2 ms·
I am wondering why you feel this way. Legally it's wrong. Even under GDPR it's art. Photos taken for art purpose doesn't need any consent which also protects ev
by ozgurozkan 8y ago
I am wondering why you feel this way. Legally it's wrong. Even under GDPR it's art. Photos taken for art purpose doesn't need any consent which also protects even street photographers.
- detaro 8y agoparent explicitly was talking about not-art use: > try selling these pictures to brands for commercial use Also, GDPR does not have an art exception per se, but it allows member states to create them. Legality of street photography is a complex topic and viewed differently in different jurisdictions.
- ozgurozkan 8y agoTaking a photo is a different action. You don't need a consent for it in public. Just taking a photo is the sole art purpose if you the aim is not distributing it. Selling those pictures to brands is a different action. Selling those pictures to the subject itself is different action. Using those pictures as a papparazzi is a different action. All of them is as complex as street photography. Legality of all photography intents viewed differently in different jurisdictions.