4 ms·

Just for reference, what they're describing is already illegal in Germany, and by the first two articles of the constitution no less. (DE: https://de.wikipedia

Just for reference, what they're describing is already illegal in Germany, and by the first two articles of the constitution no less. (DE: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutsch... - no english version of this wikipedia article sadly) (You are not allowed to publish¹ photos or film specific/individual people without their consent. This is only abated when individual people are not the focus of photographing/recording, i.e. crowds or random stragglers in photos of other things.) ¹ edit/correction: this originally said "take" rather than "publish". The legal limits relevant here are on publishing, not taking photos/filming.

Rinzler89 2y ago
Same in Austria. You aren't allowed to film people in public without their consent. This is overall a positive but it comes with many downsides as well like if you want to get evidence on someone doing something wrong or screwing you over.
- ghaff 2y ago
  And how many photos of clearly-identifiable people in those countries do you suppose get published to the internet every hour?
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    "clearly-identifiable" is not the criteria, it's a question of focus and respect. The articles of constitution this is based on in Germany read (roughly): "(1.) Human dignity is inviolable. (2.) Everyone has the right to free expression of their personality, so long they do not infringe on others." You can publish photos with identifiable people as much as you want, as long as the intent of the photo is not to capture one (or more) person specifically.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      People take photos of other (unconnected) people who are the primary focus of photographs all the time--and publish them. Maybe they're not supposed to in some countries even in public but they do with great frequency.
      - eqvinox 2y ago
        I'm not sure what your argument is… yeah, sure, it happens, in a lot of cases as the person in the photo you might not even know. And even if you do find out, a lot of people don't care — as long as they're not ridiculed. The petapixel post talks about exploiting people for views on social media, and you will get sued for that in D/A/CH. It's a bit like speeding. A lot of people, if not a majority, drives at 5% to 10% above the speed limit. Sometimes they get a (low-end) ticket. If you speed significantly, you likely still get away with it, but only for some limited time, and then (in most countries) you start racking up serious issues. None of this means that we should remove speed limits, stop enforcing them, or that they're somehow not helpful. It just means we're humans making rules for ourselves so we can live with each other, and things are usually not black and white.
- vetinari 2y ago
  It has also lot of consequences, which are not obvious to people from other countries. For example, no dashcams in D-A-CH.
  - loa_in_ 2y ago
    Isn't it that you can't publish your dash cam recordings?
    - eqvinox 2y ago
      It's a grey area that AFAIK hasn't been conclusively determined; last I checked in Germany you're allowed to have a dash cam as long as it only records/saves on demand (and you're only allowed to exercise that function if you have a reason to, e.g. some accident happened.) Publishing is yet another question and even more tightly restricted. AFAIK (again), in Germany you need to censor all people and car number plates, but then it's OK.
    - Semaphor 2y ago
      The ADAC (German car club/lobby) has a summary of the current rules and cases [0]. Even giving it to the police can be illegal (though we also don’t have a general fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which might make it illegal but could still mean the court can use it). It’s all kinda complicated. [0] https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deutschland/dashcam/ https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deuts...
    - vetinari 2y ago
      Technically, yes, but that won't stop random cop stopping you and haggling you, when he sees one. The Austrian ones can be pretty arrogant and you don't want to ruin your day for that.
  - croes 2y ago
    That's no longer true. Dashcams are allowed but they are only allowed to record a certain time period and must overwrite previous recordings so that you only have footage of an accident and not 24 hour surveillance material
- boffinAudio 2y ago
  >You aren't allowed to film people in public without their consent. This is incorrect. You are allowed to film anything you can see and hear in public - you are not allowed to publish those pictures, or use them for any commercial purpose, without consent.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Not true. For example I can't just pick someone on the street, point my phone at them and start following them around filming them specifically.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - boffinAudio 2y ago
      Yes, you absolutely can do that. This is how security cameras work. I absolutely have the right to film you in public, common areas. What I can't do is use that footage commercially, use it to degrade the person, or publish it in any way without the persons permission.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boffinAudio 2y ago
It must be understood that its not illegal in Germany to take someones picture in a public place, but to _publish_ it or make it available to the public, or use it for commercial purposes, without their permission. That is a very distinct line that is often confused. If you are in public in Germany, I can take your picture - I cannot publish it, however, without your involvement. I can take your picture if you are in the middle of committing a crime, for the purposes of providing evidence to the police. The fact is, it is a fundamental human right to be able to record ones environment, and this right is just as important as the right to be free from ridicule through a publication of ones image.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eqvinox 2y ago
  Thanks for the correction, I do keep fuzzying up taking vs. publishing. I've edited a note into the parent post. (for completeness: taking photos is only restricted by §201a StGB, which makes illegal taking photos in someone's home or areas specifically secluded from public view, or if a person's helplessness is exposed)
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    You're welcome. But to be sure, your edit doesn't really bring clarity to your statement. Perhaps you'd consider just removing the 'taking' part and supplanting it with 'publishing', since those are vastly different things which should not be conflated.
    - eqvinox 2y ago
      re-edited :)
- djoldman 2y ago
  Are there exceptions for police, fire fighters, elected officials, or other governmental employees? Are you allowed to do so for these people if they are acting in their official capacity?
wongarsu 2y ago
There is a short section in the English Wikipedia [1]. It however lacks all the nuance and interesting interactions listed in the German article. Not only are you allowed to photograph people if they are not the focus of the image, the expectation of privacy is also loosened for famous or exceptional people (though still stricter than in US law). In the case of artistic pieces there can also be a weighing of interests where the interest of art can take precedence over the interests of the person. Also you are for example allowed to photograph or film police in the execution of their duties, but you aren't allowed to write their name next to it. The principle is easy to sum up, but applying it in practice on a nationwide scale opens up a lot of cases that have to be dealt with (and have been dealt with in German law) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany
deng 2y ago
Illegal is one thing, but more importantly: many people will not at all appreciate you filming them, though it's probably very much depending on where you are (it's probably more accepted in tourist areas). Germany is actually relaxed regarding this compared to France, where you might really get into trouble for filming people without their consent.
josephg 2y ago
France, too. I attended a clowning course over there last year and they reminded us constantly that we couldn’t photograph or film other students without their express permission - even out of class. It’s illegal under French law and they also consider it a gross violation of the person’s right to privacy.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >I attended a clowning course A WHAT now? Would you say you are now fit to run a tech company?
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_school
    - josephg 2y ago
      It was clowning rather than general circus stuff. Honestly, clowning was way more traumatic and hard core than acrobatics. Here's a BBC piece on the school I went to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4YFuJT0_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4YFuJT0_E
  - tanseydavid 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_Bailey_Clown_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_...
jfengel 2y ago
I've always admired the German Constitution for that. The US Constitution was an extraordinary achievement in its time, but that time was two and a half centuries ago. A lot has changed, and the various patches applied to fix the obvious failings can't change the fundamental failings locked in at the beginning. Including the fact that it is practically impossible to fix, and has not been meaningfully amended in a half-century. It's an interesting intellectual exercise to imagine how it might be written if excluded voices had some real say -- not just the rich, not just men, not just white people, not just the healthy, etc. The first article of the German constitution is an interesting take on benefitting from the world's increasing belief in the necessity of human dignity -- something noticeably missing from the US Constitution.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I agree with your overall point that the concept of innate "human dignity" is missing from the US Constitution. But, I'm not sure it's simply because of something missing from the time period, like the exclusion of various minorities from the process. The idea of human dignity is not a recent invention, and white male landowners are/were capable of valuing or not valuing it. One could argue that if the US's Founding Fathers valued human dignity, they would have enshrined it in the constitution along side of the things they did value, like Freedom Of This and Freedom Of That. Its omission could very well have been deliberate.
  - Turing_Machine 2y ago
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That sounds an awful lot like "human dignity" to me. Not to mention pretty much the entirety of the Bill of Rights. Exactly what definition of "human dignity" are you using here?
    - jfengel 2y ago

Rinzler89 2y ago

Same in Austria. You aren't allowed to film people in public without their consent. This is overall a positive but it comes with many downsides as well like if you want to get evidence on someone doing something wrong or screwing you over.

ghaff 2y ago
And how many photos of clearly-identifiable people in those countries do you suppose get published to the internet every hour?
- eqvinox 2y ago
  "clearly-identifiable" is not the criteria, it's a question of focus and respect. The articles of constitution this is based on in Germany read (roughly): "(1.) Human dignity is inviolable. (2.) Everyone has the right to free expression of their personality, so long they do not infringe on others." You can publish photos with identifiable people as much as you want, as long as the intent of the photo is not to capture one (or more) person specifically.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    People take photos of other (unconnected) people who are the primary focus of photographs all the time--and publish them. Maybe they're not supposed to in some countries even in public but they do with great frequency.
    - eqvinox 2y ago
      I'm not sure what your argument is… yeah, sure, it happens, in a lot of cases as the person in the photo you might not even know. And even if you do find out, a lot of people don't care — as long as they're not ridiculed. The petapixel post talks about exploiting people for views on social media, and you will get sued for that in D/A/CH. It's a bit like speeding. A lot of people, if not a majority, drives at 5% to 10% above the speed limit. Sometimes they get a (low-end) ticket. If you speed significantly, you likely still get away with it, but only for some limited time, and then (in most countries) you start racking up serious issues. None of this means that we should remove speed limits, stop enforcing them, or that they're somehow not helpful. It just means we're humans making rules for ourselves so we can live with each other, and things are usually not black and white.
vetinari 2y ago
It has also lot of consequences, which are not obvious to people from other countries. For example, no dashcams in D-A-CH.
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  Isn't it that you can't publish your dash cam recordings?
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    It's a grey area that AFAIK hasn't been conclusively determined; last I checked in Germany you're allowed to have a dash cam as long as it only records/saves on demand (and you're only allowed to exercise that function if you have a reason to, e.g. some accident happened.) Publishing is yet another question and even more tightly restricted. AFAIK (again), in Germany you need to censor all people and car number plates, but then it's OK.
  - Semaphor 2y ago
    The ADAC (German car club/lobby) has a summary of the current rules and cases [0]. Even giving it to the police can be illegal (though we also don’t have a general fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which might make it illegal but could still mean the court can use it). It’s all kinda complicated. [0] https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deutschland/dashcam/ https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deuts...
  - vetinari 2y ago
    Technically, yes, but that won't stop random cop stopping you and haggling you, when he sees one. The Austrian ones can be pretty arrogant and you don't want to ruin your day for that.
- croes 2y ago
  That's no longer true. Dashcams are allowed but they are only allowed to record a certain time period and must overwrite previous recordings so that you only have footage of an accident and not 24 hour surveillance material
boffinAudio 2y ago
>You aren't allowed to film people in public without their consent. This is incorrect. You are allowed to film anything you can see and hear in public - you are not allowed to publish those pictures, or use them for any commercial purpose, without consent.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Not true. For example I can't just pick someone on the street, point my phone at them and start following them around filming them specifically.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    Yes, you absolutely can do that. This is how security cameras work. I absolutely have the right to film you in public, common areas. What I can't do is use that footage commercially, use it to degrade the person, or publish it in any way without the persons permission.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

boffinAudio 2y ago

It must be understood that its not illegal in Germany to take someones picture in a public place, but to _publish_ it or make it available to the public, or use it for commercial purposes, without their permission. That is a very distinct line that is often confused. If you are in public in Germany, I can take your picture - I cannot publish it, however, without your involvement. I can take your picture if you are in the middle of committing a crime, for the purposes of providing evidence to the police. The fact is, it is a fundamental human right to be able to record ones environment, and this right is just as important as the right to be free from ridicule through a publication of ones image.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eqvinox 2y ago
Thanks for the correction, I do keep fuzzying up taking vs. publishing. I've edited a note into the parent post. (for completeness: taking photos is only restricted by §201a StGB, which makes illegal taking photos in someone's home or areas specifically secluded from public view, or if a person's helplessness is exposed)
- boffinAudio 2y ago
  You're welcome. But to be sure, your edit doesn't really bring clarity to your statement. Perhaps you'd consider just removing the 'taking' part and supplanting it with 'publishing', since those are vastly different things which should not be conflated.
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    re-edited :)
djoldman 2y ago
Are there exceptions for police, fire fighters, elected officials, or other governmental employees? Are you allowed to do so for these people if they are acting in their official capacity?

wongarsu 2y ago

There is a short section in the English Wikipedia [1]. It however lacks all the nuance and interesting interactions listed in the German article. Not only are you allowed to photograph people if they are not the focus of the image, the expectation of privacy is also loosened for famous or exceptional people (though still stricter than in US law). In the case of artistic pieces there can also be a weighing of interests where the interest of art can take precedence over the interests of the person. Also you are for example allowed to photograph or film police in the execution of their duties, but you aren't allowed to write their name next to it. The principle is easy to sum up, but applying it in practice on a nationwide scale opens up a lot of cases that have to be dealt with (and have been dealt with in German law) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany

deng 2y ago

Illegal is one thing, but more importantly: many people will not at all appreciate you filming them, though it's probably very much depending on where you are (it's probably more accepted in tourist areas). Germany is actually relaxed regarding this compared to France, where you might really get into trouble for filming people without their consent.

josephg 2y ago

France, too. I attended a clowning course over there last year and they reminded us constantly that we couldn’t photograph or film other students without their express permission - even out of class. It’s illegal under French law and they also consider it a gross violation of the person’s right to privacy.

Rinzler89 2y ago
>I attended a clowning course A WHAT now? Would you say you are now fit to run a tech company?
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_school
  - josephg 2y ago
    It was clowning rather than general circus stuff. Honestly, clowning was way more traumatic and hard core than acrobatics. Here's a BBC piece on the school I went to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4YFuJT0_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4YFuJT0_E
- tanseydavid 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_Bailey_Clown_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_...

jfengel 2y ago

I've always admired the German Constitution for that. The US Constitution was an extraordinary achievement in its time, but that time was two and a half centuries ago. A lot has changed, and the various patches applied to fix the obvious failings can't change the fundamental failings locked in at the beginning. Including the fact that it is practically impossible to fix, and has not been meaningfully amended in a half-century. It's an interesting intellectual exercise to imagine how it might be written if excluded voices had some real say -- not just the rich, not just men, not just white people, not just the healthy, etc. The first article of the German constitution is an interesting take on benefitting from the world's increasing belief in the necessity of human dignity -- something noticeably missing from the US Constitution.

ryandrake 2y ago
I agree with your overall point that the concept of innate "human dignity" is missing from the US Constitution. But, I'm not sure it's simply because of something missing from the time period, like the exclusion of various minorities from the process. The idea of human dignity is not a recent invention, and white male landowners are/were capable of valuing or not valuing it. One could argue that if the US's Founding Fathers valued human dignity, they would have enshrined it in the constitution along side of the things they did value, like Freedom Of This and Freedom Of That. Its omission could very well have been deliberate.
- Turing_Machine 2y ago
  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That sounds an awful lot like "human dignity" to me. Not to mention pretty much the entirety of the Bill of Rights. Exactly what definition of "human dignity" are you using here?
  - jfengel 2y ago