6 ms·

This bit me hard. I love street photography and have been active for a number of years. I have done some good work. I never appreciated the freedom I had as

This bit me hard. I love street photography and have been active for a number of years. I have done some good work. I never appreciated the freedom I had as a photographer in the US. A while ago I moved to Norway. I kept taking pictures. Working on two different concepts / series. I got some good shots, the cultural differences in behavior, fashion, what is considered polite etc was inspiring. I shared some shots with friends back in the states including my mentor. I got some food and valuable reviews, and one series was well liked. I had put 4- 5 month of effort into it. (not all day every day) I was starting to wonder about how to go about publishing them. Now I hate social media. I do not put my photos on Instagram, Twitter, or wherever else. This turned out to be a blessing. I was visiting a few galleries to learn about the local scene and dip my toes in the water and see what it takes to get a few photos up. I dont take along an iPad with photos, I stick to an old portfolio with printed photos. I got a couple of stern lectures about Norwegian law, and that all my photos were to be considered illegal esp. if I were to show them anywhere. It was fortuitous that I dont share my work. I admit I was pissed off for a while and I have had to put Street Photography out of my mind. I am left with two folders on a harddrive with work that I cannot display. I have not yet been able to delete all of them. I have thought about showing them in the US, the legality of which I have not been able to establish so that is off as well.

scotty79 5y ago
Are you sure you need to delete them? I don't know Norwegian law specifically, but it might be the case that you are allowed to take photos in public and you just can't publish them without subjects consent.
- ThinkBeat 5y ago
  This is for the most part true yes. It is late and I do not have the exact phrasing, but "You are not allowed to take a photo of a person who is in a vulnerable position" The problem there is what constitutes a vulnerable position. A man urinating, a drunk person, a beggar, a homeless person, children, someone crying are all examples of things that -can- be illegal. (Unless you have written release) (which is not enough in all cases). There is also a part about clothing, like the story above mentioned. Most people (I think) look at the photo in the story and everything seems kosher as far as clothing goes. some disagree as the story indicates. The big problem is the ambiguity of some of these terms and what the person you are taking a photo of would interpret said terms.
  - lovelyviking 5y ago
    Looks like Norwegian law is terrible. It doesn't respect freedom of art expression. Isn't it a right of any person to see the world the way this person want to see it and express it in any art form that is available? They wish to control pictures photographer produce and they take no shame in that. It is absolutely terrible. They basically oppress photographer who wish to show reality with all imperfections. They make illegal any photography that tries to show reality as it is or as photographer perceive it instead of some polished idealistic BS that has nothing to with what is really going on.
    - 3np 5y ago
      The law has more nuance than that. I am not a lawyer but it’s not as black and white as these comments make it seem. Separately but this (photography/recording in public, and sharing/publishing of said material) is one of those cases where law and praxis varies widely between otherwise similar jurisdictions.
- vmception 5y ago
  Pretty sure that's the point, they have no use for them but haven't resolved to delete them due to their lack of utility. They function as a memory just as everyone else has photos, its not the reason they took the photos though
- 3np 5y ago
  I neighboring Sweden, you can take all the photos you want. Publishing is where the dragons are.
ppeetteerr 5y ago
It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.
- randombits0 5y ago
  The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.
  - ppeetteerr 5y ago
    That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it, and not just anyone. Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford them ;)
    - haswell 5y ago
      > It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
      - gpvos 5y ago
        It makes total sense. To live any kind of livable life you need to go into the public space now and then. That shouldn't mean you have to give up any rights or freedoms.
pomian 5y ago
Save them. make a trust or will to publish in 50 years after you die. then it will be history. very interesting for everyone, and no legal issues.
- movedx 5y ago
  I love this idea. It's thinking long term and beyond your own life (which is something we should be doing in everything we're doing with our lives.)

scotty79 5y ago

Are you sure you need to delete them? I don't know Norwegian law specifically, but it might be the case that you are allowed to take photos in public and you just can't publish them without subjects consent.

ThinkBeat 5y ago
This is for the most part true yes. It is late and I do not have the exact phrasing, but "You are not allowed to take a photo of a person who is in a vulnerable position" The problem there is what constitutes a vulnerable position. A man urinating, a drunk person, a beggar, a homeless person, children, someone crying are all examples of things that -can- be illegal. (Unless you have written release) (which is not enough in all cases). There is also a part about clothing, like the story above mentioned. Most people (I think) look at the photo in the story and everything seems kosher as far as clothing goes. some disagree as the story indicates. The big problem is the ambiguity of some of these terms and what the person you are taking a photo of would interpret said terms.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  Looks like Norwegian law is terrible. It doesn't respect freedom of art expression. Isn't it a right of any person to see the world the way this person want to see it and express it in any art form that is available? They wish to control pictures photographer produce and they take no shame in that. It is absolutely terrible. They basically oppress photographer who wish to show reality with all imperfections. They make illegal any photography that tries to show reality as it is or as photographer perceive it instead of some polished idealistic BS that has nothing to with what is really going on.
  - 3np 5y ago
    The law has more nuance than that. I am not a lawyer but it’s not as black and white as these comments make it seem. Separately but this (photography/recording in public, and sharing/publishing of said material) is one of those cases where law and praxis varies widely between otherwise similar jurisdictions.
vmception 5y ago
Pretty sure that's the point, they have no use for them but haven't resolved to delete them due to their lack of utility. They function as a memory just as everyone else has photos, its not the reason they took the photos though
3np 5y ago
I neighboring Sweden, you can take all the photos you want. Publishing is where the dragons are.

ppeetteerr 5y ago

It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.

randombits0 5y ago
The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.
- ppeetteerr 5y ago
  That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it, and not just anyone. Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford them ;)
  - haswell 5y ago
    > It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
    - gpvos 5y ago
      It makes total sense. To live any kind of livable life you need to go into the public space now and then. That shouldn't mean you have to give up any rights or freedoms.

pomian 5y ago

Save them. make a trust or will to publish in 50 years after you die. then it will be history. very interesting for everyone, and no legal issues.

movedx 5y ago
I love this idea. It's thinking long term and beyond your own life (which is something we should be doing in everything we're doing with our lives.)