Street shot in full compliance with new EU rules

[Braineack]

Ha, we we're planning Costa Rica, but will probably go to Spain and Portugal instead next year.

There's nothing to worry about. Go shoot pictures in EU.

 

[D7K]

It's fine to shoot pictures and video in Europe, As said above this is probably a misunderstood part of the new laws governing personal data. There's thousands of street photogs in this city, and I can guarantee they are not getting consent and disclosure agreements signed when they shoot and post.

I don't think much else has changed, should they see the photograph and demand you remove it, they have a stronger case / rights in order to make you do so.. as is my understanding..

 

[Ron Evers]

Ha, we we're planning Costa Rica, but will probably go to Spain and Portugal instead next year.

There's nothing to worry about. Go shoot pictures in EU.

Our plan for 2018 was the Spain & Portugal tour but we were too late as it was booked up. We took the Portugal & Madeira as the alternative. Madeira is a photographers dream. The airport is the only level ground; well ground is not accurate, as the runway is a trestle over the ocean.

Here is a fishing village.

 

[Braineack]

did you ride in a wicker basket?

 

[Ron Evers]

did you ride in a wicker basket?

No, but some of our group did. No longer do the operators carry the sleds back up the mountain, they drive them up in a van.

 

[BananaRepublic]

So, as an American, what should I expect when traveling to Europe? I like to take photos of my trip with a camera not a cell phone. Movie clips too. Should I save my money and go to Asia?

Nah but Ive had some run ins with French who would have smashed my camera on the ground only for it being around my neck, but this was before the data laws and they just happened to walk in front. Main thing be aware of yourself. Just think what advice would you give a European nervous about visiting the US.

 

[weepete]

Yeah, it's ridiculous.

I think the GDPR only applies to publication and not data processing though, so you can take the shot, just not publish it.

 

[Granddad]

On the positive side, say for example a street photog took a picture of me picking my nose and then sold it and it was used by Kleenex in a major advertising campaign. I'd have a pretty good chance these days of threatening to sue and getting a decent settlement.

 

[AlanKlein81 21]

On the positive side, say for example a street photog took a picture of me picking my nose and then sold it and it was used by Kleenex in a major advertising campaign. I'd have a pretty good chance these days of threatening to sue and getting a decent settlement.

Keep your hands in your pockets.

 

[photoflyer]

Nevertheless, we should all strive to protect the privacy of every European who is out in public like that.

Sarcasm? If one wants privacy, by definition, don't go out in public.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Just to be perfectly clear here, there is no new law that affects your right to carry out your lawful business in a public space and this includes photography for commercial use in the UK.

New laws were brought in regarding *data protection* specifically the collection and use of personal data with regard to names, addresses, purchasing histories, medical records, etc for commercial use. You cannot collect such information and sell the lists to marketing companies and their like without informing those who complete forms and volunteer the information. There is a specific need for this regarding the internet but it applies to all personal data and has little to do with publication.

That is all. The act is really about freedom of information and an individuals right to know what records are being held by whom and covers what they can and can't do with it without the individual's consent.

That some scare mongering has been going on whereas some have interpreted the new laws to include *photographs* as *personal data* on the fountain of information called *the internet* is really bending both the letter and intent of the legislation to the extreme. Photographs themselves contain no actual personal *data* as covered by the legislation.

EDIT: To be a little clearer on this point, if you were an organisation who invited the public to a public event and then recorded that event and the persons that attended then the complete records you have *including* the photos would be subject to GDPR and you would need the consent of those who attended to *process* or use the information. But this would be no different from the *best practice* guidelines and legislation that already exists. Just the same as a wedding photographer needs consent of the subject if they were to utilise shots for promotional use. It applies to *organisations* and their collection and use of data and an individual's right to access and have the information removed. It does not apply to the occasional photo by a photographer who can claim *legitimate interests* unless the *data* collected compromises or violates an individual's reasonable right to privacy.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Just to be perfectly clear here, there is no new law that affects your right to carry out your lawful business in a public space and this includes photography for commercial use in the UK.

New laws were brought in regarding *data protection* specifically the collection and use of personal data with regard to names, addresses, purchasing histories, medical records, etc for commercial use. You cannot collect such information and sell the lists to marketing companies and their like without informing those who complete forms and volunteer the information. There is a specific need for this regarding the internet but it applies to all personal data and has little to do with publication.

That is all. The act is really about freedom of information and an individuals right to know what records are being held by whom and covers what they can and can't do with it without the individual's consent.

That some scare mongering has been going on whereas some have interpreted the new laws to include *photographs* as *personal data* on the fountain of information called *the internet* is really bending both the letter and intent of the legislation to the extreme. Photographs themselves contain no actual personal *data* as covered by the legislation.

EDIT: To be a little clearer on this point, if you were an organisation who invited the public to a public event and then recorded that event and the persons that attended then the complete records you have *including* the photos would be subject to GDPR and you would need the consent of those who attended to *process* or use the information. But this would be no different from the *best practice* guidelines and legislation that already exists. Just the same as a wedding photographer needs consent of the subject if they were to utilise shots for promotional use. It applies to *organisations* and their collection and use of data and an individual's right to access and have the information removed. It does not apply to the occasional photo by a photographer who can claim *legitimate interests* unless the *data* collected compromises or violates an individual's reasonable right to privacy.

In Ireland there are some car insurance companies are promoting the use of dash cams as a means to drive down premiums. There has been a sort of backlash against that practice in the media with a story that those who might post bad driving incidents online could find themselves on the wrong side of the courts because GDPR would be breeched. Its not overall important or relevant here but there is a-lot of scare mongering.

 

[Braineack]

In Ireland there are some car insurance companies are promoting the use of dash cams as a means to drive down premiums. There has been a sort of backlash against that practice in the media with a story that those who might post bad driving incidents online could find themselves on the wrong side of the courts because GDPR would be breeched. Its not overall important or relevant here but there is a-lot of scare mongering.

That happens all the time. Don't post your crimes online; pretty simple mantra.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

In Ireland there are some car insurance companies are promoting the use of dash cams as a means to drive down premiums. There has been a sort of backlash against that practice in the media with a story that those who might post bad driving incidents online could find themselves on the wrong side of the courts because GDPR would be breeched. Its not overall important or relevant here but there is a-lot of scare mongering.

Aye, trial by social media. This is often only about revenge against perceived wrongs and in many cases has little to do with law at all. Though it is a problem the police are all for dash cams just against peoples irresponsible use of the footage on social media.

 

[johngpt]

The solution might be that when in Europe, we only photograph via daguerreotype. The exposure is so long that no moving persons will ever be in the frame...