Good summary. I am so tired of defending street photography in Germany but we need more people knowing their rights to express themselves. We have a big Cartier Bresson exhibition in Hamburg right now but go take some candid photos on the same streets and you are seen as a rule breaker and disturbance. As a former street skater I had to deal with cops and angry property owners all the time :D At least street photography leaves something behind for the public that has more value then some scratched benches and ledges. But most people don't see that. But I'll keep going and do my thing.
Hi, I am a street photographer from Shanghai, China. I really enjoy watching your videos. Taking photos on the streets of Shanghai is not that exaggerated, because ordinary street photography does not involve harming the country. Street photographers often take photos in crowded places or popular tourist attractions (like Shibuya and Shinjuku streets when we go to Tokyo). Especially in Shanghai, as an international city, it is more inclusive and diverse. As for the aggressiveness of street photography, it is actually the same in any country. Mature street photographers often use street photography techniques to avoid aggression.
Just an addition.. in the uk.. data protection laws(gdpr regulations)don't apply to private individuals only to companies and organisations which handle and store data..
I always rely on kindness and respect. Know the context of what you photograph and be respectful. If people choose to be offended by having their picture in public then I will often ask if they'd like a copy or to see my instagram so they can see I'm not some weirdo just a photographer capturing a moment with no ill intent.
If you were standing on public land then he was wrong. He can legally ask you not to take a photo within their private land. Also, you would need a release form for selling a photo of any building just like you need a release form for a photo of a model.
@@johnwaine56 Public land are the operative words. Many of the large buildings in London own the land imeadiatley around them. All of the Chanary Wharf development is private property. Another obvious example is the buildings on the river front. They often own the land as far as the high watermark. They may be happy for the public to walk along them, but can impose any rules the feel they need to. The Royal Parks are another example, they are private property that is open to the public during daylight hours. Their website lists a long list of things that are prohibited. Commercial photography without a permit is one of them. Their definition of commercial photography is particularly vague.
@@neilfulcher9298 Absolutely right. Even council properties are not necessarily 'a public place'. I got asked by security to leave a council-owned indoor market. I think they were not following council policy but the same council has a whole list of charges for photographing or filming on their property with a tripod or lights etc
In the UK, I wouldn't worry too much about the GDPR or Human Rights law if you are taking typical street photographs and are courteous and not too intrusive. There is a strong principle in the UK of 'freedom of the press' and as street photographers we are a branch of the press. But it is important to note that if you persist in harassment, you could be breaking the stalking or sexual harassment laws. Also, most important of all ! - 'upskirting' is a criminal offence in the UK and you could go to prison. Finally, please remember that many apparently open 'public' areas (even government owned) are actually privately owned and the owner can ask you to stop taking photos and leave - but they cannot make you delete the photos you have already taken.
Yeah, in Germany, you cannot take a picture of anyone without their permission (esp someone's children!!!) and private property too. For example I had a some problem with owner of a big private house. I took a picture of the house and owner told me in very angry mode I have to delete this picture of his private properties. Also, drones are almost useless because they are forbidden in most places. Also Dashcam Car are forbidden.
In Brazil, you can take pictures of people in public, on the streets, and at events such as protests and concerts. However, outside of these situations, people may appear in your scene but cannot be the main subject of your photo. In this case, authorization is required for publication. There are also differences depending on whether the purpose of the photo is to make money or not, as Brazil has the right of image. Photos of children always require authorization. However, in practice, there are usually no problems, it is very rare, and I don't know of any cases.
Come to South Africa, there are basically three limitations being a Key Installation (Army, Police, petrochemical buildings and suchlike), private property (only applies if you are standing within the property, (you can stand in the street) and most commercial buildings but they must display signage to that effect at the entrances. The majority of the population in my area (Zulu and Xhosa) are happy for you to take photographs and often will jump out and demand you take one, however don't take a photo without acknowledgement of their presence. The Zulu especially are particularly gregarious people and it is good manners to acknowledge and greet anyone who makes eye contact. This seems to be the opposite in big cities elsewhere where there seems to be zero eye contact or even acknowledgement of another human.
The US can be interesting since laws can significantly vary by state or even by county or city. Of course we do have the 1st Amendment, but it’s not absolute and may be interpreted differently depending on the politics of who’s passing the laws in a given area.
I try not to take photos that would make someone unhappy if they saw themselves. I know that Germany has a law forbidding photos that can harm a person's reputation. I know that a woman whose photograph was taken as she walked by an erotic business, succeeded in her legal action against the photographer. This may not always be the case, but more and more I'm starting to feel like street photography where a recognizable person is the focus of the photograph is kinda creepy.
I've traveled to 24 countries for jobs (commercial and editorial). I agree with your point that some country's citizens don't mind having pics taken and others, culturally, find it intrusive. And as you mentioned there is a huge gulf between personal, editorial and commercial. No commercial company will accept street pics if there are people in the imagery. (I've sold images to Getty Stock for 24 years and nothing is accepted if there is person in the frame and you don't have a model release--the rule was: "If a person can identify themselves in the image it won't be used"--for example someone shot from the back). And if I remember correctly, once a Getty art director told me (when I was doing a casting which required a model release) to not cast anyone from France because of France's emphasis on protecting a person's right to privacy. The advent of digital photography in the early 2000s was the beginning of the end for freedom in street photography.
As a Brazilian, you are absolutely right! I am normally more worried about my gear than Photography Laws... Not saying that I am paranoid on the streets, but I am always careful and I normally dont go out with my most expensive gear...
Very informative video! Would using the photos in paid magazines/digital zines/prints be considered as “commercial” requiring consent/rights? Or does commercial use mean using the image for advertising purposes only? Where’s the line here?
No, publishing books and zines is not commercial use. It would be different if it would be an assignment for some company and they publish the photos in a book.
In Canada, this gets to be a bit weird. Street photography in all of the country is based on the British law, except in Quebec where it is now based on the French law. It used to be easy to do street photography, but there was a single event that changed all that. If you understand French, there was a very good documentary that explains it very well (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XdRLtHha670.htmlsi=CLRvWGLEuxykX5Aa).
A sausage seller once nagged at me, saying I needed to ask her if I wanted to take a photo of her. I wanted to calmly explain to her that it wasn’t necessary unless I wanted to publish the photo. However, she got annoyed right away. I tried to explain it to her calmly and friendly, but she just yelled, "that's German law." :D In the end, no one who isn't a photographer really knows what their rights are and what they aren't. However, my wife forbids me from publishing photos because she’s afraid we’ll get sued. We’d obviously come out of it, but we’d have to cover the legal costs. She doesn’t want to deal with that. :D
I am no lawyer, however using my own common sense, I agree 100% with you on the topic of Street Photography and your interpretation of the Street Photography privacy laws regarding shooting in a public space. Agreed there’s no privacy in a public space, for instance look at all the CCTV cameras around nowadays either in the street or on private property pointing toward the street and if those cameras are running at 24 FPS that’s approximately 24 pictures being captured every second! Thanks for sharing this interesting video 😎✌️
Street photography is a minefield. As you say the laws vary greatly from country to country. To make matters worse it's often not obvious what is public land and what is private land. the definition of "commercial photogaphy" varies greatly as well. You said in the presentation that you should treat others as you would expect to be treated. I don't like being photographed, but how would you know that without asking me first? Personally I feel that morally we should seek consent before we take a recognisable photograph of anyone, regardless of where they are.
@@therealsirrobin no issues at all legally, until they publish an image, the person in it recognises themselves and has deep enough pockets to employ a good lawyer. They could find themselves in civil court.
Well I think I am more confused after watching this than before. So basically all the photos you published taken outside of the US/UK/Thailand are illegal because you didn't respect the people's right to their image? Does selling photobooks/zines and promoting your workshops count as a business use? Does your personal mindset of what is reasonable trump local laws? Will "treat others as you'd like to be treated" hold up in court? All it really takes is one lawsuit to ruin your life.
@@therealsirrobin I am confused about the distinction between commercial and artistic use. If I want to make a living from this, can I take pictures of people who are clearly identifiable/central and then sell prints of that picture or use it as a portfolio to promote my photography business?
@@therealsirrobin like for example that andalucia project you made. Is promoting tourism to a region commercial use? Or is it artistic use because it was in a photobook? Did you have to get signed releases disclosing the commercial use from everyone you photographed?
It's interesting peoples attitudes about photography. They worry about the photography lover carrying a camera, but think nothing of the static surveillance cameras...
Thanks a lot, Mr. Schimko for the video. "There's no privacy in public" is so correct. Well, I got my courage to go out and retake more street photos 😊
To quote you” photographers need to get permission before publishing photos of individuals” so does this mean Instagram and youtube. This seems problematic for street shooters and an odd place to run a street photography workshop. I am not trying to argue and I love your videos.
Why should he mention Africa if he doesn’t want to? You make a video about Africa and street photography if you care so much about it. Or do you expect the whites to do everything for you again?
Your comment is devoid of substance and understanding! You're telling a working street photographer who makes his living off street photography that he doesn't understand the law is just WILD!
