Restrictive Picture Taking Law In Hungary

R

Rodchenko

Olympian
Local time
6:13 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
2,994
Those planning a weekend break in Budapest take note. From 15 March anyone taking photographs in Hungary is technically breaking the law if someone wanders into shot, under a new civil code that outlaws taking pictures without the permission of everyone in the photograph.
Click to expand...

This from the country that produced Robert Capa, Andre Kertesz, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, and Brassai.

I can't understand how such a resctrictive law can even be enforced.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures
 
tom.w.bn said:
Operators of security cameras don't publish photos on the internet, street photographers do.
Click to expand...

What exactly does that law say? Is it forbidden to take pictures in public with someone in the frame without explicit permission, or is it "just" forbidden to publish these pictures?
 
I don't have any source other than that article (though I find the Guardian reliable). It says, though, that the law extends a ban on publication into a ban on taking photos without permission.
 
Well, if implemented, that is the end of the Hungarian tourism industry. And also photographic and mobile-phone businesses, and galleries and libraries.

No company would be able to offer a photo-printing service without being provided with a positive id and written document from every person in the picture, otherwise they would face legal action. Nor would any organisation be able to exhibit, store or publish any photograph without precise identification of, and legal release-form signed by, every person visible. Even with pictures pre-dating the law (assuming that it is not retrospective of course) it would be necessary to have incontrovertible proof of the date of the photograph. Indeed, what is the position with new prints of old photographs?
 
tom.w.bn said:
Operators of security cameras don't publish photos on the internet, street photographers do.
Click to expand...

Many photographers don't publish pictures on the internet either.

The law, as quoted in the article, is concerned with picture taking, not publishing.
 
It's impossible to enforce that all car drivers follow the traffic rules (speed limit, traffic lights, etc.). Are all those traffic rules ridiculous and impractical because you can't enforce the rules all the time?
Click to expand...

One half way sensible answer might be "yes".

Another might be "no".

But, I'm willing to bet, the most common answer will be "dunno, mate".
 
I'm not sure how you can ban picture taking when every other person is shooting a cell phone.

Read up on current history in Hungary. The political environment has become very toxic on many levels: Extreme right wing and anti democratic.

The thing with severe laws is that they can be used selectively as an excuse to harass or shut somebody up.
 
Rodchenko said:
This from the country that produced Robert Capa, Andre Kertesz, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, and Brassai.
Click to expand...

Today's Hungary did not produce any of them + it was a different country at that time + Capa was born in a region that is now in Slovakia + they all emigrated anyway.

The new law reflects the state of Hungarian political scene of these days. No surprise for me.
 
read: Restrictive Picture Taking Law In Hungary Reply to Thread Logged in as leicapix

read: Restrictive Picture Taking Law In Hungary Reply to Thread Logged in as leicapix

Some people and Nations are never secure unless all the population is held as serfs. In meetings with many East Europeans and Russians here in Toronto, shooting my street snaps. They are both scared, suspicious and overly dramatic. I thought fears from the past..
When I worked at a certain store, we would phone when their work was ready.
One such gentleman wanted to know who else had his number!
Why did we phone him!
I guess old habits don't die.
Seeing the attitude of Parisians and their Law, i have tended to rather fly thru Amsterdam. Much nicer attitude.
 
Being destroyed as we speak....

Being destroyed as we speak....

uhoh7 said:
what about security cameras?
Click to expand...

All over Europe and particularly the UK, people are running down the ones alongside the roads. In fact, the problem is so bad that "dummy" camera's are being set up all around to reduce the cost of loss when a camera is destroyed.

It's said that in London there are only a few minutes a day when Anyone cannot be located and tracked.
 
In 2012 My wife and I spent a few days in Budapest and it was wonderful, both photographically and esthetically. So glad this law was not in affect then.
 
One would have to read the actual law to know for sure - but how much different is this to what is implemented here in Germany? The German definition is also rather vague and basically with some exceptions (like relies, concerts or other public events) prohibits taking pictures in public that include people in way that would make them recognisable and one needs written consent to take that picture.

The real question is - how it is going to be enforced. But true is - it is not a good start and tries to forbid what can at times be potential thread to privacy, rather than finding a more reasonable if complicated solution.
 
All over Europe and particularly the UK, people are running down the ones alongside the roads. In fact, the problem is so bad that "dummy" camera's are being set up all around to reduce the cost of loss when a camera is destroyed.
Click to expand...

Could you tell us where you found this information?
 
Matus said:
One would have to read the actual law to know for sure - but how much different is this to what is implemented here in Germany?
Click to expand...

The difference, according to what has been said about that hungarian law, it is forbidden there to take the picture in the first place. This is not, what is forbidden here in Germany. In Germany it is forbidden to publish the picture, if a some restrictions apply and someone sues you. What restrictions that are, can sometimes very difficult to decide. Most times it is about persons ("Recht am eigenen Bildnis") or copyright of designs (e.g. architecture) or art.

But then, that law is very seldom enforced (some spectacular cases may give a wrong impression about that) and in Germany you never go into prison because of it.

Nevertheless, it is a stupid law and just another sign how wrong things go since some years.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I think your knowledge is a bit outdated. As a general rule, in Germany you need the consent of a person already for taking the photo. There are exceptions but you have to be a specialized lawyer in the field of media/internet to know all the special rules for taking photos and publishing. Thats because we always make the most complicated laws here.
Click to expand...

There was a case recently in Germany (close to Bonn) were somebody got convicted for taking secretly photos of people who unleashed their dogs in an area where a leash has to be put on the dog. The photographer only used his photos to make reports to the police, about 50 in total. One of his photographed "victims" was a lawyer who filed a lawsuit against the photographer because he was of the opinion that his right in his own`s picture ("Recht am eignem Bild") had been violated and the judge agreed on this. So this person was convicted for a) taking up work only law enforcement (police, regulatory authority) is allowed to do b) taking photos of people without their written consent.

I later had a look at the German laws about this and indeed, only persons of public interest or persons that attend a public event and are not the main subject of the photo are allowed to be photographed in Germany. Additionally, even if parts of the person have been blacked out in a photo (or are otherwise not visible) as for the example the famous "black bar over the eyes" but the person is still identifiable, such a photo is not allowed to be published with the written consent of the person.
 
The issue would appear to be the definition of event in the German law. If the purpose of photographing in the dog park was to have a photo of your dog but you happened to capture an identifiable lawyer in the background would that be a problem? Is walking your dog a public event? And if it is then photographing a scene is no problem but "street shooting" of strangers is. In the example given the lawyer was the subject of the photo so that is clearly a problem.

In either of these laws can consent be implied? If a person is posing for a photo have they consented?
 
Scrambler said:
The issue would appear to be the definition of event in the German law. If the purpose of photographing in the dog park was to have a photo of your dog but you happened to capture an identifiable lawyer in the background would that be a problem? Is walking your dog a public event? And if it is then photographing a scene is no problem but "street shooting" of strangers is. In the example given the lawyer was the subject of the photo so that is clearly a problem.

In either of these laws can consent be implied? If a person is posing for a photo have they consented?
Click to expand...

Public event is something like a festival, trade fair in the public, or a demonstration but not walking a dog in the public. Anybody randomly appearing, for example the lawyer small in the background but the own dog being clearly the main subject of the photo should not be a problem. However, taking randomly snaps of passing by strangers in a street especially in a way that the person being photographed doesn`t realize it (aka. hip-shots) are no more allowed in Germany. If a person is posing for a photo it should be OK to take the photo but any form of publishing is a problem again.

Take for example the Terms of Use of LFI gallery (Leica Fotografie International) for uploading any photo to their servers:

"that depicted persons must have explicitly consented with publication"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom