D4mations.com

Is street photography illegal in Germany?



There’s been a lot of talk recently about how photography will soon be nearly impossible in Germany due to a change in the law. Is this true, and if so how will it affect my (and your) videos?

Music:
“Style Funk” and “Hot Swing”
by Kevin MacLeod http://incompetech.com/
Creative Commons Attribution licence

———

Support me on Patreon for access to bonus content and more:
http://patreon.com/rewboss

Send letters and postcards to:

Rewboss
Postfach 10 06 29
63704 Aschaffenburg
Germany

Please don’t send parcels or packages, or anything that has to be signed for.

———

My website:
http://www.rewboss.com/

My blog:
http://rewboss.blogspot.com/

My Twitter feed:

My Facebook profile:
http://facebook.com/rewboss

Original source

d4mations

, , , , , , , , ,

47 responses to “Is street photography illegal in Germany?”

  7. I got told about taking video or dashcam footage of German street scenes and how I was required to blur out faces and car plates if uploading.
    I just waited until I was back in Australia then uploaded. European law doesn't apply here and we have no laws saying we have to censor images. No doubt Americans do the same.

  9. Man wird wo es nur geht ausspioniert, gefilmt, überwacht – so lange das nur der Staat macht oder google, FB etc. ist das in Ordnung, aber wehe man macht als Privatperson ein Foto auf der Straße…

  10. So there was just a report of a strange man sitting in his car videoing other peoples kids at the park. When approached by the police he put his phone away quickly and left. People were told there was no law against him videoing their children. Suddenly all the extra rules/laws don't sound so bad.

  13. As they say I.m no expert, I.m only a Brit living in EU, but from what I understand Germany is indeed the only country in Europe that prohibited street photography of people.

    This has something to do with the past. However, since digital many people in Germany took up street photography and many formed groups precisely to challenge the laws on street photography. Of course the government never took up the challenge and street photography in Germany is one of the best around. I.ve done street photography in Germany with no problem what so ever.

    However the problem is that many people don.t know the first rule of street photography: don.t be a pain in the derrière!

  17. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook(and others) remove exif data on the uploaded image. I've never made money from any of my pictures so "Ich bin kein Profi." is another "out" since most of the crazy German laws(myths) I've heard involve publishing/making money from pictures.

  19. We are about to kill everything, music, art, photography. And why is that? Paranoia! So, my mug shows up on some picture that some tourist has taken in my country.
    So f***ing what? Are my individual rights violated. No! Maybe that's because I don't have a huge brain fart.

  20. I'm loving your videos. This one was especially interesting as I've just moved from Norfolk to Upper Austria with my partner – and I'm planning to make some videos about my new home city, which will involve outdoor shots which are bound to contain lots of people!

  24. the law is created so that the "inconvenient" journalists can be prosecuted by the authorities
    that is why the law is "vague" and does not actually say what you can or cannot do

    if you're "a good guy" and the authorities approve of you and your work, then guess what… you're ok
    but if you are a "problematic guy" then, well… we must use "the law" by the letter… and you will be prosecuted and fined

    during the communist era, most public laws were vague and they seem to be somehow strangely acceptable
    for example you could in theory voice your concerns in public, have a demonstration or even publish a newspaper
    if you read the law, nothing there was evil… everything sounded fine

    but if you READ the law, you understand, just because is not in the law specifically, that does not mean that you could ACTUALLY do it without consequences

    now, ask yourself why the laws are vague and lead to interpretations?
    so that the ones in power can use them as they see fit and against those that are problematic
    the same law can give permission to a pro power publication to create articles and photos…
    while it can absolutely destroy and obliterate a problematic publication

    same goes with "hate laws"
    what is not to love about them? they are AGAINST HATE… right?
    except that you can get in trouble for ANYTHING if the powers to be deem you to be "problematic"

    sadly you guys in the west have never lived in a communist system
    you think that you can regulate speech and erase freedoms for the greater good, and that the totalitarian systems are far more "evil" than that

    actually, in reality, most communist countries used THE SAME type of laws used now in the west

    no where in the books it was written "if you dare to speak against the tyrant you will be sent to death in a work camp…"
    actually what the law was saying is this
    "if your actions are against the HARMONY and COMMON GOOD of THE PEOPLE, you will be prosecuted BY THE PEOPLE"

    see?
    what is not to like?
    harmony, common good, the people… everything for the people
    only bad bad BAD individuals will ever ever be against "the people" right?

    on short:
    stop deluding yourselves
    tyranny does not need evil laws, it only needs vague laws
    and tyranny will never ever claim to be evil, it will always claim that is
    BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE

    wise the hell up fuckers, this is not a joke
    we endured hell until we managed to shot the fuckers and get ourselves free
    don't think for a second that you will be spared the same fate once ideologues get in power and decide what is "good for the people" and what and who is not

  25. Andererseits, bei unserer Justiz sollte man immer den schlimmsten Fall annehmen, den mit 100 multiplizieren, und so schlimm kommts dann wirklich… Zumindest kann man dann nie unangehem überrascht werden.

  26. The problem is taking a photo itself, not publishing it. For me, I don't want to be on pictures, never ever, but I want to leave the house sometimes. If I see someone in a greater distance taking a picture, there is no chance to do anything against it, but cameras are getting better, remember the case when Ursula von der Leyen got her own indian Adhaar-account without even knowing? It was because of a high quality picture someone good simply get her fingerprints from.
    Sure there should be more exceptions, especially for events but in general, it makes sense to me, that you can't film me without asking for my permission

  28. It is helping to point out the difference between 'making a photo' or 'publishing a photo'.
    Look here: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__22.html. It is always about publishing, not making a photo.
    And especially here: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html:
    Videos of people who are on the video incidental (§23.2) or are part of a public occasion (§23.3) can be published without approval.
    Also it is important to point out what 'personenbezogene Daten' (personal related data) is. This is hard to tell from the law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_1990/__3.html, but basically it is all data that is not obvious to anyone in public or is done by data-processing. And just a face on a video is public and obvious data.
    When you get in trouble for publishing videos, it is mostly because of breaching the personal privacy by 'exposing' someone against his will. Also it is important to know, that you are not free to make photos of private property, for example pictures of the garden of someone else, or the inside of someones car.

  31. What many people don’t understand: You also had to get a permit to publish a photo of a person before the DSGVO.
    You were not allowed to photograph people and have them in focus and upload or publish it.

    And nothing has changed, you can still take pictures of landscapes or buildings when people are not the center of your picture and not in the main focus.

    And regarding concert or event photography: Nothing has changed. You had to get a permit before, you have to get a permit now.
    People just didn’t care

  33. if you remove time and location from a photo taken with a device that records it by default, will you run afoul of the edict because you are not preserving the data? also, how exact must the location and/or time be to constitute a violation?

    i understand why the edict was created, but wonder if it was not taken to extremes.

  34. TLDR post here. Also I'm not a lawyer, I'm a photographer:

    For the summary, basically DS-GVO will NOT replace and/or overpower existing data privacy and freedom of speech/information/expression laws. According to the letter, data protection, when weighed against other fundamental rights, is NOT an inherent right but is only contextual according to the legitimate interests of bodies concerned. However, it is understood that German lawmakers should apply the Art. 85 clause in order to modify the ruling based on national interests.

    This might be insightful for everyone who might be affected by DS-GVO in one way or another, especially photographers. Thankfully someone at our forum ("die analoge fotografie lebt!", one of the largest of such groups in Germany) sent an information request at the Interior Ministry and this was the reply (in German; English summary will follow):

    Permalink: https://www.facebook.com/groups/123811377738289/permalink/1617974104988668/

    ###

    "Das Fotografieren wird ab dem 25.05.2018 NICHT verboten, wir dürfen weiterhin ungestört Bilder machen – das Bundesinnenministerium schrieb folgendes:

    'Sehr geehrter Herr X….,

    vielen Dank für Ihre Anfragen vom 30. April und 03. Mai 2018.

    Eine Verbreitung dieser Antwort ist wünschenswert, sofern die Antwort vollständig wiedergeben und nicht einzelne Passagen aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen werden.

    Gerne nehme ich vertiefend zu Ihren Fragen Stellung. Um Wiederholungen zu vermeiden, möchte ich jedoch eingangs erneut betonen, dass sich aus der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DS-GVO) und den diese ergänzenden nationalen Gesetzen keine wesentlichen Änderungen der Rechtslage bei der Anfertigung und Verbreitung von Fotografien ergeben.

    Das Anfertigen von Fotografien wird sich auch zukünftig auf eine – wie bislang schon – jederzeit widerrufbare Einwilligung oder alternative Erlaubnistatbestände wie die Ausübung berechtigter Interessen (Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f) DS-GVO) stützen können. Diese Erlaubnistatbestände (nach geltender Rechtslage Art. 7 der geltenden EU-Datenschutz-Richtlinie 95/46/EG i.V.m. den nationalen Umsetzungsgesetzen) decken seit vielen Jahren datenschutzrechtlich die Tätigkeit von Fotografen ab und werden in Art. 6 DS-GVO fortgeführt. Die Annahme, dass die DS-GVO dem Anfertigen von Fotografien entgegen stehe, ist daher unzutreffend.

    Für die Veröffentlichung von Fotografien bleibt das Kunsturhebergesetz auch unter der ab dem 25. Mai 2018 anwendbaren Datenschutz-Grundverordnung erhalten. Es sind, wie ich bereits in meiner Antwort ausgeführt habe, keine Änderungen oder gar eine Aufhebung mit Blick auf die Datenschutz-Grundverordnung vorgesehen.

    Die Ansicht, das Kunsturhebergesetz werde durch die DS-GVO ab dem 25. Mai 2018 verdrängt, ist falsch. Das Kunsturhebergesetz stützt sich auf Artikel 85 Abs. 1 DS-GVO, der den Mitgliedstaaten nationale Gestaltungsspielräume bei dem Ausgleich zwischen Datenschutz und der Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit eröffnet. Das Kunsturhebergesetz steht daher nicht im Widerspruch zur DS-GVO, sondern fügt sich als Teil der deutschen Anpassungsgesetzgebung in das System der DS-GVO ein. Eine gesetzliche Regelung zur Fortgeltung des Kunsturhebergesetzes ist nicht erforderlich. Ebenso führen die Ansätze anderer Mitgliedstaaten, die sich in allgemeiner Form zum Verhältnis von Datenschutz und Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit verhalten, in der praktischen Umsetzung nicht weiter und führen nicht zu mehr Rechtssicherheit.

    Die grundrechtlich geschützte Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit fließt zudem unmittelbar in die Auslegung und Anwendung der DS-GVO ein, insbesondere stellen sie berechtigte Interessen der verantwortlichen Stellen nach Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f) DS-GVO dar. Die DS-GVO betont, dass der Schutz personenbezogener Daten kein uneingeschränktes Recht ist , sondern im Hinblick auf seine gesellschaftliche Funktion und unter Wahrung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzips gegen andere Grundrechte abgewogen werden (Erwägungsgrund 4). Zu den von der DS-GVO in diesem Zusammenhang genannten Grundrechten zählt ausdrücklich auch die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung und Informationsfreiheit.

    Ich würde mich freuen, wenn die vorstehenden Ausführungen dazu beitragen, Ihnen Ihre Befürchtungen zu nehmen.

    Mit freundlichen Grüßen
    Im Auftrag

    Regina Krahforst

    Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat
    – Bürgerservice –
    E-Mail: Buergerservice@bmi.bund.de
    http://www.bmi.bund.de
    http://www.115.de'"

    ###

    The main point here is that there will be NO existential change in existing data privacy regulations that pertains to photography during the harmonisation process. A key point in the letter is the sentence "The DS-GVO emphasizes that data proteection is not an inherent right and is counterbalanced only in relation to other fundamental rights (more specifically, the freedom of speech, expression, and information)."

    Art. 6 of DS-GVO will cover the same, if not exactly, rules and regulations that have already been in place about photography regulation in Germany. DS-GVO will also not invalidate existing laws in the process.

    As to photographers' work protection from copyright infringment, the German Artists' Copyright Law already covers that in full. In this particular case, Germany has not looked into modifying the DS-GVO's rule on published material "according to national-based interests and conditions" since, as mentioned, the Artists' Copyright Law already covers and helps in the said ruling. The letter says that there is also no further need for an explicit legal regulation of the DS-GVO in the interest of publication due to this, and further ruling does not lead to legal security (however a statement from the Hamburg Office of Data Protection and Information Freedom says that "there is a need for German lawmakers to apply Art. 85 as soon as possible for the purposes of legal security.")

    Here is that letter in full detail and in German: https://www.filmverband-suedwest.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Vermerk_DSGVO.pdf

  35. Ist wieder mal typisch deutsch, dass man es verpasst hat, entsprechende Regelungen zu treffen, die der moderne Technik beachten. Interessant wäre zu wissen, ob das auch Google Street View betrifft. Das gibt es zwar in Deutschland auch nicht, würde es aber ja zukünftig erst recht unmöglich machen. Deutschland, einig digitales Drittweltland…

    So wie ich manche "korrekte" Deutsche kenne, kann ich mir übrigens gut vorstellen, dass jemand klagt, wenn er sich auf einem Foto oder Video wiederfindet.

  40. I support animal rights and am appalled at this segment. I will be filing a complaint because clearly you did not get the permission of the farm animals in the background to film there!

  41. How can you determine who was at the filmed or fotographed location just from a timestamp and GPS coordinates? I mean, if that is the case, using a biometric database, you could determine the same information just from a facial recognition algorithm that you feed your video into.

  42. Well, I asked some lawyers in Germany and almost everyone for the since 2004, when the privacy law was made to power in Germany, says that street photography is illegal in Germany.
    Due to the violation of the privacy laws in Germany, and the penal law §201a, §202(all the sub paragraphs).

Leave a Reply