Street Photography, the Internet and the Right to Privacy

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree to this post. Although german law is ridiculous in many ways, the aapects described here are simply not correct and are instead urban legends perpetuated over and over again...

ndnik said:
According to German law, you own the rights to your own image.
Click to expand...

No. The photographer has all rights on the image or picture he took. You have, however, the right to forbid publication of the image, or if you become aware of the publication afterwards, to stop it. If the image has done real damage to your reputation since publication and was taken illegally (I come to this), you can sue the photographer. Nevertheless, the image remains his, only publication (only in germany) is then not allowed anymore.

ndnik said:
This applies in public as well as in private. The law explicitly forbids taking a recognizable image of a person without the person's consent.
Click to expand...

This is simply wrong. You can take any picture as long as you are on public ground in germany. You have not always the right to publish it. Taking the picture is only illegal, if you are, for example, on public ground and take a picture from people in privacy on protected private property by using tools to break the privacy. So using a ladder on the street to take a picture over a high fence into a private garden is forbidden. But, for example, taking the picture, when there is no high fence, is okay. - But, then again, you might not publish it without permission.

The problem with statements like these is that by repeating it over and over again, people start to believe them and talk about the rights that they believe to have, but don't.

I'm aware, that the point of the OP is a complete different matter. So I'm sorry for the offtopic. But those statements make the situation for street-photographers even worse as it is anyway in germany.

If you want to be sure (in germany), simply read the according laws. They are not so hard to understand.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Brian,

But you're assuming that (a) it can significantly change; (b) it will significantly change; and (c) that there is anything whatsoever than can be done to reverse (a) and (b) if both happen.

The atmosphere of fear and suspicion that is created by worrying about (a) and (b) strikes me as a far greater risk to society than the (currently) remote possibilities of a universal database that are being discussed here.
Click to expand...

I hear your argument, but I somewhat disagree. Firstly, because it's demonstrably true that those "changes" unfortunately occur for all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, every day. Secondly, because it isn't "worry" that creates the atmosphere, it's the initial reckless acts themselves. IMO.

I don't think anything can be done about any of it. Nobody can turn back time. But, it is a real issue. Somebody mentioned private investigators, but these days any goofball who decides they don't like you can probably find out more about you in 30 minutes on Google than a PI could have in a month 30 years ago. A lot less if they happen to work for, say AdMob, or at the DMV, or a defense contractor, or...
 
Tompas said:
Sad, but true. We Germans really have strong tendencies toward extremism -- privacy in public, who else would have come up with something like that?
...
I really would like to show some of my pictures.
Click to expand...


I do a little street photography and I know which small risk I take. Taking a photo is not really allowed but has no real consequence. Consequences for publishing depend on your status. If you are a private person (not earning money with photography) then there is no value in dispute so I would get along with a warning from a lawyer that cost me a few EUR. Of course I could go to court and hope that a judge thinks I do art but in a bad case it could be more expensive. So I think street photography is a very controlled risk here. But all this requires that one person finds her photo in the WWW and feels offended.
 
Arjay said:
What can we do to protect the people we photograph?
Click to expand...

We should be respectful with the people we photograph. But protect? What for? I don't think that the information from random street shots add any significant information to the data gathered somewhere else.
 
Hi Arjay,
knowing the paradoxons of our legal system or the inconsistent and contradictory legal practice in Germany I rarely post pictures of people on internet platforms like flickr etc.
Google is allowed to take our photographs and publish them – you have the right to have your face pixilated, but first you have to write Google a note. I am not allowed to do so and it is the same with your pictures. To prove them as art in a lawsuit in Germany is a game of hazard, it depends on the jury and their personal attitudes. Google will never be sued here, like all other companies gathering personal data for commercial use (they sell them).
On the other side, people willingly give their very personal data to every social network like facebook or to one of the dating agencies their very private pictures included. It is a really paradox situation, because the very same people are in paranoia about their pictures taken from me or you.
So what can we do as photographers can do here in Germany? We should not take candids and publish them. If you are taking pictures in the streets ask the people if they allow you to publish them. If you hear a NO! so do not show these photos in the public. If you are photographing architecture and someone is marching through, do not mind, it`s legal (Panoramafreiheit).
What`s about ethics? I know that my personal data is collected and sold dozen times. I´m spitting on my privacy, because it does not really exists. It is only written in law and it would cost me a huge pile of money and all my nerves to get it. I show my broadest grin to every CCTV camera because every legal or illegal organization is spying after my personal data and habit. Anybody who wants to know can have a copy of the charges on my credit card, my mobile phone locations, the numbers I have dialed or the numbers called me. We already have Orwell. So where is my privacy?
But! It is a better living here as photographer. In London city you can be held for a potential terrorist carrying a camera. Nobody will harass you in the Munich subway if you take some pictures. Certainly we had never been victims of terrorism like the London people and there the terrorist don`t have taken photos but lives.
Come on let us take some artsy portraits of paid models and post the nudes on the web. But never photograph your own playing kids you might be told as a pedophile.
 
krötenblender said:
This is simply wrong. You can take any picture as long as you are on public ground in germany.
Click to expand...

AFAIK they changed this recently. If there is a danger for publishing then even taking the photo is illegal.

But the discussion shows that the law is ridiculous. You need a special education as a lawyer for that laws because it's so complicated.
 
zumbido said:
I hear your argument, but I somewhat disagree. Firstly, because it's demonstrably true that those "changes" unfortunately occur for all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, every day. Secondly, because it isn't "worry" that creates the atmosphere, it's the initial reckless acts themselves. IMO.

I don't think anything can be done about any of it. Nobody can turn back time. But, it is a real issue. Somebody mentioned private investigators, but these days any goofball who decides they don't like you can probably find out more about you in 30 minutes on Google than a PI could have in a month 30 years ago. A lot less if they happen to work for, say AdMob, or at the DMV, or a defense contractor, or...
Click to expand...

Dear Brian,

How can this be tied in to pictures taken in public? As you say, Google will tell you far more, far faster, than pictures taken on the street. There are pictures of me at photokina. What does this tell anyone?

Besides which, I'm not sure what you mean either by it's demonstrably true that those "changes" unfortunately occur for all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, every day (who? how?) or by the initial reckless acts themselves. Is allowing someone to take your picture on the street a 'reckless act'?

Cheers,

R.
 
GSNfan said:
In Orwell's 1984 the state watched every individual. Now we know that no state has the resources or is stupid enough to undertake such an activity...
Click to expand...
The trend towards increased monitoring/surveillance of citizens by governments has been ongoing for the past decade(s) and shows no signs of slowing down, I'm afraid, and as computer power increases the level of sophistication increases. For example, the highly controversial data retention directive has been implemented in several (most?) EU states already. In Sweden it's particularly bad; a couple of years ago an extremely controversial law, "FRA-lagen", was passed. It "authorizes the state to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders." (Which in practice is nearly all traffic.)

...and in more repressive countries, governments have monitored people's communications for a long time and routinely go after people who post the wrong kind of thoughts on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Iran, for instance, has an advanced censoring and monitoring system built by Nokia and Siemens:

"Interviews with technology experts in Iran and outside the country say Iranian efforts at monitoring Internet information go well beyond blocking access to Web sites or severing Internet connections.

Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts."

(Wall Street Journal)
 
krötenblender said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree to this post. Although german law is ridiculous in many ways, the aapects described here are simply not correct and are instead urban legends perpetuated over and over again...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it seems you are mistaken.

In Germany, 'street photography' is de facto forbidden; see e.g. "Fotorecht für Fotografen" by lawyers Schubert and Bauer (published April 2010), easily found via the search engine of your choice and freely available. If still in doubt consult your own lawyer...
 
Data Protection Act

Data Protection Act

From Liberty's website.

Whether or not data relate to a particular individual will be a question of fact in each particular case. Information will amount to personal data if it is capable of being processed so as to distinguish you from any other individual. For example, if a data controller can capture an image of you from a CCTV camera and then match that image to a photograph or a physical description of you, the CCTV footage will be personal data. On the other hand, CCTV footage of a public area where you are just a ‘face in the crowd’ and the data controller has no means of identifying who you are is unlikely to be considered your personal data.

-----
My reading of this is that if a photo is combined with your name, then it falls within the remit of the DPA.

Principle of DPA
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless-
at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.
Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.
Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.
Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act.
Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.
Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.
From wikipedia.

-----------

Surely this significantly restricts the application of face tagging software?
 
Roger Hicks said:
A friend of mine used to work for MI6 (he died in his late 90s). He pointed out that the biggest single argument against 24-hour surveillance is that it's too time-consuming and expensive.

Even with (hypothetical) full automation and automatic face recognition, SOMEONE has to try to make sense of it all, as well as weeding out the false positives.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the capabilities of today's server farms that process these data. The computer power is available, and as soon as someone has identified a viable business model to offer this as a service, it will be done (if it isn't already being done - nobody would care to broadcast it if they did). I know what I am talking about as I have worked in a business of highly compute-intensive applications.

At first, doing this will be a premium service for corporations willing to pay a corresponding price, but later when the infrastructure is there and has been amortised, who knows if governments might not be tempted to step in too.

The article in Der Spiegel mentions that every single individual's data set Facebook is hosting in its servers is worth US$ 100. Can you imagine how much money and profit lies in these data, and how much money will be available to refine then?

I was a student in West Germany in the early seventies. Maybe you still remember we had some bad riots during that time. I know some people that participated in left-wing demonstrations. They were videotaped by the police, and several of them years later were refused admission to the civil service on the grounds of having participated in the demonstrations. Even back then, authorities had the money and manpower to do that, without computers (East Germans might be able to tell you more stories of what's possible). Just imagine what they will do today ...

BTW, who cares about false positives? To those who make money with this activity, that's just collateral damage... They couldn't care less, because it will be very difficult to construct viable cases to sue for compensation if it happened. In the end, consumers will have to prove they are innocent. It has happened before ...

GSNfan said:
Credit card numbers and their privacy are important due to fraud and credit card companies are more worried to safeguard that information than the user.
Click to expand...
Well, that doesn't prove anything. Last year, several hundred thousand credit card data sets of European tourists had been stolen in the US and central america. The problem kept European banks busy for months.

Anyway, it doesn't make sense to dissect all of these arguments in detail, because - again - this discussion is not about legality, but about ethics.

We all have a hunch what is technically feasible. What can be done will certainly be done - first by corporations, and if it has become an 'accepted' practive, governments will start using it too.

Our discussion here isn't about whether or not this ought to happen. It will, unfortunately.

I just don't think we ought to feed the kraken if we can make it a little more difficult, compute-intensive and thus more expensive.
 
Last edited:
scarletfawth said:
From Liberty's website.

Whether or not data relate to a particular individual will be a question of fact in each particular case. Information will amount to personal data if it is capable of being processed so as to distinguish you from any other individual. For example, if a data controller can capture an image of you from a CCTV camera and then match that image to a photograph or a physical description of you, the CCTV footage will be personal data. On the other hand, CCTV footage of a public area where you are just a ‘face in the crowd’ and the data controller has no means of identifying who you are is unlikely to be considered your personal data. . . .
Click to expand...
The data controller always can identify you, given another picture of you for comparison (or he may know you personally, or he may have an excellent verbal description, or you may be very distinctive, e.g. shaven head and foot-long moustache). So this is a meaningless and aleatory distinction.

Cheers,

R.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I do a little street photography and I know which small risk I take. Taking a photo is not really allowed but has no real consequence. Consequences for publishing depend on your status. (...) So I think street photography is a very controlled risk here. But all this requires that one person finds her photo in the WWW and feels offended.
Click to expand...

Ok, but given current legislation (here in Germany) something really nice like showing some of my pictures under a flashy title like 'City life in [insert my hometown here]' in the town hall or the local art museum is not going to happen. Even showing them in the little local photo club sparks discussion not about the quality of my photos but about the legal issue.

And the risk publishing on a web server overseas (or on RFF!) may be quite small -- but I'm not the care-free student I used to be anymore but supposedly a well respected businessman...

If I only didn't like this particular style of photography so much! It's not even that I can't or don't like to ask people for permission; I do that sometimes -- but I don't get the pictures I really want that way.

Sigh.

[Sorry to the OP if this goes too much off topic. It's something that really bothers me... but I'll now shut up.]
 
Tompas said:
Ok, but given current legislation (here in Germany) something really nice like showing some of my pictures under a flashy title like 'City life in [insert my hometown here]' in the town hall or the local art museum is not going to happen. Even showing them in the little local photo club sparks discussion not about the quality of my photos but about the legal issue.
Click to expand...
A little bit of civil disobedience can be healthy for a democracy, and indeed sometimes even necessary.
 
Arjay said:
I think you underestimate the capabilities of today's server farms that process these data. The computer power is available, and as soon as someone has identified a viable business model to offer this as a service, it will be done (if it isn't already beiong done - nobody would care to broadcast it if they did). I know what I am talking about as I have worked in a business of highly compute-intensive applications.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been told this by others who currently work in intelligence. But I think the flaw lies in 'viable business model' (given the explosion of data). Sure, if I post "Fred Smith (or Hans Schmidt) of 1, Buggins Drive (or Bugginsstraße 1), Anywheretown, 2:30pm, March 12th, 2007, in the shopping mall at ______" it MIGHT be easily searched. But an unnamed person? Usually identified at most by city or village? This strikes me as worrying more than I need to.

I just question whether street photography is of any significance whatsoever compared with all the other ways people have of finding out about you, via the 'phone company, airline passenger lists, etc. I've been on the receiving end of some of this, when in 90-91 I visited a friend in Moscow who had first contacted me from Ethiopia because he borrowed a book I'd written from the British Council.

Cheers,

R.
 
andersju said:
A little bit of civil disobedience can be healthy for a democracy, and indeed sometimes even necessary.
Click to expand...

Don't understand your point. The law is meant to protect peoples rights, not a country or government. So there is no "civil disobedience". If you post photos of people in the internet only the displayed persons might care and no one else.
 
Imagery of the public space has been made since FAR before any of us were born. Even before photography, there were painters that attempted to capture 'life on the streets'. It would be terrifically sad if I was not able to see what the urban space looked like a hundred or more years ago! So don't my children and their children deserve the same access to valuable historical information? Street photographers provide a huge portion of that documentation.

Regarding the idea of infringing on someone's rights: if all us citizens want to agree to maintain a pristine privacy space in public, then it goes both ways. I then don't want anyone playing a boombox at decibels beyond my comfort level... and jazz only please! And your Harley without the mufflers... forgeddaboutit!!
 
tom.w.bn said:
Don't understand your point. The law is meant to protect peoples rights, not a country or government. So there is no "civil disobedience". If you post photos of people in the internet only the displayed persons might care and no one else.
Click to expand...
Civil disobedience is "the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government"... (Wikipedia) Who the law is supposed to protect is not really relevant. The law is there; Tompas is very bothered by it, because it makes him afraid of showing his street photography to others; and him actively disobeying the law and challenging it would be a minor form of civil disobedience. That not many might care about his violation is another matter. (Of course, if he were to be prosecuted, a lot of people would probably care and could make a big deal about it and stir up debate.)
 
Arjay said:
Anyway, it doesn't make sense to dissect all of these arguments in detail, because - again - this discussion is not about legality, but about ethics.
Click to expand...

There is nothing privet about public places. It logically follows then that there is nothing unethical about sharing what was already in full public view to the rest of the public on the internet. Especially if its a good photograph, people in it become part of the art itself.


I posted the paragraph above in the second page of this thread, and its my answer to the ethical aspect of what you're trying to address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom