Thanks Michael, glad you find this helpful. This is more a generic analysis and an invite to do some research after my misadventure in Spain. I may do something more specific about GDPR and its UK version, because there's a lot of hearsay and misconceptions but actually reading it is eye-opening. But then again, abiding by the law doesn't give you the right to be a complete a$$hole: our job remains to be decent human beings 😊
That was a very good Video with important Information. I often wonder, seeing street photography Photos, that the photographer doesn't seem to care if it is allowed or not. Living in germany and here are the rules very strict. It is the same with buildings. Most people seem to think that they can take pictures from every building they see and publish them on the Internet. It is good to be reminded from time to time to such information
I'm glad you find this helpful. In the video I mention a specific German law I was able to find but if you know about others feel free to add them here. In most countries in Europe, even where laws are strict, you have a a sort of "right to panorama", meaning that you can freely take a photo of people and buildings if neither is a clear subject. So, here in London for example, if you take a photo of the Gherkin it's one thing but if you take a photo of the skyline where the Gherkin is blending with the other buildings and people pass by it's another (and potentially safe for commercial use too). But then, here you can't use photos of the famous double-decker bus or the Tube roundel without permission from Transports For London (who could come after you and charge you retroactively as well). So it can really become a complex and complicated issue...
Good video. Thanks. Other topic but interesting for me to know: You made a video about GFX 50s 2 some years ago which was lent to you (you mentioned that in the video). With which gear are you nowadays shooting? Also some GFX model? Would love to hear. Keep up your good work
Thanks Chris! I still shoot with Fujifilm gear. Mostly with the X-T4 (I didn't switch to the 5 because I now can't do without the flip screen) or with a GFX100S that I rent on a project basis if my clients need such large format. I don't have the need to switch to other brands, or full frame, because Fujifilm gives me all I need: ease of use and the best colours. Maybe someone will match these in the future, who knows? 😊 Thanks a lot for the appreciation, means a lot
in 20-30-40 years we will not know what people looked like, how they dressed, how they behaved in public spaces. I detest the aggressive, provocative, exploitative side of street photography - and there is a lot of that!, but with these laws they are canceling our right to know what we look like. When we pose, we do not present ourselves. We present the person as we would like to be seen... Those glimpses of humanity tell us a lot about who we are, and are important. I keep thinking about Vivian Maier. They just canceled Vivian Maier with their laws... I am working on my family's history, and I am unable to get simple info like date of births or deaths of my family members because of GDPR. This is insane...
I hear you, and I agree that in Street Photography there is a lot of what you say, which is why I always advocate for respect and common sense. Some of the new restrictive laws are in place because some people just can't behave and respect others, while some other simply have malicious intent. Governments cannot cherry-pick so we end up with laws that displease just about everyone, that's a shame. With regards to your project, you're talking about your family so there shouldn't be so much red tape. My aunt is working on something similar but our ancestors seem to come from countries that don't have GDPR so maybe it's easier. I wish you luck, don't give up.
In Canada its err complicated. First you have PIPEDA, our privacy legislation (think of it like our GDPR), but the enforcement powers are incredibly resource strenuous and soon new legislation will replace it with GDPR like fines. Then there's PIPA and PIPA, Alberta and BC' version of GDPR which is nearly identical to Canada'a GDPR. Then there's Law 25 which amended An Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector, which is so strict, I literally struggle to understand why anyone would want to do business in Quebec. If you a shooting for commercial purposes, then these apply. If you are shooting for artistic purposes, then all but AARPPIPS applies. If you are a journalist or some random person, then none apply. Now to the civil privacy statutes. In BC and Newfoundland if you willfully and without claim of right violate a privacy of another, your liable. In Manitoba (my province) and Saskatchewan, if you unreasonably and without claim of right violate the privacy of another your liable. Quebec has the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which is a quasi constitution (not to be confused with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which deals with state conduct) protects private life. For the removal of ambiguity the Quebec Civil Code grants the right to ones image. Violate either or both, your liable. A Supreme Court of Canada case Aubry v Vice Verses decided under Quebec Charter but not under Civil Code as changes were added after the impugned picture was taken. The photo in question was of a teenage girl. She was teased but no harm was found. The taking of her picture was enough to be awarded damages. This case was decided under Quebec and French civil law which is a different legal system than common law and thus is not binding, but could be influential in other parts of the country. Of importance are exceptions the court gave where freedom of expression would triumph: -Background shots of identifiable people not principle subject of photo, any public setting, public interest need not be established. -Photos taken in public interest -Public figures -People on the scene of an important news story -An important witness in a court case Until 2012, you could not sue in any other province for invasion of privacy as a standalone tort until the Jones v Tsige case. The appeals court in this case copy pasted a privacy tort from the United States called "intrusion upon seclusion" which specified a reckless or intention violation highly offensive to a reasonable person capable of causing distress, humiliation, and anguish. Harm is a requirement. This tort has since spread to other provinces without a statutory tort. In 2017, a small claims case occurred called Vanderveen v Waterbridge where an Ontario woman was filmed for 2 seconds a video viewed 200 times on TH-cam for two weeks as part of a commercial condo promotion. The filming was non-consensual. The harm in this case was she was insecure about her weight. She was awarded damages. So, to summarize, is it legal to take someone's photo without permission? In the average setting in Quebec, no. In the rest of Canada, possibly no.
Wow. Thank you so so much for taking the time to write all this. It's so incredibly thorough and helpful! Laws are so complex and different from a country to the next, I feel it's impossible to know it all but I try to get as documented as possible before I visit a place. Then people may be more accepting and permissive, particularly in tourist areas, but you must know the law to make sure you don't cross any line or be prepared to respond adequately and respectfully if confronted. Unfortunately, in this day and age the common premise is we are all free to do whatever and face no consequence. But the reality is of course different. I'm really curious about the case so I will look into it. And again thanks a lot, I'm saving all this in my documents folder 👍🏻
@@fabienb People can get confrontational anywhere, even the US, and some places its dangerous such as an area with open air drug use even without legal ramifications. Canada is not a free for all legality speaking, when it comes to privacy as there are civil, administrative, and criminal consequences for non-legally justifiable, the latter especially for publication bans. In my province Manitoba, I often see people's photos from contemporary society accompanying sources. When you see a name in the subtext, you know consent was gotten before or after with a discussion, but not all photos have this and often people are far away in frame. My main concern with photography and especially photojournalism is the defence of one's legal interests (criminal and civil) from wrongdoers, and the ability to communicate those wrongdoings to the outside world, with or without the necessary de-identification. This is especially important with respect to people people with power, especially public authorities. Some laws like GDPR have allowances for this, but that depends on the national variation of GDPR and national legal standards. There are some really bad laws in certain American states and European countries that have been abused by those with power.
That's interesting. When I visited Canada I was more focused on landscape photography and didn't really dedicate much time to street, so I overlooked the legal aspects (and perhaps it was all less strict back then). But it's one of the countries where I had the best experiences with people as everyone was friendly, positive and good-looking (particularly in Toronto, which felt even odd at times considering it's not my usual experience in major cities). I believe photojournalism has its place when it is actual journalism with a Greater Good intent, but unfortunately there are plenty self-entitled "photojournalists" who only post on social media to fulfill their vanity and not help a cause. Then there is Art, which I believe should be given more leeway around the privacy laws as a genuine form of self-expression that is entitled to provoke, upset or provide food for thought. All within respect, which is what society often lacks. It's a very broad conversation and I don't think we can ever get to a solution. I try to see both sides and operate within ethical boundaries I set for myself, but it's always going to be contentious.
Yes, the landscapes here are beautiful, around Winnipeg looks flat with farms fields everywhere. Interesting take on Toronto. From what I've experienced in Vancouver, Alberta, and Winnipeg, people keep to themselves. And yes there are bad photojournalists. One can only think of the paparazzi, whom if they didn't seek publication they would be on the receiving end of a protection order, or the infamous Gladbeck hostage crisis. But there is a reason art was specifically a derogation in the GDPR, but this varies nationally. Respect does go along way but if a face is shown there is no availing yourself from a proverbial Vanderveen unless consent is obtained. Any picture taken that ends up in a publication and there's awareness, you'll be hearing from a DPA or receive a court summons, but not if you pull the image at first request. Many people are filmed without consent in the most strict countries and most complaints seem to be images that can show people in a problematic light or being front and centre in media with high consumption. @@fabienb
Even trickier with the GDPR, consent can be withdrawn at any time so what do you do with what's already legally published? Social media post can be taken down, newspapers or exhibitions are short-lived... but a book? Tough one
It's all because of money. An interesting thing happened here in the USA. We can no longer go into national parks and shoot and publish photos for money without getting a permit. And simply uploading to youtube counts because it then has the potential to earn money, even if you have a few subscribers. I can see cities in the future demanding permits for just doing architecture shots or street pics.
Hey Garret, thanks a lot for adding this info. On this side of the pond this is already the norm in many cases. There are locations where photography is permitted but if you are a "professional" (in whatever made-up sense) you need to pay a fee. And this is true in famous buildings as well as lavender fields... In London, the famous double-decker bus is protected, and so is the Tube. Transports for London can either fine you or ask for a flat fee to repay them, if you have ever made a penny with those photos, or even only list them for sale. There is also a form of Intellectual Property protection for famous landmarks: for example, the Eiffel tower is protected (which is going to make for interesting legal battles now during the Olympics), but usually there is a "right to panorama", so if the landmark appears in the photo but it is not the main subject it should be permitted. So yeah, it's all quite complicated.
@@fabienb That is crazy! I was shooting an eclipse in Texas a few months ago and a cop noticed my set up in a park. He was fishing for evidence and asked if I was a professional or with National Geographic or some other publication. Had I been and said yes, I probably would have been escorted out of the city park.
@@GarretGrayCamera Yeah probably. In Istanbul, I was shooting a neon sign and a guy came out of the café where the sign was... "No photo, no photo, are you a professional?" "No I'm only out with a camera" "Ah, ok then". If that is not nonsense... 🤷🏻♂ In London, I knew I couldn't use a tripod inside the Sky Garden, so I simply put the camera down on the floor in front of the window, out of anybody's way. The security came quickly, telling me I couldn't do that because it was "professional". Even more nonsense. But when they're private spaces, you have to abide by their on-the-spot made-up excuses.
I assume you mean that shooting with a smartphone would be safer as it's more discreet. Well, yes it will probably help avoiding most confrontations, but the limits of the laws still apply, particularly when it comes to publishing photos online. So thread carefully 😅
@@fabienb sorry google street view is full of street pictures. And al over social media is full of people sharing many many photo's. But still, you got point.
@@lumixS5M2 oh for sure, but it doesn't mean it is lawful. There's always the possibility that you won't get caught, or the subject won't mind, or police has better things to do than chase a photographer online, etc etc. And as I say in the video, Street Photography is often protected as a form of art and self-expression, so there's that. The video is more aimed at informing you that those laws exist, so you know that you could be confronted on some reasonable ground. But then it's up to you to decide what to do ☺️
Very good information here Fabien, learned a lot, had no clue about the laws in some of the countries you mentioned
Thanks Michael, glad you find this helpful. This is more a generic analysis and an invite to do some research after my misadventure in Spain. I may do something more specific about GDPR and its UK version, because there's a lot of hearsay and misconceptions but actually reading it is eye-opening. But then again, abiding by the law doesn't give you the right to be a complete a$$hole: our job remains to be decent human beings 😊
That was a very good Video with important Information. I often wonder, seeing street photography Photos, that the photographer doesn't seem to care if it is allowed or not. Living in germany and here are the rules very strict. It is the same with buildings. Most people seem to think that they can take pictures from every building they see and publish them on the Internet. It is good to be reminded from time to time to such information
I'm glad you find this helpful. In the video I mention a specific German law I was able to find but if you know about others feel free to add them here.
In most countries in Europe, even where laws are strict, you have a a sort of "right to panorama", meaning that you can freely take a photo of people and buildings if neither is a clear subject. So, here in London for example, if you take a photo of the Gherkin it's one thing but if you take a photo of the skyline where the Gherkin is blending with the other buildings and people pass by it's another (and potentially safe for commercial use too). But then, here you can't use photos of the famous double-decker bus or the Tube roundel without permission from Transports For London (who could come after you and charge you retroactively as well). So it can really become a complex and complicated issue...
Good video. Thanks. Other topic but interesting for me to know: You made a video about GFX 50s 2 some years ago which was lent to you (you mentioned that in the video). With which gear are you nowadays shooting? Also some GFX model? Would love to hear. Keep up your good work
Thanks Chris!
I still shoot with Fujifilm gear. Mostly with the X-T4 (I didn't switch to the 5 because I now can't do without the flip screen) or with a GFX100S that I rent on a project basis if my clients need such large format. I don't have the need to switch to other brands, or full frame, because Fujifilm gives me all I need: ease of use and the best colours. Maybe someone will match these in the future, who knows? 😊
Thanks a lot for the appreciation, means a lot
in 20-30-40 years we will not know what people looked like, how they dressed, how they behaved in public spaces.
I detest the aggressive, provocative, exploitative side of street photography - and there is a lot of that!, but with these laws they are canceling our right to know what we look like. When we pose, we do not present ourselves. We present the person as we would like to be seen... Those glimpses of humanity tell us a lot about who we are, and are important. I keep thinking about Vivian Maier. They just canceled Vivian Maier with their laws...
I am working on my family's history, and I am unable to get simple info like date of births or deaths of my family members because of GDPR. This is insane...
I hear you, and I agree that in Street Photography there is a lot of what you say, which is why I always advocate for respect and common sense. Some of the new restrictive laws are in place because some people just can't behave and respect others, while some other simply have malicious intent. Governments cannot cherry-pick so we end up with laws that displease just about everyone, that's a shame.
With regards to your project, you're talking about your family so there shouldn't be so much red tape. My aunt is working on something similar but our ancestors seem to come from countries that don't have GDPR so maybe it's easier. I wish you luck, don't give up.
Only AI will have first-hand knowledge of things.
In Canada its err complicated.
First you have PIPEDA, our privacy legislation (think of it like our GDPR), but the enforcement powers are incredibly resource strenuous and soon new legislation will replace it with GDPR like fines.
Then there's PIPA and PIPA, Alberta and BC' version of GDPR which is nearly identical to Canada'a GDPR.
Then there's Law 25 which amended An Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector, which is so strict, I literally struggle to understand why anyone would want to do business in Quebec.
If you a shooting for commercial purposes, then these apply. If you are shooting for artistic purposes, then all but AARPPIPS applies. If you are a journalist or some random person, then none apply.
Now to the civil privacy statutes.
In BC and Newfoundland if you willfully and without claim of right violate a privacy of another, your liable.
In Manitoba (my province) and Saskatchewan, if you unreasonably and without claim of right violate the privacy of another your liable.
Quebec has the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which is a quasi constitution (not to be confused with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which deals with state conduct) protects private life. For the removal of ambiguity the Quebec Civil Code grants the right to ones image. Violate either or both, your liable.
A Supreme Court of Canada case Aubry v Vice Verses decided under Quebec Charter but not under Civil Code as changes were added after the impugned picture was taken. The photo in question was of a teenage girl. She was teased but no harm was found. The taking of her picture was enough to be awarded damages. This case was decided under Quebec and French civil law which is a different legal system than common law and thus is not binding, but could be influential in other parts of the country. Of importance are exceptions the court gave where freedom of expression would triumph:
-Background shots of identifiable people not principle subject of photo, any public setting, public interest need not be established.
-Photos taken in public interest
-Public figures
-People on the scene of an important news story
-An important witness in a court case
Until 2012, you could not sue in any other province for invasion of privacy as a standalone tort until the Jones v Tsige case. The appeals court in this case copy pasted a privacy tort from the United States called "intrusion upon seclusion" which specified a reckless or intention violation highly offensive to a reasonable person capable of causing distress, humiliation, and anguish. Harm is a requirement. This tort has since spread to other provinces without a statutory tort.
In 2017, a small claims case occurred called Vanderveen v Waterbridge where an Ontario woman was filmed for 2 seconds a video viewed 200 times on TH-cam for two weeks as part of a commercial condo promotion. The filming was non-consensual. The harm in this case was she was insecure about her weight. She was awarded damages.
So, to summarize, is it legal to take someone's photo without permission? In the average setting in Quebec, no. In the rest of Canada, possibly no.
Wow. Thank you so so much for taking the time to write all this. It's so incredibly thorough and helpful! Laws are so complex and different from a country to the next, I feel it's impossible to know it all but I try to get as documented as possible before I visit a place. Then people may be more accepting and permissive, particularly in tourist areas, but you must know the law to make sure you don't cross any line or be prepared to respond adequately and respectfully if confronted.
Unfortunately, in this day and age the common premise is we are all free to do whatever and face no consequence. But the reality is of course different.
I'm really curious about the case so I will look into it. And again thanks a lot, I'm saving all this in my documents folder 👍🏻
@@fabienb People can get confrontational anywhere, even the US, and some places its dangerous such as an area with open air drug use even without legal ramifications.
Canada is not a free for all legality speaking, when it comes to privacy as there are civil, administrative, and criminal consequences for non-legally justifiable, the latter especially for publication bans.
In my province Manitoba, I often see people's photos from contemporary society accompanying sources. When you see a name in the subtext, you know consent was gotten before or after with a discussion, but not all photos have this and often people are far away in frame.
My main concern with photography and especially photojournalism is the defence of one's legal interests (criminal and civil) from wrongdoers, and the ability to communicate those wrongdoings to the outside world, with or without the necessary de-identification. This is especially important with respect to people people with power, especially public authorities. Some laws like GDPR have allowances for this, but that depends on the national variation of GDPR and national legal standards.
There are some really bad laws in certain American states and European countries that have been abused by those with power.
That's interesting. When I visited Canada I was more focused on landscape photography and didn't really dedicate much time to street, so I overlooked the legal aspects (and perhaps it was all less strict back then). But it's one of the countries where I had the best experiences with people as everyone was friendly, positive and good-looking (particularly in Toronto, which felt even odd at times considering it's not my usual experience in major cities).
I believe photojournalism has its place when it is actual journalism with a Greater Good intent, but unfortunately there are plenty self-entitled "photojournalists" who only post on social media to fulfill their vanity and not help a cause.
Then there is Art, which I believe should be given more leeway around the privacy laws as a genuine form of self-expression that is entitled to provoke, upset or provide food for thought. All within respect, which is what society often lacks.
It's a very broad conversation and I don't think we can ever get to a solution. I try to see both sides and operate within ethical boundaries I set for myself, but it's always going to be contentious.
Yes, the landscapes here are beautiful, around Winnipeg looks flat with farms fields everywhere. Interesting take on Toronto. From what I've experienced in Vancouver, Alberta, and Winnipeg, people keep to themselves.
And yes there are bad photojournalists. One can only think of the paparazzi, whom if they didn't seek publication they would be on the receiving end of a protection order, or the infamous Gladbeck hostage crisis. But there is a reason art was specifically a derogation in the GDPR, but this varies nationally.
Respect does go along way but if a face is shown there is no availing yourself from a proverbial Vanderveen unless consent is obtained. Any picture taken that ends up in a publication and there's awareness, you'll be hearing from a DPA or receive a court summons, but not if you pull the image at first request. Many people are filmed without consent in the most strict countries and most complaints seem to be images that can show people in a problematic light or being front and centre in media with high consumption. @@fabienb
Even trickier with the GDPR, consent can be withdrawn at any time so what do you do with what's already legally published?
Social media post can be taken down, newspapers or exhibitions are short-lived... but a book? Tough one
It's all because of money. An interesting thing happened here in the USA. We can no longer go into national parks and shoot and publish photos for money without getting a permit. And simply uploading to youtube counts because it then has the potential to earn money, even if you have a few subscribers. I can see cities in the future demanding permits for just doing architecture shots or street pics.
Hey Garret, thanks a lot for adding this info. On this side of the pond this is already the norm in many cases. There are locations where photography is permitted but if you are a "professional" (in whatever made-up sense) you need to pay a fee. And this is true in famous buildings as well as lavender fields... In London, the famous double-decker bus is protected, and so is the Tube. Transports for London can either fine you or ask for a flat fee to repay them, if you have ever made a penny with those photos, or even only list them for sale.
There is also a form of Intellectual Property protection for famous landmarks: for example, the Eiffel tower is protected (which is going to make for interesting legal battles now during the Olympics), but usually there is a "right to panorama", so if the landmark appears in the photo but it is not the main subject it should be permitted.
So yeah, it's all quite complicated.
@@fabienb That is crazy! I was shooting an eclipse in Texas a few months ago and a cop noticed my set up in a park. He was fishing for evidence and asked if I was a professional or with National Geographic or some other publication. Had I been and said yes, I probably would have been escorted out of the city park.
@@GarretGrayCamera Yeah probably. In Istanbul, I was shooting a neon sign and a guy came out of the café where the sign was... "No photo, no photo, are you a professional?" "No I'm only out with a camera" "Ah, ok then". If that is not nonsense... 🤷🏻♂
In London, I knew I couldn't use a tripod inside the Sky Garden, so I simply put the camera down on the floor in front of the window, out of anybody's way. The security came quickly, telling me I couldn't do that because it was "professional". Even more nonsense. But when they're private spaces, you have to abide by their on-the-spot made-up excuses.
google street or smartphone
I assume you mean that shooting with a smartphone would be safer as it's more discreet. Well, yes it will probably help avoiding most confrontations, but the limits of the laws still apply, particularly when it comes to publishing photos online. So thread carefully 😅
@@fabienb sorry google street view is full of street pictures. And al over social media is full of people sharing many many photo's. But still, you got point.
@@lumixS5M2 oh for sure, but it doesn't mean it is lawful. There's always the possibility that you won't get caught, or the subject won't mind, or police has better things to do than chase a photographer online, etc etc. And as I say in the video, Street Photography is often protected as a form of art and self-expression, so there's that.
The video is more aimed at informing you that those laws exist, so you know that you could be confronted on some reasonable ground. But then it's up to you to decide what to do
☺️
@@fabienb good video, in UK they send drone pilots to Cort, so photo/video be more restricted. Funny world become (am not in uk)
It's a joke. Our photo is snapped 100's of times a day by cctv anyway
One rule for them... 😏
@@fabienb agree