3 ms·
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 vulnerab
by 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 agoLooks 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 agoThe 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.