7 ms·

> you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public This is clearly not true though. People end up in other peoples’ photos all

> you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public This is clearly not true though. People end up in other peoples’ photos all of the time without permission. So it sounds like a bullshit law that can be used to arbitrarily string people up rather than anything actually enforceable or reasonable.

disgu 5y ago
You cannot take a picture of a person where the person is the subject of the photo. This is not the case when you take a picture of a statue and there's people in the background, for example.
- soco 5y ago
  You can, as long you're not using it for publications. The usage on your own blog or Facebook account is allowed but the line is drawn at billboards, on TV or such (larger) channels. For those you must have an agreement.
  - disgu 5y ago
    This is not true and hasn't been for a while. It used to basically be a grey area but courts have repeatedly stated that just taking the picture was not allowed even if there wasn't ever any intention of publishing it anywhere. You would have to justify it anyway and personal rights in Germany always trump the rights of others to create art, for example. You'll find many cases that are about surveillance cameras as well and even there's it's often in favor of the person not wanting to be on camera. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI+ZR+272%2F94 https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI... http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&nr=10275 http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document...
  - throwaway525142 5y ago
    I think Facebook isn't covered because the uploader needs to give Facebook all rights over the image which they can't.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Cropping the photo changes the subject. What a stupid criteria.
noduerme 5y ago
Similar to how Trump wanted to expand libel law to put a presumption of guilt on the speaker, as they do in the UK.
- basisword 5y ago
  That’s not how it works in the UK.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    From [1]: > Not only is the writer guilty until proven innocent under English libel law From [2]: > English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/10/english-libel-law-simon-singh https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/10/english-libe... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
    - basisword 5y ago
      The burden of proof being on the defendant is very different from a “presumption of guilt”.
      - brigandish 5y ago
        Semantically, it may be so. In practice, I fail to see how there would be a difference. If you are not presumed innocent and the burden of proof lies with you is that not the same as a presumption of guilt?
gjulianm 5y ago
Most of the times, the prohibition is not "taking the photo" but distributing it, which is much easier to enforce. At least it's how it is in Spain, where we have a similar law.
newaccount74 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the law is about publishing photos, not taking photos. And in general the focus of the photo matters. You don't need permission from random folks who are not recognizable in the background. Intent also matters. If I post a picture of my kid eating icecream and there's some random dude in the background no court will prosecute that. If I add a caption identifying the person in the background things might look different.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  what good is taking a photo if it can't be published?
  - soylentcola 5y ago
    And this is why I no longer ever want to be in photos. Not everything needs to be published to the world.
    - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
      From a privacy standpoint AND the fact that everyone feels that everything must be uploaded to social media for narcissism points is one of my top worries. My problem is that attempts to legally curb this have gross implications for the rights of people to keep informed about ongoings in the world. We have a right to be able to show corrupt cops as much as we do criminals and rioters. We have a right to showcase protests when going well or when they're destructive. We have a right to film stuff like Rittenhouse's situation and use that information to jail or free him of charges. And any corporation will exploit this citizen desire for 'privacy' and use it as a wedge to strip us of our power as citizens, nevermind to allow some information that is in line with establishment values but disallow information that runs contrary to it's power. You can't solve all these problems at once. Censorship - both from the state and monopoly actors in the private sector, is incredibly worrisome. What would be the worst case scenario is that our privacy is utterly gone AND censorship, citing privacy concerns, never really addresses privacy in a practical way but does help corporations and states manipulate the public discourse and undermine our very democracy. As far as i'm concerned - even as a privacy advocate - our privacy is gone. We lost this battle. Theere's things we can do to maximize our privacy and make it better but the toothpaste is never going back into the tube. But this is a moment where censorship is about to be normalized in an extreme way and this is a fight that shouldn't be lost.
germanier 5y ago
The law in question only concerns itself with publishing. It has accounted for the case you mention: It is explicitly allowed to publish photos that include people which have wandered into frame by chance and the main focus is some locality and not the person in question.
afpx 5y ago
As an American, the EU seems like it's rife with bullshit laws that protect the gentry and aristocracy.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  what's worse is that it always seems, online, that the EU citizenry think it's for their own good. Almost every time. You see this out of Aussies, often, too.

disgu 5y ago

You cannot take a picture of a person where the person is the subject of the photo. This is not the case when you take a picture of a statue and there's people in the background, for example.

soco 5y ago
You can, as long you're not using it for publications. The usage on your own blog or Facebook account is allowed but the line is drawn at billboards, on TV or such (larger) channels. For those you must have an agreement.
- disgu 5y ago
  This is not true and hasn't been for a while. It used to basically be a grey area but courts have repeatedly stated that just taking the picture was not allowed even if there wasn't ever any intention of publishing it anywhere. You would have to justify it anyway and personal rights in Germany always trump the rights of others to create art, for example. You'll find many cases that are about surveillance cameras as well and even there's it's often in favor of the person not wanting to be on camera. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI+ZR+272%2F94 https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI... http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&nr=10275 http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document...
- throwaway525142 5y ago
  I think Facebook isn't covered because the uploader needs to give Facebook all rights over the image which they can't.
kortilla 5y ago
Cropping the photo changes the subject. What a stupid criteria.

noduerme 5y ago

Similar to how Trump wanted to expand libel law to put a presumption of guilt on the speaker, as they do in the UK.

basisword 5y ago
That’s not how it works in the UK.
- brigandish 5y ago
  From [1]: > Not only is the writer guilty until proven innocent under English libel law From [2]: > English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/10/english-libel-law-simon-singh https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/10/english-libe... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  - basisword 5y ago
    The burden of proof being on the defendant is very different from a “presumption of guilt”.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      Semantically, it may be so. In practice, I fail to see how there would be a difference. If you are not presumed innocent and the burden of proof lies with you is that not the same as a presumption of guilt?

gjulianm 5y ago

Most of the times, the prohibition is not "taking the photo" but distributing it, which is much easier to enforce. At least it's how it is in Spain, where we have a similar law.

newaccount74 5y ago

I'm pretty sure the law is about publishing photos, not taking photos. And in general the focus of the photo matters. You don't need permission from random folks who are not recognizable in the background. Intent also matters. If I post a picture of my kid eating icecream and there's some random dude in the background no court will prosecute that. If I add a caption identifying the person in the background things might look different.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
what good is taking a photo if it can't be published?
- soylentcola 5y ago
  And this is why I no longer ever want to be in photos. Not everything needs to be published to the world.
  - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
    From a privacy standpoint AND the fact that everyone feels that everything must be uploaded to social media for narcissism points is one of my top worries. My problem is that attempts to legally curb this have gross implications for the rights of people to keep informed about ongoings in the world. We have a right to be able to show corrupt cops as much as we do criminals and rioters. We have a right to showcase protests when going well or when they're destructive. We have a right to film stuff like Rittenhouse's situation and use that information to jail or free him of charges. And any corporation will exploit this citizen desire for 'privacy' and use it as a wedge to strip us of our power as citizens, nevermind to allow some information that is in line with establishment values but disallow information that runs contrary to it's power. You can't solve all these problems at once. Censorship - both from the state and monopoly actors in the private sector, is incredibly worrisome. What would be the worst case scenario is that our privacy is utterly gone AND censorship, citing privacy concerns, never really addresses privacy in a practical way but does help corporations and states manipulate the public discourse and undermine our very democracy. As far as i'm concerned - even as a privacy advocate - our privacy is gone. We lost this battle. Theere's things we can do to maximize our privacy and make it better but the toothpaste is never going back into the tube. But this is a moment where censorship is about to be normalized in an extreme way and this is a fight that shouldn't be lost.

germanier 5y ago

The law in question only concerns itself with publishing. It has accounted for the case you mention: It is explicitly allowed to publish photos that include people which have wandered into frame by chance and the main focus is some locality and not the person in question.

afpx 5y ago

As an American, the EU seems like it's rife with bullshit laws that protect the gentry and aristocracy.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
what's worse is that it always seems, online, that the EU citizenry think it's for their own good. Almost every time. You see this out of Aussies, often, too.