6 ms·

I'm in Berlin. We just watched Germany lose to Spain. We walked past a restaurant and saw a bunch of people starting at a screen, and it looked like a good pict

by xrd 2y ago

I'm in Berlin. We just watched Germany lose to Spain. We walked past a restaurant and saw a bunch of people starting at a screen, and it looked like a good picture to me. I was about to take it, and my friend said "You cannot take pictures without permission from those people." I had no intention of posting on social media because I don't use that. Then we had a fascinating discussion about how photos without consent are outlawed. And, how video cameras are outlawed in public places. You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages. I was really struck by the "news" I get about Europe. I hear incessant discussions about GDPR, which is a very abstract thing about collecting data. I'm for it, I think, but it is abstract. If I ever heard a reporter saying "You know, in Europe they are having a very different conversation about people taking pictures of your kids without your consent" well, damn, I would be very excited and interested in that article. The fact that I don't read those articles makes me think my "news" is very controlled by social media companies, or should I say, anyone who has business in making sure data collection is unimpeded, which means Google, Facebook, probably Amazon. Is my friend wrong? Is this more complicated? Or am I right that the discussion of what happens in Europe is framed in a way that keeps me uninformed about what is really possible?

gpm 2y ago
Wikipedia has a table that claims your friend is wrong: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_... I'm not sure I'd trust random wikipedia page to be up to date on this, but it's good evidence at least that there isn't a EU-wide prohibition on taking pictures of people (without publishing them) without consent. Also that there are some EU countries where it is likely illegal.
- 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
  >> We walked past a restaurant and saw a bunch of people starting at a screen ... > Wikipedia has a table that claims your friend is wrong "Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place" a restaurant is not a public space.
  - spookie 2y ago
    I think that legally, a crowded space is a public space in some EU countries
    - 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
      what _you_ "think" doesn't matter. if it's on the premises of company then it's private.
      - nobodyandproud 2y ago
        Great. Can you provide any resources to back this up? In this case, the person is outside and not on the property; if the restaurant wishes to be private they can take measures (curtains or blinds) but they’ve chosen not to. This is where jurisdictions differ and is not cut-and-dry.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Marsymars 2y ago
        I don't know about "public place" in Germany, but that certainly isn't universal. In my jurisdiction (Canada), "public place" effectively means any location that is open/accessible to the general public.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - willy_k 2y ago
        They weren’t saying what they think, they were saying what they think the law is.
      - spookie 2y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with how my neighbour countries define public spaces. My response was based on the fact that for tobacco legislation, for instance, public spaces are defined as follows by the EU commission: "places accessible to the general public or places for collective use, regardless of ownership or right of access" - Directive 2014/40/EU This implies restaurants. Another paper by the EU commssion regarding terrorist soft targets describes crowded spaces as public spaces as well. Given all this, I assumed that some countries in the EU share this definition, and some don't. Because in the end it's up for each country to decide, and it's always a mess like that.
iknowstuff 2y ago
Yeah your friend is flat out wrong. Its actually silly how many people (in Europe at least) think they can forbid you from recording them “because copyright”.
- smogcutter 2y ago
  But if people generally believe the folk version of the law, does it really help to be technically in the clear? You can still easily find yourself in an really unpleasant and pointless confrontation.
  - SassyBird 2y ago
    If you avoid the slightest possibility of unpleasant and pointless confrontations, then you’re going to lead a very dull life. I sometimes photograph random people. Never has anyone had an issue with that. Sometimes they approach me and we have a chat. That’s all that happens. I’ve had more chances of being hit by a car than anyone having an issue with me taking pictures of them. Boils down not being a dick about it.
    - Mountain_Skies 2y ago
      When we were travelling in the Andes, we were warned multiple times to not take photographs of local peoples without their permission as they could take offense. Seems like a reasonable position but should the wishes of people in the Andes be respected while those of people in Europe ignored? If so, why?
      - SassyBird 2y ago
        Is it standard for people in the Andes to take offence at people taking pictures of them? I don’t know, maybe it is, haven’t been there. It is not in Europe.
        jorvi 2y ago
        Err.. what? If you walk up to a random European on the street and start taking photos of specifically them, they’ll get agitated real quick.
mistrial9 2y ago
A professional photographer in California before the age of the Internet, explained with great emphasis that is was not legal at that time to take photos of people for commercial purposes without a signed consent form. Following that talk, I was handed real consent forms to carry with me. At that time, privacy and commercial rights for resale were taken seriously. It is a social contract between strangers, and yes people can get very agitated. Fast forward to the age of the smart phone. The expansion happened so fast, for so many.. and with the marketing commercials and endless hype on using the phone to take "fun vacation photos" or whatever, and the explosion of Facebook uploads with "friends at a party" .. that social contract changed rapidly. New adoptors are often under 25 years old, and may not have heard of this formal signed consent form. Now, mass facial recognition at public events is "no big thing" ? Everyone has heard in California from someone that "privacy is dead - get over it" ? Then, covid-19 and masks. Now lots of people wear masks on the street or on public transport, with questionable effectiveness over disease prevention, but is that the only reason? Young thugs dudes certainly wear masks with hoodies every day here.. This situation is not settled and still evolving.
- DowsingSpoon 2y ago
  Are you claiming that people wear medical face masks for the sake of privacy? I have literally never heard a single person say a single thing about that. However, I’m finding I’m out of touch with “the kids” these days so maybe this is a thing. I’d love to hear more about it. EDIT: Changed my comment because I decided I’m probably out of touch and I thought the tone of what originally wrote came across a touch more aggressive than I intended.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
    People who commit crimes are often wearing medical masks these days. Before covid, there was the stereotype of criminals wearing ski masks. It would make sense if you were doing a serious crime and expected to be caught on camera. It did require you to commit to looking like a criminal. Now, you can just wear a medical mask, walk down the street, you can’t be identified, you aren’t blatantly criminal-looking, but you can opportunistically do a smash and grab or whatever without worrying about your face being seen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
egberts1 2y ago
Argh! Spoiled my tape-delay match. https://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-grr-fists-grrr-l0NwOkgTYRi30mT4Y https://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-grr-fists-grrr-l0NwOkgTYRi30...
janci 2y ago
If it's true, it's not GDPR. GDPR explicitly does not apply to personal use. There can be other laws that apply here. I am not a lawyer.
bgnn 2y ago
> You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages. Yeah, no. Amazon wouldn't drop your package in a public area. That only happens in North America and very weird. Europe is not an entity. Every country has a different legislation and it's complicated. Some countries allow dashcams some don't because the lack of consent. Germany is one of the countries doesn't allow this, do police would ask you to turn it off if they see one. What's infuriating is North Americans talking about "what's happening in Europe". It's equivalent to thinking abortion is banned and heavily persecuted in whole North America. Is what's happening North America really true?
- gpderetta 2y ago
  >> You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages. >Yeah, no. Amazon wouldn't drop your package in a public area. That only happens in North America In London, Amazon drivers will happily dump your parcels on your door step on full view of the road. Some slightly more considerate drivers will attempt to hide them behind a bin or flower pot. Some will put them in the garbage bin, sometimes on collection day.
miki123211 2y ago
> Is my friend wrong? Is this more complicated? Or am I right that the discussion of what happens in Europe is framed in a way that keeps me uninformed about what is really possible? European (Polish) here. Saying that all of Europe is privacy conscious is like saying that the entire US is extremely republican and never gets below 40 degrees Fahrenheit; there are a few states that fit this definition, but that's not the entire country. You have countries like Germany on one hand, where taking photos in public places is heavily restricted, you can get a ticket if the police find a dash cam in your car, quite a few organizations are passionate about avoiding Microsoft and hosting their own solutions, and a significant percentage of the population has Signal installed on their devices. On the other, you have countries like Poland, where everybody uses Facebook Messenger, nobody uses Signal, door and dash cams are perfectly legal, privacy isn't really that much of a concern, and photo laws are quite a bit less restrictive. We're both in the EU, we're neighbors actually, we both have to follow the GDPR, but the mentality and approach is very different. Over here, GDPR is mostly seen as "another stupid law that Brussels came up with and that makes things more difficult than they ought to be", not so much in Germany. A completely separate concern, unrelated to privacy, is how photo copyright is handled. In the US and some European countries (like Poland), taking photos of public buildings is legal, and you generally own the rights to those photos. In other countries, the owner / architect of a building, who owns the copyright on the design of that building, may disallow taking pictures of that design. In some places, the restrictions on photos stem from that different stance on copyright, not from any privacy concerns.
arresin 2y ago
And yet in Germany you have to put your name and address on your website.
nicbou 2y ago
https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany Your friend was not quite right, but in general it's very poor form to photograph strangers in Germany, when it's not simply illegal. People will walk up to you and scold you. If you host an event, you usually ask for permission before sharing pictures. At the very least, if someone asks you not to share pictures with them in it, you're expected to oblige them. A while ago I needed a picture of a Späti to explain what they are to my readers. The owner walked out and asked me what I was doing. I didn't need his permission, but it was a surprisingly tense encounter until I explained my motives, showed how the picture would be used, and how he was not in it. I wholeheartedly support this culture of privacy.

by xrd 2y ago

gpm 2y ago

Wikipedia has a table that claims your friend is wrong: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_... I'm not sure I'd trust random wikipedia page to be up to date on this, but it's good evidence at least that there isn't a EU-wide prohibition on taking pictures of people (without publishing them) without consent. Also that there are some EU countries where it is likely illegal.

2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
>> We walked past a restaurant and saw a bunch of people starting at a screen ... > Wikipedia has a table that claims your friend is wrong "Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place" a restaurant is not a public space.
- spookie 2y ago
  I think that legally, a crowded space is a public space in some EU countries
  - 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
    what _you_ "think" doesn't matter. if it's on the premises of company then it's private.
    - nobodyandproud 2y ago
      Great. Can you provide any resources to back this up? In this case, the person is outside and not on the property; if the restaurant wishes to be private they can take measures (curtains or blinds) but they’ve chosen not to. This is where jurisdictions differ and is not cut-and-dry.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - Marsymars 2y ago
      I don't know about "public place" in Germany, but that certainly isn't universal. In my jurisdiction (Canada), "public place" effectively means any location that is open/accessible to the general public.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - willy_k 2y ago
      They weren’t saying what they think, they were saying what they think the law is.
    - spookie 2y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with how my neighbour countries define public spaces. My response was based on the fact that for tobacco legislation, for instance, public spaces are defined as follows by the EU commission: "places accessible to the general public or places for collective use, regardless of ownership or right of access" - Directive 2014/40/EU This implies restaurants. Another paper by the EU commssion regarding terrorist soft targets describes crowded spaces as public spaces as well. Given all this, I assumed that some countries in the EU share this definition, and some don't. Because in the end it's up for each country to decide, and it's always a mess like that.

iknowstuff 2y ago

Yeah your friend is flat out wrong. Its actually silly how many people (in Europe at least) think they can forbid you from recording them “because copyright”.

smogcutter 2y ago
But if people generally believe the folk version of the law, does it really help to be technically in the clear? You can still easily find yourself in an really unpleasant and pointless confrontation.
- SassyBird 2y ago
  If you avoid the slightest possibility of unpleasant and pointless confrontations, then you’re going to lead a very dull life. I sometimes photograph random people. Never has anyone had an issue with that. Sometimes they approach me and we have a chat. That’s all that happens. I’ve had more chances of being hit by a car than anyone having an issue with me taking pictures of them. Boils down not being a dick about it.
  - Mountain_Skies 2y ago
    When we were travelling in the Andes, we were warned multiple times to not take photographs of local peoples without their permission as they could take offense. Seems like a reasonable position but should the wishes of people in the Andes be respected while those of people in Europe ignored? If so, why?
    - SassyBird 2y ago
      Is it standard for people in the Andes to take offence at people taking pictures of them? I don’t know, maybe it is, haven’t been there. It is not in Europe.
      - jorvi 2y ago
        Err.. what? If you walk up to a random European on the street and start taking photos of specifically them, they’ll get agitated real quick.

mistrial9 2y ago

A professional photographer in California before the age of the Internet, explained with great emphasis that is was not legal at that time to take photos of people for commercial purposes without a signed consent form. Following that talk, I was handed real consent forms to carry with me. At that time, privacy and commercial rights for resale were taken seriously. It is a social contract between strangers, and yes people can get very agitated. Fast forward to the age of the smart phone. The expansion happened so fast, for so many.. and with the marketing commercials and endless hype on using the phone to take "fun vacation photos" or whatever, and the explosion of Facebook uploads with "friends at a party" .. that social contract changed rapidly. New adoptors are often under 25 years old, and may not have heard of this formal signed consent form. Now, mass facial recognition at public events is "no big thing" ? Everyone has heard in California from someone that "privacy is dead - get over it" ? Then, covid-19 and masks. Now lots of people wear masks on the street or on public transport, with questionable effectiveness over disease prevention, but is that the only reason? Young thugs dudes certainly wear masks with hoodies every day here.. This situation is not settled and still evolving.

DowsingSpoon 2y ago
Are you claiming that people wear medical face masks for the sake of privacy? I have literally never heard a single person say a single thing about that. However, I’m finding I’m out of touch with “the kids” these days so maybe this is a thing. I’d love to hear more about it. EDIT: Changed my comment because I decided I’m probably out of touch and I thought the tone of what originally wrote came across a touch more aggressive than I intended.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
  People who commit crimes are often wearing medical masks these days. Before covid, there was the stereotype of criminals wearing ski masks. It would make sense if you were doing a serious crime and expected to be caught on camera. It did require you to commit to looking like a criminal. Now, you can just wear a medical mask, walk down the street, you can’t be identified, you aren’t blatantly criminal-looking, but you can opportunistically do a smash and grab or whatever without worrying about your face being seen.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

egberts1 2y ago

Argh! Spoiled my tape-delay match. https://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-grr-fists-grrr-l0NwOkgTYRi30mT4Y https://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-grr-fists-grrr-l0NwOkgTYRi30...

janci 2y ago

If it's true, it's not GDPR. GDPR explicitly does not apply to personal use. There can be other laws that apply here. I am not a lawyer.

bgnn 2y ago

> You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages. Yeah, no. Amazon wouldn't drop your package in a public area. That only happens in North America and very weird. Europe is not an entity. Every country has a different legislation and it's complicated. Some countries allow dashcams some don't because the lack of consent. Germany is one of the countries doesn't allow this, do police would ask you to turn it off if they see one. What's infuriating is North Americans talking about "what's happening in Europe". It's equivalent to thinking abortion is banned and heavily persecuted in whole North America. Is what's happening North America really true?

gpderetta 2y ago
>> You cannot put up a camera outside your house to watch for Amazon packages. >Yeah, no. Amazon wouldn't drop your package in a public area. That only happens in North America In London, Amazon drivers will happily dump your parcels on your door step on full view of the road. Some slightly more considerate drivers will attempt to hide them behind a bin or flower pot. Some will put them in the garbage bin, sometimes on collection day.

miki123211 2y ago

> Is my friend wrong? Is this more complicated? Or am I right that the discussion of what happens in Europe is framed in a way that keeps me uninformed about what is really possible? European (Polish) here. Saying that all of Europe is privacy conscious is like saying that the entire US is extremely republican and never gets below 40 degrees Fahrenheit; there are a few states that fit this definition, but that's not the entire country. You have countries like Germany on one hand, where taking photos in public places is heavily restricted, you can get a ticket if the police find a dash cam in your car, quite a few organizations are passionate about avoiding Microsoft and hosting their own solutions, and a significant percentage of the population has Signal installed on their devices. On the other, you have countries like Poland, where everybody uses Facebook Messenger, nobody uses Signal, door and dash cams are perfectly legal, privacy isn't really that much of a concern, and photo laws are quite a bit less restrictive. We're both in the EU, we're neighbors actually, we both have to follow the GDPR, but the mentality and approach is very different. Over here, GDPR is mostly seen as "another stupid law that Brussels came up with and that makes things more difficult than they ought to be", not so much in Germany. A completely separate concern, unrelated to privacy, is how photo copyright is handled. In the US and some European countries (like Poland), taking photos of public buildings is legal, and you generally own the rights to those photos. In other countries, the owner / architect of a building, who owns the copyright on the design of that building, may disallow taking pictures of that design. In some places, the restrictions on photos stem from that different stance on copyright, not from any privacy concerns.

arresin 2y ago

And yet in Germany you have to put your name and address on your website.

nicbou 2y ago

https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany Your friend was not quite right, but in general it's very poor form to photograph strangers in Germany, when it's not simply illegal. People will walk up to you and scold you. If you host an event, you usually ask for permission before sharing pictures. At the very least, if someone asks you not to share pictures with them in it, you're expected to oblige them. A while ago I needed a picture of a Späti to explain what they are to my readers. The owner walked out and asked me what I was doing. I didn't need his permission, but it was a surprisingly tense encounter until I explained my motives, showed how the picture would be used, and how he was not in it. I wholeheartedly support this culture of privacy.