Street Photography Is Illegal…. Now What?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 мар 2022
- PRESETS, BOOKS, GUIDES & PRINTS:
www.snapsbyfox.com/shop
NEWSLETTER:
www.snapsbyfox.com/newsletter
FIND ME ON:
Twitter: / snapsbyfox
Instagram: / snapsbyfox
BLOG:
www.snapsbyfox.com/blog
GEAR I USE:
Main Camera: geni.us/F3NVbd
POV / Vlog Camera: geni.us/AiaFVsh
My Go To Do Everything Lens: geni.us/8dL3z
Wide Prime: geni.us/74FIN
Tight Prime: geni.us/Gxubw
Telephoto Zoom: geni.us/jnDL0oe
Ultra Wide Zoom: geni.us/ohXtZ
Computer: geni.us/MzRAw or geni.us/rzRqqSJ
Everyday Bag: geni.us/uKDyJk2 or geni.us/XKZT
Travel Bag: geni.us/RSMK6J6
Full list of everything I own: www.snapsbyfox.com/blog#/my-g...
*Affiliate links - doesn’t cost you any extra & I get a small % to support me*
WHERE I GET MUSIC & SOUND EFFECTS:
share.epidemicsound.com/NbcpZ
*Epidemic Sound affiliate link - you get a free trial & I get a small % to support me*
NFTs:
superrare.com/snapsbyfox
foundation.app/@snapsbyfox
opensea.io/snapsbyfox
CONTACT ME ON:
Email: hello@snapsbyfox.com
Web: www.snapsbyfox.com
Why should it be illegal. We are on cctv everywhere we go. Also if you take photos on a phone nobody takes any notice but the second you go out with a actual camera people look at you like your the enemy 🙄
This is SUCH a good point!
Logic, common sense and law are not compatible my friend.
I was in Paris once and I photographed a nice typical french café from the opposite side of the street. As I took the shot and started walking away a lady shouted at me and crossed the street. She wanted me to delete the photo. She was barely visible as she was inside the café. I said no, why? She crossed the street and came back again with the owner of the café who asked me with a very angry tone to delete the photo. I thought it was not worth arguing and battling over a picture. I deleted it. I'm no Cartier-Bresson in the end and my pictures are not going to make history.
It's quite ironic to think that people have facebook, google, maps, location etc that trace in every single moment where you are and what you are doing and what you are reading, searching etc and get scared of a picture. It's a bit the nonsense of this modern always-on world I suppose.
Never.. ever delete a photo if it's just an opinion or demand from someone who's word isn't law.. that..might very well been one of those photos you would be proud of for years to come.. and you are allowed to photograph whatever you want when on the streets itself
Quite easy: It's my decision if I want to be photographed by you and not yours. If you want to take photos of everything go to countries like the USA where they have no privacy.
@@StubbornTrekkie Of course they have privacy in the States. The point is that they have public spaces as well. It is reasonable to distinguish between both, and not privatize the public sphere with unsound regulations.
I wouldn't delete it. They have nerve to come and tell you to delete it. There isn't any law in France pointing that it is illegal to do street photography and to take pictures of building
@@StubbornTrekkie you're ONE person in a crowd, nobody is gonna ask everybody for a scene photo. Stfu or maybe just never step outside again and turn off your phone location tracking and stop posting to all social media if you wanna be this much of a cry baby hypocrite. You people are sick with your self righteousness and an example of failing individualist society.
"Oi, you taking my picture?" "No, you're in the way"
As Long as there are cameras in the Stores, Traffic lights etc.. Stree Photography Will be legal :) I told a cop one day when he asked me If I had permission to photograph where I was and I said "I never gave you permission to film me as you approached me" He walked away lol covering his body cam
Interesting. Out of curiosity, which country was this in? Because there are so many layers to this.
Where I life body cams of cops fall under the same ruling as security cameras in buildings or public transport and they have an explicit authorization to have them
@@JoaquimGonsalves I live in Connecticut :)
@@thinkvlog_4life503 cool thank you!
In Poland we have cameras in the stores and we have traffic lights etc. but our law forbids taking photos of people without their permission. You can have someones siluette when taking a photo of obviously different topic but if the person is a main theme you need permission to show such photo to public. You can generally capture it but need to ask to post it anywhere. So what You said is not a rule.
Great informative video Roman, totally agree with you on the “ Street Photography Doesn’t Need People In “ and also deleting someone’s photo as it’s one photo, it’s not worth the hassle of possibly getting yourself in trouble, either with the law of whatever land you are in but also it could become violent and if you’re in certain countries you really don’t want, or need that. Not that you want it anywhere really, plus, many cameras have two SD slots so whether you shoot Raw and Jpeg as I do or you duplicate your images you’re still going to have the shot, but even if you only have one slot, it’s one image, out of who knows how many you shoot that day. Plus, you never really know whether it’s any good until you see it on a larger screen.
Local governments: its illegal to take pics of people!
Also Local governments: unless you're us.
If you look at archive footage and images of cities taken years ago you see people along with the architecture. These images are essential to tell the story of that place and time in history. The cloths fashions, hair styles, transport, buildings that are no longer there due to war, decay or redevelopment. Shop fronts, street cafes, people walking dogs in a park, kids playing football with jumpers as goal posts,.... these are all culturally significant and should be recorded and preserved for future generations and historians. With everyone owning a smartphone and taking high resolution images all the time it is impossible to police and these are citizen historians and journalists, they need to be supported and protected. Countries that ban "street photography" do so to hide their own violations of human rights and corruption. It is not about protecting privacy of individuals, this is a sham. The UN and ICJ should ban this draconian type of laws.
I 100% agree with you.
My husband has marine clients in Dubai and was taking photos of their boat (with their manager present) in the marina. He didn't think anything of it but was pulled in at the airport when he was leaving and asked to explain. Fortunately the manager answered his phone and it was all good but it was very eye opening that their facial recognition at the airport triggered a match from the marina.
I've visited about 70 country's from from Europe to Nth America to central Asia and most places in between. Multi cultural country's, Hindu, Muslim & Buddhist. I've never, ever had an issue. Honestly just use common sense. If in doubt, don't take the photo or ask the individual. Where you do need to take care is around government and military buildings and installations or at border crossings. Recently a French national has been charged for being a spy and imprisoned in Iran for using his drone near a border area. Just plain dumb. Never mind the fact, that drones are forbidden in Iran in any case. I've crossed Iran and taken many photos and had no issue.
Very interesting as usual Roman ! Thank you for your point of view :)
I find this very interesting and had no idea about these laws. I generally don't have people in my street photos anyway but this is good to know.
I just got my passport in the mail a few weeks ago! This video came at the perfect time. Thank you for the video & tips! 📸✈️
Really great content. Relevant, interesting, and well presented. Thanks!
Cheers!
Thanks for the helpful advice. I was just taking a picture of flowers & a by-stander walked up to me & ask what was I doing, thinking I was taking their picture. I explained what I was doing & they appreciated it & moved on. I am in the UK & I assume curious people are all over the world. Do not be defensive & share what you are doing & that might earn you a free “person” in your street or travel photo 👍🏻
A beautiful image of your mom. So glad she supports your work.
Cool video, thank you for sharing!
Great video, very informative...and your mum looks very nice too!
Thanks for the heads up! Great video and points.
Cheers!
@@snapsbyfox no worries at all mate. Hope your well btw
When you take a photo of a scene and a stranger is cleary the main subject, then you have to ask/avoid this photo. When the person is part of a greater shoot and is just there and not the main focus you are fine
Wong as far as the UK is concerned. You can photograph anyone or anything as long as you are in a public place. Any person in that photograph has no rights whatsoever to demand that you stop or delete the image, or even to see it. What you can then do with that photograph is however constrained by copyright, model releases etc.
@@alasdairmackenzie905 interesting it is true für public places in Uk bu in Germany/Austria it is more as I described it. Thy for bringing that up, wasn't aware of that in uk. But generally it's nice to avoid it in first place when possible
Good advice there Roman. Sometimes it's not worth the aggro to fight your case but must admit, it goes against the grain to delete.
Using small cameras such as the fujifilm x70, xf10, Ricoh GR3/GR3x, works very well.
I was in Dubai a couple of years ago using my x70, people did not notice me at all. It would probably be a different story if I had brought my Xpro3 plus lenses.
Another plus point of using small cameras, in some south east asian countries, they will charge you additional $$$ if you use ‘professional’ camera in some ‘viral’ tourist spots.
So always have a small camera preferably point n shoot with you
Very interesting Roman. Good advice📷👍🏼
Cheers!
I would say in countries with strict rules, it’s whether you annoy someone or you annoy the govt when they would apply the laws against you.
I'm going to be blunt: some countries are not worth visiting with photography in mind. You know what I'm talking about.
Well I guess it depends on the end goal isn't it. Personally I would visit those countries again but just try taking photos of other things. For example if I ever go back to the middle easy (which I will) then I think I might head into the desert and try to do some photography there. However as you say if street photography is at the forefront of your visit then year it's not worth it imo
@@snapsbyfox I believe it also depends on people's attitude (if that's the right word) to photography in general. There are some places, where if you hold a small point-and-shoot people will frown upon you and there are same as many places, where you can walk with your white 1200mm f4 and nobody is going to care.
Yeah agreed. I guess it just comes down to doing your research and if a location is difficult, changing how / what you shoot if you still want to
Please name and shame these countries so we photographers and videographers can stay clear of them.
@@CheapCharlieChronicles it wouldn't be politically correct. But they are those places where you wouldn't want your 19 y.o. daughter travelling alone or with another girl her age ;)
Google takes pics of us daily for their maps. No difference of us using our cameras.
Great points. I do like that you brought up the new idea of paying people for there time. I think this is important as even today everyone has cameras. A few decades or even more this was not possible and often times people may have not known where their photos would end up. If you know that you are taking professional photos you change should act in this away. It also gives a more professional look. I would be interested to know if this however could get you in trouble in some countries as well.
Hi, Roman,
Another thing I'd ask you to consider--especially here in NYC--is that we have a growing community of individuals who practice an African based religion known as Santería and the initiates during their first year as priests/priestesses have to wear all white and cannot be photographed under any circumstances. I've seen some images from Cuba where maybe the rules are different or perhaps a photographer/vlogger managed to sneak in a frame or two at the Malecón but as a rule I have understood and respected their wishes.
Thanks for being a great teacher/sharer and posting entertaining and instructional videos.
ahh… here cones the PC crowd - minorities invading other spaces, and demanding that the majority automatically adapts to their undeclared rules… in my book, when in Rome, do as the Romans…
I would say tough luck to them. If their nut job beliefs say they cannot be photographed then they should stay indoors, if only to avoid the CCTV cameras which are everywhere.😄
Thank you Roman
It's a hairy topic for sure... In Italy, you can take photos of random people, but you can't use them in any way if they're recognizable, unless they've given you consent or unless there are specific circumstances (eg. during public events). So I try to avoid shooting photos with recognizable faces or, if I have a shot that is really worth doing it, I blur them in post. Not ideal, but I like my privacy, so I respect others privacy too.
EU wide GDPR rules apply.
That is something i really take care here in germany, first being foreigner, i get often asked by people , if i took their photo although i just do architectural photography , where no people are. But i can understand their insecurities. Best way i found after 2 yers is to take potos early morning in summer as it is bright and no one is out on streets
I go to Spain quite a lot (married a Spaniard) and it’s so complicated there. Rule seems to be you can take photos where people are incidental but if you take candid portraits it gets tricky. As I understand it, the difference between here and there is that if someone here asks you to delete a photo, you’re obliged to out of manners. In Spain you’re obliged to under the law. So, as I understand it, you can take photos fine, but if someone asks you to delete a photo, either in camera or online, you have to otherwise you risk police involvement. (Obviously this is my interpretation, and I’m not a lawyer!)
In a way their rules simple, but the more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes.
I’ve only ever had two people angrily approach me, both in Spain. Great fun. And so annoying because the light in summer is so good.
Spain is part of the EU and therefore the EU GDPR rules apply. In my opinion these rules were not thought through and do not include all the CCTV used by authorities (although some rules for this do exist). The rules seem to have been spawned by lawmakers being pressurised by rich celebrities and politicians who were fed up with paparazzi taking embarrassing images of them. Hobby Photographers and tourists are low hanging fruit for law enforcement whereas large companies can buy there way out of the data protection regulations, for them it is viewed as a tax or fee to allow abuse of your private data and images.
@@grumblewoof4721 no, It’s a particular law specific to Spain. It’s not related to GDPR.
If by 'here' you mean the uk - then no, you are not obliged to delete a photo. Even the police cannot insist you delete a photo without a court order. In fact it is an offence for them to do so - you may be deleting evidence. There is no law in the uk regarding taking pictures in a public place - none.
@@awpqq sorry, I probably wasn’t clear. I meant here (UK) it’s good manners, in Spain it’s backed by law.
Hmmm, it would be "very" difficult to delete a photo from a film camera!@@awpqq
This could single handedly destroy Japanese tourism overnight
you can add Canada with US and UK. in Canada, you can take any photo you want for personal use and that photo can't be taking with a special artifact like a ladder.
for exemple, you walk on the street and you see a man going out of his house in pajamas to grab the news paper.. no problem you can take a photo.
Good to know!
Always ask a tree whether he agrees being part of my landscape composition. But i avoid the new robots, with their « smartphones »…
Mom! Made me sub! Excellent vid.
I feel pretty lucky with being a architecture, city and interior photographer sometimes. The laws are not so strict here in the Netherlands. And I work for government and municipalities. Still people are very nasty sometimes.
Yeah although thankfully on average I feel the nasty people are far outweighed by normal folk
As a UAE resident, this video is very welcome.
Honestly I think it won’t in the UK, especially now lots of people us live video cameras in their cars / motorbikes and bikes to record potential incidents…
Ring door bells n CCTV , it’s how you use the images after you’ve recorded a person which is the issue..
man ! I'm an Emirati street photographer but currently living in paris ( been here for 4 years ) i dont even know what I'm going to do about this genre of photography which is my favourite once i move back to the Emirates in the summer for good
Very interesting Roman , we don’t have those restrictions here (in NZ) but I’m always very mindful of avoiding recognisable images of minors because as you mentioned on the subject of NFT’s you really don’t know where your photos are going to end up once posted. RUclips of course has their own pretty clear guidelines on the subject of children anyway. Fully agree on the need to remind yourself that when you visit a country you are a guest and subject to local laws and that you don’t know who you are dealing with.
Interesting points. I have sometimes taken a timelapse to allow me to clone people out in post, to make the place less busy. It makes it better for everyone if photographers are not seen as a nuisance. Drones are really obnoxious and should be banned from public places as they fill the scene with flashing lights and noise. Also don't block pathways with tripods if people are around. I really don't like it when people take group and family pictures in a busy place as it can cause delays and jam up pathways. No issues if you are just considerate of those around you.
Yeah you hit the nail on the head. It's all about just being aware of where you are, using some common sense and just being nice.
I can't stand when people say "but it's street photography". It's kind of like people who mess with others for view and then go "it's a prank bro". You don't have special rights and get to bother people in ways that would be weird if you didn't have the camera, you're not the police or anything.
Give the drone pilots a break, there's already more rules and regulations than you can imagine. Oftentimes people simply don't follow them, for example you cannot fly OVER people, moving cars, etc. Much like terrestrial photography choose times and places where your drone won't disturb people, 95% of the time nobody even sees or hears my drone. Drones are already not permitted in all national parks and most state and county parks as well. A lot of photography rules come down to $... in Philadelphia for example if you have a large enough camera that looks professional you need a photo permit from the city but if you just use a point and shoot or your phone nobody will stop you. Chose your kit accordingly, I have a Sony RX100VII just for these situations.
@@robwasnj yes, i have no issue with well behaved pilots. Unfortunately a lot of people run out and buy a drone without reading the manual and assume they have exclusive right to the sky. Photographers seem to have lost out to the selfie crowd, and anyone with a decent camera or lens is assumed to be in business, and gets booted out of a lot of places. I carry an insta 360 go2, that I can clip on my shirt. Nobody seems to care
@@barryobrien1890 And that is the problem, people like that won't follow any rules regardless so making more laws and restrictions tends to only affect responsible pilots unnecessarily. As for having a decent camera and lens, yup, I've run into my share of confrontations with the law because I had an expensive camera. If I wanted to gather sensitive information I'd not be using something so obvious and would just stick my phone in my pocket or something but a big lens draws unwanted attention. I once got a call from the FBI, someone reported me to homeland security for taking photos of a nuclear power plant (which was a mile away). I was taking a photo of the beautiful sunset but i had long hair and a big camera and I was in PA.
It’s totally legal to do street photos and video where I am even with recognizable people in the shots. But I still hesitate to do it, at least directly. Simply because i personally think it could be construed as disrespectful or suspicious and I don’t want to cause unnecessary issues. I’d say most people are cool with it though, especially in areas and locations heavily populated with people out and about, where it’s just kind of accepted and nobody bats an eye at a photographer. That’s about the only time I’ll include peoples faces in the shots, and even then they’re never the focus or subject of the shot, I’m just more ok with them being included in it in those circumstances.
An interesting video and one that highlights (yet another) a downside of the internet. Personally I don’t understand why so many people are so afraid all the time.
I recently moved to Budapest, Hungary where after a few weeks I found out that taking pictures without the explicit consent of the person in them is illegal (the rule is a bit vague on what counts as intentional and what is not - theoretically people being part of crowd scene is okay, but what do we call a crowd exactly?). Since my favorite photographers built up their body of work taking candid human-centric pictures (Bresson, Kalvar, Alex Webb) - and of course this was the style I was aiming to grow into myself - I was enraged and desperate. I quickly wrote a letter to a recognized Hungarian photographer (and university professor) to give me some advice. The answer I got back was rather reliving but not entirely. Although the law is truly instated, it was not meant to delegitimize street photography. He wrote me that he has not heard of a single case so far where a street photographer would have been brought to court for including someone in their photos. What's more, there are state funded/awarded photography projects that are essentially candid portrait style street photography projects. However, if someone wants to ruin you, because they feel somehow 'violated' if they ended up on your picture, they can certainly do so, the law is on their side (especially with a good lawyer).
I acknowledged this as an extra risk factor and moved on. I am very much opposed to the idea of legally limiting photography in this direction. Yes, I understand that this is an issue of trust, you have no way of knowing where a picture of you might end up in the age of the Internet, but what is the worst thing that your photo taken in a public space (!) can do that is harmful? On the other hand however, this does a great disservice to the documentarian style art forms (be that photography or movies), it diminishes our freedom of expression, and if you're a materialist - it is probably not good for tourism either.
About making money off of strangers portraits: ideally the subject and the photographer should split the earnings, however if a photographer is able to take a super-valued portrait of someone in a split second, without posing the subject in anyway and possible without the subject realizing that the photo was taken - well I think in this case the photographer has more merit and should get the bigger chunk.
Easy rule: If a person is clearly discernible as individual or stands out, then it is not allowed without explicit consent. Example is someone standing out of the crowd because of their clothing, then their clothing will stand out in the pictures a well.
Also it is not really about merit or money, it is about respect . If you can clearly identify a person and even be a prominent piece of the photo or even the focus. Now that photographer doesn't make money of it, but has hundreds of thousands or even millions of followers. They might not want their photo being exposed to that many people.
And you put violated in quotes, I wouldn't put quotes. If you break someones right to privacy and now have their unsolicited photo shown to potentially millions of people on the internet then by definition you violated their rights.
On top of it it can give out more information than just showing the image. It shows a car with number plates in an area. Now people could check if the car is regularly there and give a reference of space to someone wanting to track the vehicle or the person. Yes, fringe occurrences and cases, but nevertheless part of it.
While there are no cases like you said of people taking photographers to court over being included in a picture, there are a lot of cease and desist orders and judging cases regarding pictures of people when they were the subject of the picture.
The worst part of your message is the tone and just blanket shift any blame away from photographers and depict them as victims.
Also you seem to miss a big part. That is that you talk as if portrait photos of people are always judged the same as landscape pictures or street/architecture pictures as if they are the same. I can guarantee you it is not the same. Definitely not treated the same. If feels like you go off on purely theoretical incidents/cases and never had any real personal experience with it.
Also concerning documentaries. If you make documentaries and you are registered as such you would have a press ID card and the documentary filming would be announced to the city or local government and approved. Example would also be news filmed in the streets with people just passing. Why is that OK? Easy, press IDs and registration. People making documentary films or art with and without press IDs are judged differently. They shouldn't be judged the same either.
I think you overestimate the value of and demand for street photography as an art form, and as a way to document things. In reality, it's a way for you to entertain yourself and privacy concerns outweigh that.
Thanks Peter, great information 👍
I couldn’t agree more. One of the biggest misconceptions about street photography- you have to have faces/recognizable people in your shots or it’s not ‘real’ street photography. When I was first starting out, I let people in my community push me toward the standard ‘rules’ and couldn’t figure out why I didn’t like my shots all that much. Once I started getting comfortable with my camera and my own creative eye started overpowering what I was told to do, I stopped worrying about faces, and now I like my photos so much better. I think viewers have a much better chance of identifying with the subject in a photo if there isn’t a recognizable face in the photo. I think it’s much easier to immerse yourself in a photograph when you remove the distraction of faces/features. Of course there’s nothing wrong with doing it either way, but the idea that street photography MUST include peoples faces is absurd.
Absolutely, unless you're a headshot photographer like myself...lol. I do agree for Street photography 📸
Wear a hi-viz vest. Everyone assumes you are only photographing buildings, and nobody bats an eyelid.
It's not only a matter of privacy, or law. It sometimes just comes down to a cultural difference between one people and another. And several comments here show that you don't need to go as far as the middle east or Asia to encounter potential issues. Countries like France, Belgium or Germany are indeed quite restrictive on the legal side of it, and usually the legal side is deriving from a cultural background and traditions where some enforcement has become needed. So again, it's all a matter of cultural difference. We all are offended by different things according to our culture and background. Some societies are offended by a foreigner taking pictures of them...well ok... Be mindful and aware of the cultural difference, respect that difference and move along. No one has universal rights above other people.
Love this. Spot on
Interesting topic.
I shoot the X-70 and half flip up the screen like a waist level finder usually. This has given me enough practice to blind hip fire with a subtle thumb press pretty successfully. I'm very sneaky, and quiet, so most people don't even know they were photographed, mostly because I don't want to disturb the scene or cause subjects to feel self-conscious, not because I'm a pervert.
I never know there were such rules but imagine having this rules at popular destinations like Eiffel tower where everyone is waiting for others to move away so they can take a picture we will be stuck there forever 😆
You can't post night shots of the Eiffel tower with or without people
In Quebec since the 1990 it’s illegal to take a photo and use it without the permission of the person. There was the Aubry Affair, and some others. Some newspapers had paid thousand of dollars to citizens for their image used out of context. The laws are strict. What the photojournalists did for years was taking pictures of the back of people. Or ask to sign a complex contract giving their approval. Really difficult. No surprise there’s no great street photographer here. Every time a citizen goes to court against a media or a photographer he wins. And the FPJQ, the federation of journalists, is not able to change anything about it.
This is a timely and fascinating topic with severe legal ramifications for street photographers and just plain tourists who get arrested by the local authorities--something that happens a lot more than is commonly known. Here, I just want to point out that one of the solutions that Roman advises sometimes doesn't work at all: Deleting the photo. In fact, it can get you into MORE trouble.
The accuser or police can say, Well, if the photo wasn't illegal, why did you delete it before we could examine it closely? And then they can justify taking possession of your camera--at the minimum, the SD card--because they need it to recover the deleted file as evidence or lack thereof. As I would think many people here know, even after a file is "deleted," it remains on the card until new photos or video are recorded over it. Not hard for a digitally-equipped police bureau to recover it. So it's quite a chute you fall into once you're reported or arrested regardless of how cooperative you may be.
One can say that it depends on the attitude or mood of the cop, but if the report is made by a third party, the police are OBLIGATED to initiate an investigation. Caveat: Speaking of S. Korea and Japan here.
I think it all depends on who you deal with. Same country, same rules but having to deal with an idiot va someone with common sense can have different results
Korea is a bit of both worlds where even news journalists can’t publish their work because there are too many recognizable faces. I’ve held cameras at waist level while being accused of taking photos. To prove otherwise I opened the back and “burned off” (exposed) a portion of the film. Hidden camera criminals face fines and serve time so do be careful. Using common sense and relieving tension is a great tip. People skills are important.
Nice and informative video, although i do not agree with immediate deleting photograph when someone in foreign country approach you, i would rather start friendly conversation sharing some of my work and explaining why and what kind of picture i captured might even ending them liking the photo and having good experience and chat with strangers, talking from my own experience, but of course i agree we should be aware of standards in certain country and environment before doing so but would not give up right away 🧐
This is the approach, it's definitely worth the small effort if it could turn the situation into a positive one for all involved! It also might help if you offer to send them a final edit.
remember, if no one see you, is legal. If someone is angry bcs the photo just delete it, simple.
Smart suggestions. BTW your mother is beautiful!
This only rectifies to never go to London.
Lets hope this madness does not catch up here in the UK. A photographer, inevitably includes people, buildings, cars, etc etc, which just happen to form the elements of a photograph if not the main subject. I do mostly landscape, cityscape, and similar, but due to sheer number of people & cars presents in even remote locations, people are usually present in a photograph. Yesterday, Monday 21st of March I was at Higger Tor at 11 am, not exactly a high street scene, but the place was full of cars, vans and people with their dogs. I only shot 11 frames on my Hasselblad, two frames were of any merit, but they were people and their dogs present in both of those photos. What am I supposed to do, run all over Peak District after a running couple and their dog to ask permission? If these silly laws catch up here, then we are all in a jam as photographers.
Most times its fair game when you are in public spaces.
Applies this on digital photography only because of the images metadata, or also on film photography?
I guess both as it is around the person's appearance more so than the metadata
Funny enough is making pictures into our city mall forbidden, but there is competition making photos with your mobile in the same.
haha yeah phones let you get away with everything
Did you know that there is a software that allows you to identify a person via a picture, so I don't blame countries for making such laws
I am always a bit afraid when going out for some photos here in china,i don't really quite understand the rules of photos here even after living here for more than 6 years now...but in my opinion peoples shouldn't be mad being in a photo unless they are bad peoples or they did something wrong. Thank for the heads up Roman,as always.
I have to disagree.
I get that countries have different laws, but if you can see it in public you should be able to photograph it. Every journalist does this, in fact they harrass VIPs for a story, video or photo. In fact they sneak photos with massive lenses for money.
In all countries people cover up or change in private so people can't see it, i.e. see it rule.
As to making money, anyone can take a photo of anyone, they can take a photo of you taking a photo of them. Anyone can make money off any photo, if they can sell it, like a journalist.
If you ban this, it becomes a huge mind feild as everyone has a camera in their pocket. So it makes a joke of having that camera there. This really as i see it, is restriction of freedom of expression and speech.
I have to say that this feels so unreal, almost like a stand-up joke... Street photography being illegal is what I am talking about. That law is a joke, both from a moral and legal perspective. Not to mention that it directly takes away from your right of freedom on public properties, areas and land. I would like to know how these types of backwards-evolving countries feel about painters. I would love to hire a speed-painter to do candid street portraits in the same way we would do them with our cameras. Would he get fined? Jailed? Imprisoned? Would it be O.K? I am curious to know what would happen. Most if not all the people who have an issue with being photographed in a public area or complain about privacy, are usually full of themselves and think the world revolves around them and that everyone is interested in them and their life and they ''want privacy!''
As an Italian who grew up in a high class family deeply involved with certain ''organizations'' throughout central Europe, who has been through the lowest lows and highest highs, I can say that I've been through it all and I'm not even past my 30's yet and ever since I started shooting, the thought of taking pictures, taking street pictures, people or no people in them, the thought of it being illegal never even crossed my mind, let alone me recognizing it as a possibility - even while I am typing this, that just sounds utterly idiotic to me.
As for unpleasant encounters or encounters of physical nature, I haven't had any quite like that yet. I respect people who do not want their shots taken, that is if they approach me in a civilized manner, as respect is something I have thoroughly ingrained in me thanks to how and where I grew up - and as for not knowing who the strangers we are shooting are or who they know in order to avoid those aggressive or potentially dangerous encounters, I do not particularly care about that, as I am lucky enough to be able to say that they don't want to find out who I am and who I know, however I do understand that not everyone is in such a position and that this is a common concern and a common issue in street photography and that it should be addressed more in videos like this one.
A very well balanced video, thank you. It's nice to see someone considering both the legal and the ethical position. Just because the law allows you to do something, doesn't mean you should. Let's face it; the explosion of photography via smart phones in recent years has had multiple impacts on the craft, now that "everyone's a photographer". In the case of street photography, what was once an occasional thing is now ubiquitous, and it's hardly surprising that folks are pushing back a little. I live in a tourist hotspot (in the UK) and can see both sides of the argument. Having said that, for a state to introduce draconian rules on street photography while keeping its people under constant surveillance (including with face recognition) is, shall we say, hypocritical!
I just got back from a rural but heavily populated part of The Gambia (totally off the tourist trail). Photography was challenging. It's a strongly Islamic country overlaid with a lot of traditional superstitions and customs. There are people everywhere, so even "non-people" street photography is difficult. Also, we were literally the only two white faces in town, so we stood out like sore thumbs! Most of the time I left the camera in the bag and used my phone. I also carried a little Instax printer and found this was a game-changer. I know I'm not the first to do this, but offering to take someone's photo and giving them a print really broke the ice. I found myself using the phrase "giving photos" rather than just "taking" them.
The other situation was the local fishing beach, full of artisanal fishermen bring their pirogues in on the tide, plus the whole eco-system of carriers, processors, tradespeople, etc. It was like a film set; one of the most photogenic locations I've been to. I was warned by our local guide that folks don't like having their photos taken there, but I soon figured out there was a "system". Hang out for a while with a camera over your shoulder and someone would approach and start a conversation, offer to show you what was going on and walk round with you, nodding to everyone they knew, and saying it's OK to take photos! A hundred Dalasi (around £1.50) normally "took care of business" at the end. It took me a while to come to terms with this until I realised that he, and indeed I, was just another part of the whole eco-system that was trying to achieve its aims in this area. Life's full of trade-offs and compromises!
One of the least technical clips you have done but one of the most important, as this is a subject that concerns us photographers quite very much every time we go out there. Although I try to be and act as natural as possible when shooting in the streets or crowded places, you still can't block out the thoughts and concerns about to the fact to be as little as an interference and disturbance as possible. I try my own set of "tricks" to not bug anyone, for instance when not traveling alone I often use my travel companion to fit somehow in the frame I'm wanting to take shifting my focus and attention to him such as the other people might think I'm not interested in them. Or like you said, I generally don't even want recognizable people on my pics, I prefer them either blurry or often if I want to shoot a street or a building I wait for the people to walk past me and so I take them from the back, thus always concerned in making the people not the main focus on a pic but just an addition or a final touch to complete the frame. Although like most of us yeah we never have bad ideas or intentions with the pics we are taking I often have that bad feeling when I take a closer picture of someone, because I feel like that moment it creates a better pic, but I guess my demeanor or my approach always got my lucky that I have never encountered any problems whatsoever. But still, I totally agree, if someone would ever ask me why I was taking his or her pic and demanded me to delete I would prefer not to argue and do it. Being a responsible photographer also implies to have respect for the places and people you are photographing, and the activity should be to see and capture but not to disturb or impede people from their activities. Thanks again for the great clip!! Cheers!
Cheers! Yeah certainly as I am maturing within this whole thing I’m also finding myself moving away from a more traditional street approach and more towards documenting a place without having a ton of visible people
@@snapsbyfox Thanks for your reply. I am probably going to do a city trip in the next couple of months, London or Paris for instance, and one can't deny there is a certain growing paranoia and mistrust in our world towards anything unknown, a cameraman is often one of those "unfamiliar" subjects and this creates very often an uneasy feeling I admit. But I can see it also as a challenge, to go on new places, with less or no people. By the way, I've been told that Shoreditch in London is a nice district to take street photos, do you agree?? :)
Where do they find the time?
I always tip my models (stray cats) with nice food
don't go in public if you don't want your image taken, just stay home
2 years ago one guy (a neighbor) threatened to kill me cause he thought i was taking pictures of his kids but i was filming the sunset here in Ohio. no kids in the frame.
wow that's a bit extreme...
@@snapsbyfox he’s the typical hillbilly in America
People told me after that he could to jail if I had him on camera saying death threats
what countries are you referring too?
Bridges and tunnels -no go in some countries -strategic infrastructure/military is the reasoning
Yes, this used to be the justification in S. Korea. Now the vast majority of arrests are supposedly to crack down on pornographers up-skirting or down-blousing. The laws were hastily drawn up and instituted after a wave of #MeToo protests. In reality what happens is that nationalist Korean men report on non-Korean men openly taking tourist photos that include Korean women in the shot. Usually it's not the woman who does the reporting, but by-standing men who thereby prove their woke. Also generates a lot of income for bilingual lawyers.
As an addition to your comment
Nobody will complain if you take pictures in Buckingham Palace during Changing of the Guard, these are soldiers and part of the military.
But if you take pictures of military personnel at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland it may be a different story.
Don’t know how they feel now about it, but back in 2002 my B&B host told me that I should be very careful where I take pictures at the border.
I think it is also illegal in Germany - not only because of general data protection issues but also because of the right to your image.
However I do not know what the situation is if they are not recognizable
That's right. In Germany you generally can't photograph people without their consent, unless you're taking picture of something different (like architecture) and the people are just "insignificant part of the image". However, if the person is not recognizable on the photo (e.g. no-one can identify the person based on the photo: silhouette or something), then it is allowed. While these are unfortunate limitations, I find it somewhat "good" in a way that limitations force you be more creative and may help to develop own style :)
@@daniel-abramov A quick change of focal length and aperture can do the trick. To my amazement, there are still people who are delighted to be approached for permission, because nobody else bothers with them any more.
BYOM - bring your own model (mum)
Belgium is probably the most blurry about the subject. You can shoot people in public if you have their acknowledgment. But they don’t have to tell you they’re OK. A smile, a nod, or a look and an “I don’t care” attitude is enough. But the law also states that once you exit your private space (home), it means you acknowledge that you might be in a photo.
yeah I can see how that can be a bit of a grey area. However the last bit I think is 100% correct. I think there needs to be something to stop a pervert following people with a camera but there has to be a clear distinction between normal street photography and stalking
We're neighbors, in France the law clearly says "it's illegal to take/publish photos of people whether it's in private or public/privately owned places".
But, and it's a big and fatty but, if you do it and it goes unnoticed, good for you. But as soon as one person press charges then it's gonna be in the hand of the justice and you'll have to defend your artistic intent and the opposite side have to prove you harmed him.
@@snapsbyfox is there really a distinction between stalking and street photography unless you're doing it naked? 😂
@@REMY.C. which is, let’s be honest, impossible 😂
It’s super nonsense. In a world where everybody is taking selfies, running around with phone gimbals and making tik tok’s in public…just drop any law concerning that…
@@Tvennet I totally agree. But there has to be a regulation. I really like street photography, but on the other hand I refuse to be on a photo so I totally understand those restrictive laws.
Yeah right like any one will take a photo that would be worth 20,000£! It has to be a fantastic day for that to happen! And i myself would just avoid these places as a hobby photographer and do more the environmental/urban street photographer and leave all people out of all my photos! Most places like New York s Broadway for example are completely traps for photographers where people will nerve you to give them money for a snapshot!
As far as UAE other place i would never go there alone to visit especially with all the corruption ,human rights abuses that takes place there.
Lastly find a photographer/guide that does photo walks around a place or city that can also help in decrease the what i call the "photos grr face" from locals while taking pictures of place.
You will be surprised mate... just look what some NFTs are selling for... whether they are worth that money... well that's another topic
Sage advice. If only the drongos that make life difficult for the rest of us would take it!
Read the comments, then think…
I have an anecdote, kind of : a friend (french) who was working in china woke up one morning and took his car to go to work. On the way he saw dozens and dozens of huge advertisements bills WITH HIS LITTLE DAUGHTER ON IT!!!! someone took her photo when they were on the streets, probably cause they looked very different, and the child ended up on ads without any permission or money compensation.
So I think some laws need to be established to avoid tricky situations.
I often read that photographing people in public is illegal in France. That is absolutely not true. In France it really is a matter of publication, and even then the law is not 100% clear and there have been contradicting court rulings in the past. It sucks. I wish it was as simple as in the UK or US where you can do pretty much whatever you want.
yeah quite a few European countries have this but because they are huge tourist destinations, these rules are never really enforced or widely known. Some of these like France have completely caught me by surprise
@@snapsbyfox It's actually not connected to the number of tourists, but rather to a quite vague law that basically says "Any citizen has the right to having his/her privacy respected". There is no law strictly prohibiting the publishing of photos, and what guides photographers is different court rulings, even though that can obviously never be a 100% certain solution since every court case is slightly different.
A few examples :
WHAT IS (apparently) ALLOWED:
- journalistic use (for exemple : you take a photo of a person in a protest and use that photo to illustrate an article about that specific protest. You cannot however reuse that photo at a later date to illustrate an article about another protest)
- photos of public figures while they are working (politicians, police officers...but only when they are "in their official capacity". Paparazzi shots of our President during his holiday for example are not allowed to be published)
- photos where people are not recognizable
- there are a few court cases where artistic use seems to be allowed (eg : freedom of artistic expression was deemed more important than privacy) but this is one of the greyer areas where publishing without a release is a risk
WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED:
- "peeping tom" photos that clearly invade one's "expected privacy"
- photos that show people in a negative/humiliating light, and/or that can cause some damage to them (damage has to be demonstrated with facts, "I don't like being on a photo" is not a valid "emotional damage" court cases seem to say)
- commercial use without a release
It's really difficult and pushes a lot of french street photographers to try and "hide" faces through the use of silhouettes, creative composition, motion blur, shooting from the back...
There is an awesome blog (in french, but Google Translate or Deepl can probably produce good enough results) about photography and law in France (and I believe Belgium as well) here if you want to check it out : blog.droit-et-photographie.com/
Hey Henry I just made a post about that.
In France the law clearly says that it's forbidden to take/publish photos (unless it's journalism).
Doesn't mean you can't do it but if someone recognize himself, he can totally press charges and then it's gonna be in the hand of justice that will have to rule : in that case the photographer will HAVE TO PROVE HIS ARTISTIC INTENT and the opposite side HAVE TO PROVE HE WAS HARMED BY THE PHOTO.
Like you said, some cases proved the photographer is right, but that doesn't mean it's now the law. It just means that justice now have some exemple cases to rely on. So it's really ART vs PERSONAL DIGNITY AND RIGHTS.
It's like saying : it's totally forbidden to go over 130km/h on the freeway. You could go 250km/h unnoticed but as soon as there's a camera that catches you, it's basically over and justice will intervene.
@@REMY.C. Taking photos is absolutely not forbidden. The issue arises when the photo is published (except for some very very specific cases, like photographing certain military installations for example, or photographing into the home of someone...).
There is also the issue/topic of jurisdiction : it's "easy" when the photographer, subject, publication and location are all french. But what if one of them is not ? I have been unable to find an answer (for example : US-based photog takes a photo of a frenchman in Paris and publishes it in the US only...)
@@hkleinespel look what the law says, it's on the government website :
"Cas général. Photographier ou filmer une personne dans un lieu privé ou transmettre son image, sans son accord, est sanctionné d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende."
And then the same paragraph talks about public places.
So it SPECIFICALLY says: "Shoot, film, publish...", there's absolutely no possible interpretation here.
But then like you said "jurisprudence" will study case by case and rely on past cases and results.
For your second paragraph : so true, it's really hard to find anything on those specific cases you mentioned.
Awesome to hear local fisherman getting paid for photographs...nice
I think Adobe needs to develop a plug-in that's gonna rely on photos geotags metadatas and automatically remove people from them if the photo is taken in a country that forbids that 😂
now we are talking! But what will the faces be replaces with lol
@@snapsbyfox nah it'll use AI to completely vaporize people from your photos by cloning the background.
Like in your beautiful vintage car photo under the bridge.
- PEOPLE DETECTED. VAPORIZATION PROCESS STARTED.
This sounds like something Putin would say lol
@@snapsbyfox oh man... You just made me realize how evil I am deep inside 😂
@@REMY.C. Sometimes there isn't enough data to effectively replace a whole person in a photo. In that situation they could use AI to randomly generate a brand new face (like the site thispersondoesnotexist and superimpose it on to the person. That way you still have a person in the shot, but it can no longer be attributed to them.
I live in Germany. Yikes 😳
Not in the U.S, as decided by Supreme Court law.
"If I'm allowed to see It, I'm allowed to photograph it"
-Probably some famous person
Do you think London will eventually follow the crowd and start to crack down on their rules? I hope not
I doubt it
They would have to ban all the cctv and security cameras if they banned street photography, so I think it would be unlikely
@@christalbot9873 No, they wouldn't. CCTV is used by companies/property owners to protect their belongings and be used in court if required. Completely different to street photography
Yeah this whole topic is proper messy. I have a ring doorbell but apparently if it records neighbours going about their business due to the wide field of view, it can cause legal issues if said neighbours wanted to kick up a fuss.
@@snapsbyfox isn't there a setting to only film visitors or pizza/Amazon delivery guy or the thiefs?
Common sense Roman 📷👍
👍👍
You’re above clickbait titles Roman.
Good video! However, there's another aspect. Some people lives with a threat of some kind, they might be refugees, or victims of crime, witnesses, or whatever. If you take their picture, and publish it in the internet, and combine this with todays face recognition technology, you might actually put their life and health at danger. This is why I don't take pictures where random people are recognizable, no matter where I am. As a bonus, it keeps you, and anybody else, out of trouble.
This is such a fantastic point and food for thought
Any justification to legitimize an image to be deleted on the spot (and so on) should be tempered with another principle : Ever thought you could traumatize an artists sensitivity, ruin his (psychic) life ? The precautions should be legaly equivalent and constantly be presented as such.
(Nowadays to harass and push to autosensoring artists (and 'so on") who obviousally dont hide, have not resorted to "unintrusive" smartphones (real-time synchronized on what not), dont use hidden mini cameras etc. - it should rather be considered illegal and insane and uncivil and hate mongering to consider creative people doing research and gloryphy life ..to be first, by default, be creepy (not even dangerous) instead of first innocent before proven guilty. That would at least equilibrate a bit these 'legal' insanity, to opose to it the right (obligation) to be foremost considered decent and protected from trauma considering his/her rights to sensitivity and individuality too.
There are othe laws and instances where respect to each other can be legally and civilly settled, no need to enforce "photography prohibitions" (in public spaces (even if privately owned)) . Most of time it comes down to jealousy, greed or unheated trauma perpetuing itself. Society laws sometimes means it right but makes it worse.
No one, almost, likes to be photographed by a stranger. But Street Photography to survive cannot comply with it, nor with the law. Nothing new.
Maybe if countries are making illegal its something we should stop taking photos where strangers are being used without consent.
Honestly, I think this is crazy to me. The fact that someone is violated or offended for having his picture taken. The government literally tracks everyone and takes pictures of everyone without their consent and they're fine with it. I honestly believe this " YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN PUBLIC "
@Mi say that cause it facts
Even as a photographer, I object totally to taking photos with recognizable people in them if one doesn't have a model release. I should be able to control who takes my photo. If the person is not recognizable fine but otherwise I think there should be huge fines for publicly publishing recognizable people pictures without a model release. I do not know why people think they have the right to make these photos without permission.
You are being photographed alot when you are in public. Businesses have cameras inside and photoing outside. Governments have cameras. Homeowners have ring door bells and surveillance cameras. In America, there is no expectation of privacy in public areas. That gives the photographer the right to take a photo. However, I am a professional portrait photographer and for my own work, I shoot street. I too hate having my picture taken and try to respect any indication from someone if they don't want it taken. If they have any quams, they often ask why I am taking the photo and what it will be used for. I explain my credentials, what makes the photo special and I offer to email a digital copy. Nearly every time they allow me to shoot. Most folks don't have a clue what goes into a great photo, I have won and judged pro competitions, so when I explain things they never considered and they appreciate how great a photo we made, they often want MORE taken. It's just a matter of being respectIful of our fellow man. I don't photo women in bikinis at the beach or children without prior parents permission. Again, just treating others the way I would want to be treated or my wife, daughter or child. So many creeps running around with a camera, who can blame people for being suspicious. Having a model release to take the photo presupposes you have to alert the person you are taking their photo. That puts a crimp in candid shots.
@@mrca2004 All of that should be illegal. We do not need big brother either publiccor private watching us. But security photos are published online or in zines snd books under the guise of art.
So people are still confused about the law or find it stupid, here is an explanation a photographer can easily understand.
The law simply translates into law what existed before, the right of each person to their image. If you are a photographer and you have found a picture of yours taken without permission and used in a project. Most write a message and tell them to stop using it, even maybe write to stop using it or buy the rights. Since the photographer took the picture they have the rights over the picture.
The law says that people have the rights over their image or representation. Taking a photo from a website without permission is the same as taking someones image without permission, they infringe on the rights of the rights holder. In this case the person.
Easy on how to see if a picture is ok or not (according to EU law). If a photo of you has you clearly as the subject or part of the subject, well then it infringes on the right of the person to their own image. If someone stands out, it is because of something to do with them, it might be body language, face, clothing style or something else. That is part of their image. If no one stands out or could be seen as part of the subject of the photo than it is ok to take and does not infringe on the rights since the law takes in account that it was done in a public location and that people may accidentally stumble into a photo. Private spaces are different and fall under the rules of the owner/manager... of that place.
So just treat everyone image as if it is a copyrighted piece.
Also I disagree with bending the rules. No exception. If someone steals a photograph of a photographer and uses it in a flyer for a charity. No harm done, right. Most would still insist that they stop using it or even pay a token payment for the rights to use it. No nuance there. So there is no nuance on taking photograph without permission of people as the subject of the photo
Totally legal in US unless bathroom, dressing room, someone in their home, or locker room. Your story is misleading. No expectation of privacy in a place where a normal observation can take place.
I have to say I'm a bit disappointed at the very click-baity title you used on this. I think you should have added an 'if' at the beginning.
If you want to travel and do street photography, just DON'T travel to countries which have such ridiculous laws. Course they either don't want you there and /or they just want to take your money and say good bye to you. Problem solved.