Bertram, is that the way it is here in Germany? Do we have the right to take pictures of people on public streets? I am not talking about publishing those photos, just taking them.
rationale for street photography
- Thread starter FrankS
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 4K
Bertram, is that the way it is here in Germany? Do we have the right to take pictures of people on public streets? I am not talking about publishing those photos, just taking them.
wrenhunter
RF newbie
I don't find the first paragraph persuasive. The argument, "You're being photographed all the time, whether you know it or not -- so a few more can't hurt" does not go a long way. For a subject who is concerned about Big Brother, you may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back -- and you are there in person, unlike the government!
The second paragraph is on the right track, but asserting our "right" to photograph absolutely while denying autonomy to the subject is also asking for trouble. It's also not how a free society is supposed to work. One person's freedom extends until it impinges on someone else's. I think there are better answers at that point than "Too bad", on the part of the shooter, or "Give me that camera!" from the subject.
For me, this is very much like my "right" to approach a stranger on the street, and their "right" to refuse to speak to me. They can say "Hi, nice to meet you" (Cool, you took my picture!), or "I don't feel like talking right now" (Oh, a photographer -- whatever), or "Get away from me" (Don't take my picture).
I would use the approach that Vince C mentions below:
The second paragraph is on the right track, but asserting our "right" to photograph absolutely while denying autonomy to the subject is also asking for trouble. It's also not how a free society is supposed to work. One person's freedom extends until it impinges on someone else's. I think there are better answers at that point than "Too bad", on the part of the shooter, or "Give me that camera!" from the subject.
For me, this is very much like my "right" to approach a stranger on the street, and their "right" to refuse to speak to me. They can say "Hi, nice to meet you" (Cool, you took my picture!), or "I don't feel like talking right now" (Oh, a photographer -- whatever), or "Get away from me" (Don't take my picture).
I would use the approach that Vince C mentions below:
sfb_dot_com
Well-known
Seems we have quite hot topic here. I must admit to feeling emotionally on the side of the people who have responded to Bertram's threat of violence, but logically it's probably better to just give up the film. Reason? Well it's just that there are an unknown quantity of people out there for whom violence, even to the point of murder is morally acceptable. I know because I work with people who have this disorder, and unfortunately there is no visible way to tell them apart from the general populace.
My second point is that I think the note is worse than useless mainly because of the first paragraph which would only send the average sociopath into a paranoid frenzy, but also because it is far too wordy. I don't think it would be read, just like all those pamphlets religious zealots press into your hands when you go for a walk down your average high street.
Reluctantly discretion in this case is the better part of valour. There's always another day, and another film 🙂
Now to practise what I preach! 😱
Andy
My second point is that I think the note is worse than useless mainly because of the first paragraph which would only send the average sociopath into a paranoid frenzy, but also because it is far too wordy. I don't think it would be read, just like all those pamphlets religious zealots press into your hands when you go for a walk down your average high street.
Reluctantly discretion in this case is the better part of valour. There's always another day, and another film 🙂
Now to practise what I preach! 😱
Andy
R
RML
Guest
David, there's a big difference between someone asking me politely to refrain from taking his/her photo and someone demanding me to delete a shot or hand over the film. Shooting in public impinges no-one's rights so that's a mute point. My being more visible than the government or a company is true but I've never seen it being a problem.
Courtesy is a different matter. When I can settle things in peace than I will. It's when people assume rights they don't have and don't want to hear where they go wrong that the note comes into play. I have very little patience with people who won't listen to reason and the note gives me either a few moments of quiet (moments which might give people a moment to think. Amazing what some thinking can do to a person's stance in some matter) or give me a chance to leave the scene (most people won't follow you if you go in their opposite direction).
There are many more situations that can easily be resolved by courtesy, peace and a little patience. The note simply says "too bad" when courtesy fails.
Courtesy is a different matter. When I can settle things in peace than I will. It's when people assume rights they don't have and don't want to hear where they go wrong that the note comes into play. I have very little patience with people who won't listen to reason and the note gives me either a few moments of quiet (moments which might give people a moment to think. Amazing what some thinking can do to a person's stance in some matter) or give me a chance to leave the scene (most people won't follow you if you go in their opposite direction).
There are many more situations that can easily be resolved by courtesy, peace and a little patience. The note simply says "too bad" when courtesy fails.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Kevin said:
It's more than the commercial use of a stolen pic, which is forbidden anyway:
The decisive difference in this context is what I wrote with bold letters: Everybody who is not a person of public interest has the right to refuse getting photographed.
That concerns photog A photographs person B in any case.
How far it concerns a photog shooting in a urban environment getting people into his frame unavoidably will decide a judge in case of complaints. And that is the EU right, not the German right.
There is still the question of personal dignity , politeness and respect, tho for some here this does obviously does not play a role at all.
The guy I mentioned shot me and my girlfriend 23 years ago and when I told him that i don't like that and that he should have asked me before he said " Kümmere Dich um Deinen eigenen Scheiss !" . And a second later , "ping!", the camera door was open.
IF he had said "Sorry , I could not ask you because the photo would have been gone then " nothing bad would have happened.
Leaving aside all the superfluous legal /illegal discussions , in a moral sense all street photogs , no matter have mostly " STOLEN" their pics from other people, and they knew it very well . And that''s what we have to do too, no way out. The only question is how do we react when we are caught in the act ?
Do we insist in any not existing rights or do we respect the "victims" wish to get personally respected ? I prefer the latter.
Bertram
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
How about when we do 'street' in shady places, more atmospehere, and the people are illegals. Their lack of cooperation and or refusal to be pictured is to do with their lack of papers.
We must be aware of other people's situations.
We must be aware of other people's situations.
lubitel
Well-known
Personally I dont agree with the notion that we "steal" the photographs. We are not criminals just because we take pictures. People belong to our environment, just as leaves and trees and buildings. I never jump in front of someone and "steal" their photo. If I want a portrait shot, I ask. If someone is part of the scene, I think I have the right to include him/her in the composition.
V
varjag
Guest
It might be how you feel about street photography, but I (and some other people I know) do not get an impression of 'stealing' anything when shooting in public, openly. Hip shots might provoke some feeling, that's why I refrain from practicing them.Bertram2 said:
That's one more reason to act by law rather than your personal assumptions of morality and fairness.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
The only time I was aggresively confronted for making candids was in a club. I was photographing visiting friends but someone there thought I had photographed him as well.
I assured him I wasn't working for the boulevard press and told him I would cut gladly cut any frames with his image in them and sent these to him by post.
That worked.
I assured him I wasn't working for the boulevard press and told him I would cut gladly cut any frames with his image in them and sent these to him by post.
That worked.
aterlecki
Established
Bertram,Bertram2 said:
Sorry you are talking complete and absolute nonsense. There is NO right in public to refuse being photographed. You can try and say there is as much as you like, until you are blue in the face for all I care, but there is no right. If you believe there is then please quote me the relevent law which supposedly upholds this right. You may have an argument on how a photograph taken is used but that doesn't mean that the actual taking of the photograph can be refused. If this is a right then I am single handedly going to shut down every surevillance camera pointing in a public space in London. Somehow I think I'll be laughed out of the Police station when I go to make my request.
Even in France, which has probably the most strict privacy rights regarding images of people taken in public (to the point where Magnum photographers have given up photographing in France), their laws do not extend to the prohibition of actually taking a photograph. It's all to do with the photograph's use.
And to say that a street pic is an act of stealing is just drivel and the sort of contorted philosophical mumbo-jumbo that is ever more being adopted and extended from those tribes who think that their soul is being stolen or captured when a photograph is taken. If you honestly believe that then next thing you'll be forcing us to do is avert our eyes from you in public in case the image we have of you is remembered. After all remembering is a form of retaining an image and so akin to photography is it not?
Yes it is all about common courtesy and decency but your actions and indeed the words you use to support your own pet theories on public photography seem to posess none of that.
Tony
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Bertram2 said:
So you are saying that there is a new EU law which grants people the right to refuse to be photographed in public if they are not already a public figure?
Where can I read more about this?
wrenhunter
RF newbie
Agreed. As you note in your post, courtesy is the best first approach. I did not realize that the "note" is intended to defuse an argument as well as inform. But you do not say what the outcome of the courteous discussion is or might be -- do you ever agree to stop taking pictures of a subject, and/or discard the frame later?RML said:
Here is where we run into trouble, I think. The word "right" is freighted with meaning. What do we mean by the "right to take pictures"? There is no specific legal right in the US of which I'm aware. There may well be one in other countries. I suspect that what some mean is "lack of a specific restriction against it". But if that is so, surely the same applies equally to the "right of refusal" -- there is no law that says one can't refuse.
But frankly, even if turns out that the latter "right" doesn't exist, I will still stop when asked, because I want to respect people's wishes as well as their rights.
R
RML
Guest
wrenhunter said:
I've never been asked to delete a frame since I shoot digital. And I've never been asked to destroy a negative either.
When in doubt, I do "ask" (body language is often a faster way to get an answer) and when the "answer" is "rather not" then I don't. This happens sometimes and I don't push the point with that person.
In some places it might be prohibited to shoot certain objects/subjects and I better stick to the law in such cases, but I've yet to encounter a place in this world where there's a law against photographing the common people in the street. I've shot in many places in Europe, the Caribbean and Asia and have never been demanded to stop by the police.
Respecting others must be the first approach taken, definitely.
a.black
viva la Swiss
Even if there is a law, people first have to know about it and second thy have to realize that they are being photographed. In the second case I agree with the experience from the Winogrand article, that people often don't know what you are doing even if you stand in the middle of the street photographing them right "in the face." I very rarely get stares at me, I never have been asked what I'm doing with that black thing.
taffer
void
There isn't a recipe that will always work, in the end it's all down to common sense given the specific subject and moment, to how you behave in relationship with others (you usually get what you give) and to how far you're willing to go.
And remember, Let's Be Careful Out There 😉
And remember, Let's Be Careful Out There 😉
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Kevin said:
Kevin,
the laws are really not the decisive point in this context, but if you want to know what the law is here in Germany this may help:
German law and it's practical orientation. As you see there are no clear rights for the photog. It follows an EU guideline which came into force 2004.
There is no right to shoot any people in public places, rather 100 open doors to an expensive experience when it comes to a trial, as the bold parts of the text prove.
The whole article @ http://www.sakowski.de/skripte/eig_bild.html
2. Grundsätze (Auszug)
a) Schutzbereich
Das Recht am eigenen Bild ist eine spezielle Ausprägung des allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts (Art. 1 und 2 GG). Nur in bezug auf diesen persönlichkeitsrechtlichen Hintergrund hat es etwas mit Urheberrecht zu tun. Üblicherweise wird aber zwischen Urheberrecht und Recht am eigenen Bild aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Zielrichtung unterschieden.
Der Schutzbereich erstreckt sich nach § 22 S. 1 nicht auf das Herstellen von Bildnissen, sondern nur auf deren Verbreitung und öffentliche Zurschaustellung. Heute ist aber anerkannt, dass auch eine Vorverlagerung des Rechtsschutzes auf den Zeitpunkt des Herstellens von Aufnahmen nach dem allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrecht geschützt sein kann. Das ist zumindest dann der Fall, wenn dies in der Absicht einer Veröffentlichung geschieht. Der Begriff des "Verbreitens" ist weiter als der entsprechende Begriff im Urheberrecht. Er betrifft zum Beispiel auch die Weitergabe eines Fotos im privaten Bereich.
Geschützt ist nicht das Foto als solches (Fotomaterial), sondern die äußere Erscheinung des Abgebildeten als Ausdruck seines Wesens und seiner Persönlichkeit. Andere sollen seine Bildnisse nicht beliebig verwenden, insbesondere auch nicht kommerziell ausnutzen dürfen.
3. Ausnahmen: (Auszug)
c) Personen als "Beiwerk"
Zulässig ist die zustimmungsfreie Ablichtung von Personen als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder Örtlichkeit. Die Person darf nicht Zweck der Aufnahme sein.
a.black
viva la Swiss
Point 3 is probably a issue to have extensive discussions about, being a subjective decision, if a person is just a insignificant part of the scene photographed, or if the photo was taken because of the person (single or multiple)
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Bertram2 said:
A-ha, that clarifies it perfectly.
Thus if you have never published or distributed anything there is certainly less chance of someone proving an intention to publish a photo with them in it.
vielen lieben Dank!
Kevin
aterlecki
Established
Kevin said:
Sadly I don't read German so I can't even get the gist of the link provided let alone the nuances.
Even if you had published previously I would have thought it would be pretty damn hard to prove intent on any single shot or even series of shots. The whole idea of me defending myself against someone's charge that they know my intent better than I do sends Orwellian (or is it Kafkan) shivers down my spine.
Honestly all this crap just makes me want to give up on this world completely.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
aterlecki said:
Sadly I sometimes feel this way but I also suspect they want me to stop trying.
If you wish to know the nuances in German the best way to start learning is at http://dict.leo.org
viele Grüße,
Kevin
Similar threads
