Did I commit a Crime?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- Switzerland has very strict rules regarding street photography. Did I commit a crime while I was photographing in Geneva? I discuss the ethics and legal aspects of street photography. These are just things that need to be thought about. This is not legal advice.
👉 The website I mentioned: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Co...
⭐️📷 1on1 sessions: www.ajatuksiavalokuvauksesta....
⭐️📷 Support my free content:
👉 Buy Me a Coffee: buymeacoff.ee/PeterForsgard
👉 paypal.me/peterforsgard
👉 Join my Facebook Group: / peterforsgardyoutube
My Channel membership is now open!
👉 Join: / @forsgardpeter
Get a Hoodie!
👉 peter-forsgard.creator-spring...
⏱Timestamps
00:00 Intro
00:27 Disclaimer
00:51 Photographing vs. Publishing
02:23 Commercial vs. Art
03:59 Street Photography in Geneva
06:58 The Crime?
07:35 What do you think?
07:52 The Advice
09:00 Watch Next
🎼Music and SFX from
www.epidemicsound.com
www.artlist.io
► Affiliate programs I am in:
► Cameras and Lenses:
👉 B&H Photo: bhpho.to/36rubIY
👉 Laowa lenses: www.venuslens.net/ref/602/
👉 Mitakon lenses: zyoptics.net/?ref=PeterF
👉 7Artisans: 7artisans.store/?ref=xwsly0n5
► Filters:
👉 H&Y Filters: hyfilters.net/?ref=PeterF
► Software:
👉 Luminar Neo: skylum.evyy.net/c/2239822/131...
👉 Excire: excireeu.pxf.io/NkJBL7
👉 Topaz Labs: topazlabs.com/ref/644/
👉 DxOLab: tidd.ly/3l31ho8
► Other:
👉 Smallrig DE: www.smallrig.com.de/?ref=da5F...
👉 Smallrig: www.smallrig.com?afmc=4a5
Getting something from these links supports my channel. I will get a small commission.
You do not pay anything extra. Win-win.
► Want to learn more about photography? I have coaching sessions available in my Webstore:
👉 www.ajatuksiavalokuvauksesta....
Here are links to my gear (disclaimer: You can support this channel by using these links when purchasing. You pay the same price, and I get a few bucks to finance the free content on this channel.
📷 www.ajatuksiavalokuvauksesta....
► For Any professional inquiries, please email: peter@peterforsgard.com
Links to my accounts all around the web:
My portfolio: www.peterforsgard.com
My blog (eng): bit.ly/peterfblog
My Instagram: / jpeterf
My Gear: www.ajatuksiavalokuvauksesta....
My kit.co store: kit.co/PeterF
#photography #PeterForsgard
(Disclaimer: Some of the links above are affiliate links. Using these links when making purchases, you support this channel. You pay the same price, and I get a few bucks to finance this channel.)
As someone who had the experience of living under under an authoritarian regime, I find this kind of bans on street photography quite disturbing. The state has no problem sticking CCTV cameras on every lamppost, but taking photos in a *public* space is a no-no... because what? privacy? I thought *public* and *private* are direct antonyms...
The CCTV thing is a good point - we are on CCTV so much of the time these days in urban settings. I guess the counter-argument from authorities is that images of us from CCTV will not be placed in the public domain on Instagram or sold for commercial gain and made public for that reason
@dingbat19 that counterargument doesn’t relate to the *taking* of photos, though. It applies to the use of them.
That’s why America has no rules on photography in public places. Even in states that have “2 party consent” it doesn’t apply in public because you have no expectation of privacy on the open street. It would be different if I photographed you inside of your house while I was on the street. But if we are both on the street or even me in my house and you on the street outside, I don’t need your consent because you are in public
I think it is a bit hypocritical. People with a 'camera' are often held to another standard than people with a phone (that is just about everybody else). The 'guy with the camera' cannot take the photo because people don't trust what they are going to do with it... Whereas nobody asks that question to someone with a phone. The picture taken with the phone can - and often will be - shared to a lot of people (or the entire world) in a matter seconds on social media. Whereas - in contrast - the guy with the camera has to download the pictures to his computer, select them (rejecting 90% or so), develop, edit and store them. And then - only then - they might share it on social media. Or if they are serious about photography they could print it or perhaps share it with other photographers.
I just don't understand why we don't trust 'the guy with the camera' and we don't care about the person with the phone...
You have a very good point here.
Sharp observation!
All I’m going to say about this is that in japan, all smartphones are legally banned from having a camera with a silent shutter function. Every smartphone sold in japan by law makes a loud noise when it takes a picture. Unlike regular cameras.
@@WaddyMutersDidn't know that, but that is interesting.
An answer to my own question could be that everyone now owns a smartphone. Many people may indeed have snapped a picture on a street of someone or something they found remarkable or funny (hence in some countries committing a crime :)). They consequently shared that picture with friends on their social media having gotten some positive responses, thumbs up, smileys, etc. No harm was done, just sharing between friends. So having done this themselves, they can relate to anyone with a smartphone.
Whereas, in contrast, people who invest a lot of money in a camera and even more time on the street photographing is something they cannot relate to. The cheap compact camera market is more or less dead now. Not many people own cameras anymore (or they are collecting dust on a shelf). Even though there are billions of photographers (everyone with a smartphone) nowadays, not all of them - in fact probably only a small minority of them - are interested in photography as a form of art. And of those who are, an even a smaller fraction is interested in the specific niche of street photography.
What about a video... are they still doing a noise when you are recording @@WaddyMuters
An interesting subject. What I’ve wondered is how rules like this can be in place when, in most cities, one is photographed numerous times every day by business, private and police security cameras, as well as vehicle dashcams.
Here in Austria rules are quite strict. Dashcams that film constantly are not allowed, security cams need to be announced by e.g. a sign, the reach of private cams must not extend your property and stuff. We also have the right to the own image. People of public interest may be photographed and pics published (politicians, actors, singers, celebrities) but we had the case that a secretary of state was photographed with his fiancee in swimming suit on a beach while on vacations and the pic was in a newspaper and he sued and got a compensation or something. But things are very different from country to country here in Europe. In Austria we don't have CCTV cameras on every lamp post, BTW. But it remains an interesting topic and there is no generalization, here a judge has to weigh which right is regarded higher (free speech vs. right to privacy etc.)
In Poland you can film and photograph anything and anyone if you are in public space (city sidewalk, public roads). If you want to publish (no matter if commercially or not) you have to have a permission of every person you capture and this permission has to be very specific where and when you can use the footage. You don’t have to have a permission if a person is very well known (politicians, celebrities), but they have to be in public space and during their duties.
You can publish footage of public services workers (such as policemen) if they are breaking the law (the journalist’s exception).
Thanks for the info.
Good that Henri Cartier-Bresson (and other renowned 'street photographers') completed their work before all these restrictions kicked in.
We would have lost a treasure trove of Art.
Yes, nowadays it would not be possible.
I was recently in Tokyo and researched this: if you focus on one person, then using their image is a violation of their personal rights. If you have a crowd, then the emphasis is on the mass, rather than an individual. That said, the only time that this becomes an issue is when it is commercialised (like a shot of someone on a phone used as an advertising photo for the phone company). That said, it is just the same kind of conflict between privacy in a time of mass surveillance...
I am a Swiss citizen leaving in Geneva and a professional photographer. Never I had any problems taking photos in my country since my art school 60 years ago till now.
I found that too. The restrictions were in my mind. People actually did not care.
Ireland thankfully has a very pragmatic approach. If you're out in public making yourself available to the world, you can't object to being photographed.
But then if you're being harassed beyond what is reasonable the photographer can get in trouble.
The goal posts move on an individuals rights to privacy vs harassment depending on the public interest.
So for example a politician can expect to be more aggressively photographed and published than a normal citizen because there is a public interest in reporting on politicians or public figures and they've effectively consented to being in the public eye.
You are right. Well said.
Thank you, Peter, for this thoughtful report. Like you, I'm struggling with the ethical issues of street photography. Here in the USA there are no rules, but the ethics do concern me. Fifty years ago, when I was a young enthusiast of street photography, I didn't give it a second thought, and I have some good photos from that time on film. But that was then; this is now. The problem is that, when you post an image on the internet, you and the people captured in the image lose control of the information. It can be used, abused, bought, and sold for any purpose, benign or nefarious. So now, I am NOT posting any images with recognizable people. If I happen to capture any such images, I have to accept that looking at them myself is sufficient satisfaction. Publication and posting are NOT options. And isn't this an important comment on the social media world? People yearn for recognition online, but sometimes, that's just not an ethical option. Don't be the person wanting to be loved for unethically obtained images.
Well said. I think it should not be a problem if one publishes a photograph of someone if it is done with respect. Meaning not showing the person in bad situation. I would not mine if I was in one of those photos. If the intention is to make fun of some random person then it is not ok.
Here in USA, becoming more difficult to take photo's or make video in public. Have had police called on me by Karens, complaining I am a stalker. Police tell them I broke no laws. In last six months it seems more people are paranoid or just angry about seeing someone with a Camera. The increase of fear from seeing Camera use is notable. The increase of observed Karen type personality also seems notable.
That is sad that photography is affected by these paranoid people.
I probably would tell her she is ruining my photo. I spent a lot of time removing people that randomly showed up in the background.
Maybe it's you, not them.
The law in the US is that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when out in the street. If I’m in the street I can take photographs of people in a restaurant through a glass window. This applies to men, women, and children.
We see in police procedural TV shows that there are cctv cameras all over. The police have cameras on the street. Some police wear body cams at all times without asking for permission or informing anybody they are being recorded. They also photograph cars on the street. Businesses have cameras in front and the rear of their stores into public spaces without a license or notification. ATM machines have cameras. In gas stations there are cameras to video the street. No license is required for these cameras. I have the same rights as the police and businesses.
I then can sell the images I’ve captured. I own the rights to the image. There is case law that backs this up. That being said, there is common sense to be applied. I generally don’t photograph the homeless. Though I have a right to photograph them, it feels like I’m photographing them in their home. Last month I photographed what I suspected was a homeless man on the street. He was rolled up in a ball. The shape of his body caught my attention. I didn’t capture his face.
When I’m caught taking a picture I smile at the subject. Frequently that is enough. If they want I engage the subject. We talk and I explain what I’m doing. I show them the photograph. If they ask me to delete the image I do. If they curse me I don’t delete the image. I’ve had subjects call the police on me. Every time they have told the subject I have the right to photograph them. Once, a public transit worker intervened on my behalf to inform the subject. I didn’t stand around to find out how that conversation went.
The key is I have the right to make photographs in public. I own the image. That being said, I am not interested in teaching people common law on the street. I know my rights. I exercise those rights. I try not to push my rights into the subjects face. I try to be like HCB and be invisible. I take the image and then walk away. When I capture the image properly the subject isn’t aware of what I’ve done. I have enough excitement in my life. I don’t need to have an excited subject in my life too.
Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)
@@martingreenberg870 well said.... I record images of old buildings, trees. Some people get angry. I remain calm and just keep walking. I don't try to confront them or teach them anything. Just quietly walk away. The police when called seem to have more problem with the complainer than me.
Hard to enforce a law about street photography when security camera's are recording everyone all the time. Walk past an ATM, cross at an intersection of two streets where traffic signals are used to name a couple. Private home security is exploding with video camera aimed at the street. Security camera's in places of business often record not only the interior but the exterior. You haven't had much in the way of public privacy for the last two decades in the US.
Important discussion Peter! Here in Australia the law says nought about children but culturally/ethically it is a huge No. Parents can and will be very upset. So those cute/innocent moments get a Pass. To be more positive: recently I was 'shooting 50' in town and saw an image, anyone here understands, a young woman was walking into the frame and I waited for her, she gave it some 'pop'. So she walks up to me and says 'I hope I didn't ruin your picture'. "Not at all, you gave it life" and I showed her. She liked it and asked if I could show some more. She liked those too and said "You don't get art like that with a phone do you?" "Perhaps not but you are taking the photos with a different eye and purpose" says I. And that's why we all do this I guess.
Thanks for sharing.
Yes, always best to avoid photos with children. There is an ethical boundary, regardless of the laws in your country.
Also you are allowed to publish photos in the USA all day without a release. Where you need a release is if you intend to commercialize the work.
Dose that include You Tube if that is a source of income?
@@allanc803 I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know one can sell images with recognizable people in it without a release unless one is using it to market a product. So if one is merely selling photographs as artistic photographs one doesn't need a release, but if one is using a photograph with a person in it to market a soft drink, car, whatever other product then one does need a release from the individual.
Yes, that is the basic rule in most cases.
Tough call for a person doing LIVE social media streaming while walking thru a crowd :)
I’m pretty confident that the majority of people on the streets couldn’t care less about being captured on camera. They’re either on their phone, zoned out and listening to music, or are engaged with other people. As long as you don’t shove your camera directly in their face, you’re good. The reality, though, is that pretty much everyone is being recorded, taped, and monitored by the government anyway. Sorry, but nobody has privacy anymore, deal with it! However, as a photographer, you need to have some tact when practicing your art. Be respectful and learn how to read body language and signs that people give off if they feel uncomfortable with being on camera. I would also never take pictures of children without the parents concent. I totally understand why a parent would not be cool with their 9-year-old being put on social media for potentially thousands, if not millions, of people to see.
There is confusion about 'commercial' use in publishing. Commercial generally means in an advertisement of some sort or where the person appears to be endorsing a product. There is generally no restrictions on publishing images in an editorial context - e.g. to accompany a travel or photography article - or in a news context. Most people you photograph in the street will no have no clue about their rights in relation to the image. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Geneva is off my bucket list though!
I have begun more and more to ask for consent, whether it's a kind of social street photography with people in them or whether it's more of a street portraiture ... I either ask before or afterwards and in the latter i am prepaerd to delete the shot if they dont consent. However it depends, if they are a small piece of the picture, phyically small or turned away then no i dont feel any requirement then to ask . Very good video and good topic to get people talking
Thank you very much.
Interesting points Peter. Part of this is also simple courtesy as well. I also wonder about the definition of commercial use…I suspect that in many areas that anything on TH-cam for example is considered commercial use unless specifically listed as not.
TH-cam videos are a bit grey are when it comes to commercial use. On the other hand those can also be educational use.
@@ForsgardPeter as I understand it US National Parks consider it commercial. I don’t know of any others as of yet.
@@ForsgardPeter It is interesting to consider that an argument could be made that if a video is monetised, it can be considered commercial.
Thank you for another good video. Greatly appreciated! Hello from Brooklyn, NY.
Thanks for watching!
If a person is out in public, under the gaze of thousands of surveillance cameras, on a public street, why would they have any expectation of privacy from photographs? Commercial publication is very different, because then, that person should get paid as a model.
I live in London and we get photographed and videoed all the time here in the UK as we have one of the highest concentrations of CCTV cameras anywhere in the world. I think we need to make images on the streets as we run the risk of not being able to show what life looked like at a specific time and place. So I believe that we should be making images in public places. It really comes down to what you are going to do with the images afterwards that becomes the contentious thing that we often do not have an answer for when we are making the images as we do not know where they will fit within our photographic endeavours.
Interesting subject. What do you think of editorial vs commercial use of street photos in Finland. Didn't find this on the list behind the link. I have had this idea that for news and personal use I can sell images with editorial use licenses but not commercial use.
Interesting video about a topic that not much is talked about. Besides that I am planning to visit Switzerland to take pictures. Thanks for the information.
Thanks. Yes this is an important matter and not that much discussed. Switzerland is a beautiful country. You will enjoy it.
In the UK, you can take photos in what is termed to be a "public place" without problems or needing permission. However, a public place is not always what many people think. A shopping centre, for example, is not necessarily a "public place" as it may be privately owned and run by a management company. Therefore, you are actually on private ground and subject to the rules put in place by that management company, so their security staff can stop you from taking photos, or even trow you out. In the street, you are in a genuine "public place", so should have no issues, other than the odd paranoid person who doesn't know the law. I always carry a copy of an official police statement, which sets out the law. If some paranoid person threatens to call the police, I simply show it to them and say that they may like to read it first.
Thanks. You are right about the shopping centers.
Yeah, it’s the same here in the U.S. I see a lot of people commenting that you can take a photo anywhere you want because of free speech and in the U.S. there is no expectation of privacy if you are in a public space (U.S Supreme Court ruled on it). But what they don’t realize is that a “public space” can still be privately owned and actions can still be therefore regulated by the owner. I’ve been asked to leave places or at least stop photographing in public places on privately owned land, such as shopping malls and parts of a boardwalk by the ocean here in New Jersey.
I am in two minds on this issue. One one hand, I feel that as an amateur street photographer/videographer, I should have the freedom to photograph people if it completes the story of the image or video. On the other hand, I am not comfortable appearing in other people's photos or videos without knowing about it, especially if these will be shared or published. This opens up the "privacy" can of worms which is becoming more and more important in our increasingly monitored world. For an image someone publishes of me could quite easily provide telemetry / behavioural / location data about me that I wouldn't otherwise have made available. It's a very difficult subject to arbitrate in a consistent way because I fully realise that I have two sets of rules; one when I am behind the camera, and one when I am in front of one (particularly unknowingly).
Great topic, Peter. This is one that needs careful thought on the part of photographers in order to both enjoy photography, but act in an ethical and responsible way (automated AI / Bot digital fingerprinting notwithstanding).
Thanks, well said.
Denmark has also started with the ticket or bill for subjects in paid public spots. Even some lighthouses and such.
Humans are the vibe of the streets. When people withdraw from being seen / interacting with others and are not wanting to venture onto the streets, they become ill. We have been through this not so long ago. The fear in the eyes, and the loneliness. You are photographing how things were, and basically life and the human condition. We have photographs of life during the great depression in America, of which are a whole story within an image. There are images of laughter, children at play, anger of the streets, gestures of hands and the list goes on and on. Without the photograph, the moments are lost. So now we have Switzerland saying it is fine for "authorities to image citizens, but not other fellow humans on the streets." I can think of just how convenient that becomes for governments, with control of people without allowance of evidence. Oh yes, there is no war and no one is dying, stated the government. When people are in public view, it should be obvious to them as to how to act, should their behavior be viewed and judged by others. It is the way of the world. People will notice you -- they always have. In the days long gone, take notice of an era when people actually dressed up to go downtown. Now that was interesting and indeed was captured on film. Someone had a camera. - Loren
If you need to ask the question, the answer is always “YES”! Casual street photography is tolerated and permitted in most countries however once you move away from tourist photography to art, commercial, political, or other targeted photography, specific consent and permits are generally required. This makes total sense unless you are determined to skirt the limits of the law or acceptable behaviour.
Thank you Peter. I was waiting to hear your take on this. I value your perspective very much.
Thanks.
Hi Peter, I hope you enjoyed Geneva despite the limitations. The implementation of the law isn’t that harsh, but it is there, sadly. I am for more freedom, when it comes to street photography. We live in cell phone camera times, and just everybody snaps millions of pictures every day everywhere. We can’t limit the freedom of expression in public spaces as it is absurd. The gray zone is enormous. Ethics is an important thing though. What you did is conform with the law. You asked afterwards and that’s more than enough, total legal protection. And by the way, Switzerland is very expensive just everywhere you go, sadly…
I did enjoy Geneva a lot. Thanks for the comment and confirming my thoughts about the law.
Hi Peter, Thank you for your video.
The law says that you must inform the person BEFORE taking their photo. But the law only applies if the person is identified or identifiable.
Furthermore, the law does not apply if the photo is for your personal use only (not for publication or public display).
Like every street photographer, I find our Swiss law very restrictive. The legislator wanted to insist on informational self-determination and this provision is the result...
@@gilberttripet6989 I still think if you approach the person in the your photo immediately and the person gives you consent to keep the shot and to publish it, you are legally fully covered as that is self determination pure. I hope so 😅.
@@stevocem I think it's a good way to manage information to the person...
What good is to say you can have verbal consent? Both sides can lie about it or just say they didn’t understand each other. Either they need written consent or none at all
Very interesting topic! Years ago I shot infomercial videos for entrepreneurs in Finland and I came across these laws and grey areas. Infomercials are particularly difficult because they can be considered as advertisements even though they are not in traditional definition of the word. The easiest way to make things go smooth was to entrepreneur have some friends or family members to "act" as customers or very visible bystanders.
Great video! I live and photgraph in Spain at lot, but also travel quite frequently. One of my observations is that in people in places with stronger restrictions are actually more relaxed about being on camera. I.e. here in Spain, candid street photography without consent is against the law. However, people on the street almost never mind and I have never had negative conversations. And I have never had more than a polite "no photo, please", and even that is very rare. Mostly, people laugh, try to pose or strike up a friendly conversation when they "catch me".
However, in the US, where street photography is perfectly legal, I have been challenged very aggressively on a number of occasions. Not enough data for reliable conclusions, of course, but I find this interesting.
Of course, a lot of this may also be cultural. It's easier to blend in and not appear creepy in Spain than in some parts of the US.
I have the same experience in Spain. It was totally ok and did not get any trouble. I cannot say about the US right now. It was about 6-7 years since I have been there. I did not have any problems then, but thhings might have changed.
Fundamentally, , when one takes a picture, one is recording light. Reflections of light as humans are able to perceive. Not the subject, which is recognised mentally. That goes for persons as well as anything else.
This distinction, that it is impossible to grasp reality, thus the reality of a person, if not by our own personal and human perception, should be at the core of understanding anything we depict.
Thank you for being bold enough to stand for your interpretation of the liberality of the the medium. So many videos go on and on about how “it might be okay…” but then demur to show the actual visual results of working up to that boundary.
> what do I think about it?
I think there’s no journalism and no check on the information warfare power of the state without a complete freedom to photograph
I did a series of street images in a foreign country where every individual gave me the nod or verbal permission. But when it came time to submit them to a camera company's photo contest, model release forms were required due to potential use in advertisements.
In this litigious world, even the weakest ink is more powerful than a good and honest memory.
Peter
I have always felt if you are in public spaces you have no expectations of privacy and it is open season to being photographed. After all video cameras are becoming pervasive in public spaces why should your camera be any different
I think that is the way it should be.
We should always ask people for consent to publish the images AFTER we've taken them, and in most cases they'll give you permission.
I'm from Spain, so we take into account how to legally take that pictures and if you're convincing you shouldn't have any problem
Thanks for bringing this up. I was a couple of times in Switzerland and a lot of other countries and didn't know about the restrictions in Switzerland.
I'm actually planning a bicycle trip this summer and a lot of this was planned to go thru Switzerland. But I take lots of pictures and videos on trips like this while cycling and also in the towns. I use an normal LUMIX (G9-II) for the usual images and an Insta360 as action cam that take everything and I decide later what is appropriate for a published video. In this case, I would more or less always break the law when I film with this camera and people are close to me.
So I now have to explore this problem a bit more and I probably will change the trip to France, Austria, Italy, Slovenia or something like that. I'm from Germany and problems here start with publishing. You can get in trouble if you don't blur faces, license plates and such. It's all depending on the situation and nobody can tell for sure what a court will decide.
I would not be too worried about Switzerland. Tourist shots are totaly ok. You can always pretend to make some landscapes etc.
Thank you very much, Peter. A very good point to raise. I am from Geneva, so I automatically restrict myself. Also when I am somewhere else. Even once in Helsinki, I made a photo story, in which people were irrelevant. Sometimes this discretion can be difficult. I once made a series for a subsidized cultural institution to attract more people. They offer activities for children for free. It took me very much time to get good images in which no child could be identified. In a group, there is always one who suddenly turns around.
Geneva is a canton of the Swiss confederation, so I don't know if the law applies to all of Switzerland.
Thanks for the information.
I've looked at the chart you mentioned and then clicked the link for my country and read the details. At least in this case, I would not rely on the advice given. For example, there isn't sufficient information or a definition regarding what constitutes "commercial" use. Consequently, the information is useful as basis for obtaining further detailed information and to alert the photographer to possible issues. Caution should still be exercised and more research is needed.
Yes, I know. That is why I said that my comments are not legal advice. The document gives a good direction and the things that we need to consider.
I live in a country where photography in public is legal with very few exceptions. Even a privately owned mall is considered a public space where photography is allowed although individual stores inside the mall can make up their own rules. Here the issue is that people get upset for no apparent reason. You can photograph away on your phone all day but use an actual camera and people give you a weird eye and sometimes look upset.
Generally people are too reserved to actually say something but I have multiple photos with angry looking people that I don’t want to publish because they clearly didn’t want to be in the photo and I respect that. I just don’t get why people have an issue with an actual camera but not a phone. Most of the time they will look better on the photo taken with the camera.
it's always interesting to see other countries' laws on this subject, I live in the United States where everything is fair game on the streets. most people have decent ethics about posting though. One of the people who photographs in my group will stick his camera right in people's faces, which always pisses them off, and I don't think that's ethical at all.
I do not like that type of photography were the photogarpher sticks the camera to someones face. I think it is harrashment. Street portraits with consent is of course ok.
I've lived in Switzerland for 25 years. First I've heard of "very strict rules regarding street photography" ....
Within reason anything should be cleared for photographers with some exceptions such as school children for example. Even copyrighted work such as public statues, the Eiffel Tower at Night etc. as long as not made into a commercial product. If you ban photography would you also have to ban a painter too?
In Denmark. You may photograph children and the elderly, the disabled, rockers, bank robbers, police, drug addicts, celebrities, or whoever is present, and where they are not the main subject of your picture, but are just present in the street environment, you can without problems photograph and publish them.
Denmark is looking this from a different angle.
Some really good images and discussion points, thanks Peter. In general, I think it is ok to photograph people, with the exceptions you outlined in the video. Publishing is another matter, the photographer should consider the impact of an image should the subject happen across one of your photographs online, if in doubt, don't publish. Similarly, if you think you have just captured a potential competition winning image, and the subject is clearly recognisable, it would be a good idea to ask them if they are ok for you to post the image on a website where it could go viral. 'Afghan Girl' and Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover are examples of iconic but controversial subjects in commercial photography.
Thanks. Yes both of the images you mentioned were contriversial. Have you seen my video about the Afgan Girl and what Steve McCurry himself had to say about it. Here is a link to that video: th-cam.com/video/0QMesQV7eZQ/w-d-xo.html
I can see people not liking their photo being taken. But as the years past its so nice to see old photos from 1980s to 1920s and so on. Its like going back in time. I even like those old films that people have remastered with Topaz software from 1920s.
I can understand not wanting tourists taking my photo or photos of my family. It feels very invasive. If it stops people from talking photos of police activity or social repercussions, like beating up demonstration, then that is a problem.
Here in the United States pretty much anyone in public is fair game. It also depends on how one is going to use the photographs. Like you I don't like to photograph people down and out, struggling or hurt. I feel as though people out in public should assume that they are open to have their photograph taken, after all it is public domain, open to anyone, anytime unless otherwise stated. It is difficult as people traveling are always taking pictures where they are and invariably strangers get in the pictures because it is generally a public place of some noteworthy status, that is why people travel to other locations. The main difference is it for personal use or commercial use. Is putting a vacation picture up on social media with strangers in the background considered "publishing"? You are not getting any monetary gain from it. We have a photo web site, we do not sell any pictures from it but, it is open to the public to view. It contains a lot of our travels and different local events, etc, etc. We use it to share with our friends our travels among other things. Now is that considered "published"? I don't know and never really thought about it because I never put anything up, where anyone is compromised. We visited Zurich and Lake Lucerne Switzerland last year as part of a River Cruise. We were never made aware of photographic restrictions at any time during our tours by the tour company or authorities that we passed. People were taking pictures all over the place. Good video and something to consider when traveling in the future.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Most tourist photographs are no problem.
Nice job Peter. Here in the UNITED STATES as someone said everyone has a phone with a camera. Also CCTV red light cameras, businesses have cameras. I have cameras on my property. Pretty safe to say there is a good chance of having a photo of you taken anywhere. Now when it comes to selling the picture with out permission, it’s another story,
In street photography, we don't want to control anyone, whereas in CCTV, control is the number one purpose (in the name of safety). Which of the two is less ethtical?
Tough question. CCTV is ok if the material is used ethcally. The same goes with street photographs.
I'm leaning towards the stance that if you want privacy, do whatever you want to do in a private place. (Which is also why it really upset me when I was walking around my apartment naked and I heard a girl yell that I should put some pants on. I just closed the window instead... screw her for looking into other people's apartments and not being able to handle what's going on.)
But in public, you should always be ready to be perceived by others - which includes photography. Maybe you're sick and your nose is running. Or maybe it even makes you spontaneously vomit on the street. So what? Such things happen regularly. I'm not suggesting people should document them. But I think people are overly sensitive about appearing in a photo somewhere that usually only a few people are going to see anyway.
You may find yourself on the wrong side of a lawsuit if a photo you posted is used to deny somebody a benefit, like a job they wanted. I saw commentary recently about how the students at Columbia in New York that held the occupation demonstration may find that security images of them will probably be used against them if they apply for a managerial position. Corporations hire companies to scour the internet for posts, as well as for images using AI facial recognition. I remember a photographer published an image of a man asleep at a table in a coffee shop and he said the man woke up and then chased him. He assumed the man had a rough night and was not happy that an image may be published that his employer might see. Be careful out there.
A photograph of a man sleeping in a cafeteria is one of those that is not ok to publish. I would not make a image like that because it would not be ethical.
you are very right: laws and ethics are NOT the same. And I can add that justice neither is the same.
This is troubling. I am working on a photography book about Indonesia and, as an American, have been using American sensibilities in my work. Now I will have to make a pass through all the photos I have taken just to be sure I am not violating the law. My book will be marketed in the US but I don't want to get in trouble if a copy ends up in Indonesia.
I do not think it is a problem if it is in the context of Art.
I have been a keen Street Photographer for many years now, only three times in that time have I been seriously challenged…. One was when I strayed into a privately owned shopping centre, security guards were quite harsh in dealing with me, a pensioner, enjoying his hobby…..The other two were members of the public, who saw me press the shutter…. The first was quite angry , so rather than cause a scene I deleted her photograph….. The second acted in a similar way, until I offered my card, and gave her a potted history of the ART of Street Photography… and a smile…. As to publishing, hundred’s of previous photographers have set a Precedent …Just study past Photo-Books , by both professionals and amateur’s.
A shopping mall can be considered to be private space. In some places they can ristrict photographing. Here in Finland it is a grey area. It should be ok to photograph if the entry is free, but then it in most cases is a private property.
If you are in London or any tourist city, there are thousands of people taking photos. Madness to imagine that all these people could be stopped from taking photos and that they might have to chase after strangers to seek permission. Impossible and far more annoying for the public. If you want to make a portrait, of course engage with the person.
Consider that as long as the photo is respectful of the person portrayed (that the image does not violate their dignity), it should always be allowed to portray the environment including people, because people are part of the reality of the scene... Furthermore, if If we remove people, we are falsifying reality. A photo can be an artistic element, but it is also documentary evidence of a moment in a city with everything it contains, obviously, people are a necessary part.
Friendly greeting😊
To expand on it, in Switzerland, you are allowed to take pictures in public (Panoramafreiheit), you are allowed to take pictures with people in them if they are not the main subject of the photo (Beiwerk = accessories). You can take photos of groups of people in them if someone isn't singled out and the subject among them. You can take photos at public events, if not a single person is singled out. If the person is not recognisable you can take photos, as you mentioned, and publish them. Also, if it is a person of public interest, you are allowed to take photos in a public space. If a person is clearly recognisable, consent is required and can be given verbally, non-verbally or implied (posing for the photo).
It is not as restrictive as the wikimedia list suggests.
As a sidenote: car numberplates identify the owner of the car, not the car. As personal information, car numberplates should be made unrecognisable when a photo is published, unless consent was given.
Smartphones are ubiquitos but, generally, when taking photos in public with them, singling out people is hard and as such they are considered "Beiwerk". Naturally, if you get close and can single people out, that's not allowed. But it's usually not what people do when they snap smartphone photos.
Thanks for the info. Yes, the main thing is that if the person is not the main subject in a photograph.
Hello Peter. I do often look at your videos, and I like your simplicity and precision. I live in Geneva and was not in your pictures... so I won't complain... Yes berserk mentality in these troubling times. Freedom is at stake. People see demons everywhere. I'm not scared if someone takes a picture of me and my mistress walking somewhere in Geneva... :-)) Foolishness but law... Best to you, and hope you've been treated well in the Calvinist strict Geneva, and thanks for your professional work making me love Olympus !
Thanks. Geneva is a very nice city. I enjoyed it a lot.
Our citys in the UK have an unbelievable number of "security" cameras on the streets. Could the city councils, who instal these cameras, be themselves committing a crime.if similar laws apply to us in the UK?
Propably not, there would be exceptions in the law.
Future historians looking back at the start of the 21st century will not have candid photos of people in Switzerland to better understand what life is like.
Common sense and respect are the best advisors imho. Here in Germany people are very touchy and aggressive currently. Don´t know why, but it is what it is. Still a smile and transparency in what you're doing helps. Yet ...
It's a simple calculation for me, here in the U.S. If I am out in public spaces, I clearly have no expectation of privacy. If I photograph someone in a public space, then misrepresent the photo in some way, online say, then I have broken other laws and should get in trouble for that. It's like printing a life-size photo of a person, displaying it in public right beside the living subject of the photo, then saying that the photo violates that person's right to privacy. Switzerland has set up a pre-crime division, it seems.
Thank you for this video. I live in Switzerland. We could of course discuss hours around this topic. BUT, it is completely obvious that this rule is NOT respected by people taking selfies and photos with their smartphones every second! And it is very easy to see in the streets. So... Did you commit a real crime? Not so sure.
Good information
Thanks.
France and Spain laws about street photography are as much liberal than in Finland
Please tell me more. I am travelling to France in a few weeks. That info would be very valuable.
I enjoy street photography because I enjoy photographing people doing ordinary things . My daughters are horrified and invent laws that do not exist .
We live in an age that we trust nobody ; not governments , corporations or the poor and even the wealthy . Largely this is due to tech and the amount of information organisations hold on us from our doctors to schools etc.
One of the best ways of combating the rising tide of date being stolen and big data firms clamming our data is theirs to use and sale is to make it illegal to conceal data . It may help reduce crime at more levels than it first appears .
Liberal environments and free speech come at a price that social media should be held accountable for the use of it u their users .
I am not going to agree with everybody and what they feel is private , as I do not believe in privacy at a personal level or at a state level .
Whatever the rights and wrongs of censorship ; especially from a historical perspective , I welcome criticism over indifference and ignoring injustices where ever they may occur .
Peter , you provide a valuable reminder to those contemplating their holidays and the images they may be taking without realising where such pictures may land them .
Very useful reminder to us all . Thank you , Peter .
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I'm curious on how these types of laws apply to tourists taking a selfie then post on social media
Those laws do not apply to that type of content. The main subject is the person itself and not some one on the streets. But yes these are always in a grey area.
In my country, Brazil, it is quite restrictive, but in general, if the person is part of the photo but not the subject of the photo, it's fine.
If the person is at a protest or a large public event (carnival for example), it is also fine.
Commercializing photos always requires authorization, except in the exceptions I mentioned above.
I have never had any problems, but I do not hide to take pictures. The person sees me with the camera, and I never photograph people in embarrassing situations, children, or couples who can be identified, as they may not be a couple.
In general, if I have the person as the subject of my photo and I have already photographed them, I go to the person, say that I photographed them, and ask if I can use it.
That is, despite the rules, if you do not commercialize, you are fine
Thanks for the info.
Btw, those laws only apply for the people using real cameras, right? Phones and pocket cameras are ignored?
Nice video and discussion! I do not agree that taking a picture of someone is 100% freedom of speech. Because even though a photographer can frame and edit the image and make it send a message, large part of the meaning comes also from what the subject is doing. The "speech" is being done by the subject, and within its freedom of speech is to choose when and where to do it and having control over the context.
Thanks. In many countries photographing in public is considered to be free speech. Publishing is another thing and there is the grey area.
As an American living in France, I’ve never had a problem even with a real camera. People like to get upset over nothing these days, but usually they do it in comments. Real life is much easier. 😊
That is true.
Wanted on the authority of the Swiss police and Europol. Peter Forsgard. Commited crime: Taking photo's without consent. Reward 10.000 CHF.🤣. It seems there isn't a extradition treaty between Swiss and Finland so your safe for now.
What happens when someone steps into the frame and ruined the photo?
Most likely nothing. The random person was not the target or the subject. Again it might be on the grey area.
In the UAE you can't even take a picture of say a badly parked car if the license plate is visible without running afoul of local liable laws.
I was there in 2017 New Years and did not really get into any trouble photographing. On the otehr hand I made more of citycscapes and tourist photographs.
I obey the laws to the best of my ability when I am in any location. If the citizens of that area have agreed to a legal standard, who am I to ignore it. And if you want to use images for something other than art, bring a professional model disclaimer form for them to sign.
Now, I am not a street photographer, so maybe I am out of touch with the realities of doing that art form, but the legal ramifications are one of the main reasons I choose not to do street photography. Others may feel differently and I do not project my decisions on other people. But I am a sort of 'do it legally by the book' sorts of people who do not want to do things that are not wanted by any given community.
Well said.
With the number of tourists in Switzerland on any given day, tourists completely ignorant of the Swiss laws regarding photography, the idea that Swiss authorities would dare to arrest a foreigner for taking photos of people - Swiss or no - is incredible. Are there newspaper articles corresponding to such arrests? There are OTHER countries to visit than Switzerland, and I will!
I have no idea if there has been any cases in court about this.
The same places with rules and rules have surveillance cameras everywhere.
It's a new false need, built on the current distrust between people.
In the past, no one would have suspected that there was anything wrong with taking photographs in public, at least as long as people's dignity was respected.
Today, Cartier-Bresson or Doisneau would be in court each and every day.
You are right. The classical street photography would have been born if this type of laws were then.
A difficult question to answer - it seems to depend on the laws / culture / human relationships etc of different countries .I can think of many countries where I would not photograph people and others where it would not be a problem. I think one has to be sensitive to local culture .,attitudes etc and if in doubt don't do it !
You are absolutely right.
So here's a question. If someone needs consent for commercialized photography, wouldn't street photography TH-cam videos fit that bill since that's monetized? That is, of course, there's a photo of a person clearly facing the photograph?
I think we are in a grey area here. It can also be considered to be in the context of art or education. The rules are slightly different.
Silly restrictions in some countries when there are next to no restrictions in the vast majority of countries is just illogical. What are the people in the most restrictive countries afraid of? There are no issues in the more liberal places at all. As long as you don’t intrude into places and things where people would normally expect privacy from even the naked eye, what is the problem and why does anyone care?
I am not aware of having a very restricted policy of taking pictures in public places in Switzerland. Of ocurse publishing is always a different story, but we have so many tourists in Switerland taking pictures at all famous places without any troubles. Maybe Geneva is different because there are many spies around and you run into some kind of severe trouble taking pictures of them even uninteded 😉
I do not think it has to with spies. I believe the law applies to all of Switzerland. Tourist photographs are ok. The people in the photographs are not the main subject. There is a fine line between imnages where people or a person is the main subject vs. those tourist photographs.
Glad I'm in the UK then, you don't have any expectations of privacy if you're in public so you can photograph whatever you like
although lots of members of the public like to think they can expect the right to privacy
Hi Peter you failed to mention journalistic photographs and photographers. An extra category in their own right. In most countries photographing and publishing as a journalist is allowed without permission even if it’s not necessarily showing the subject in a good light. In some countries you need to be accredited as a journalist but not in others. We all know that journalists work to a different code of ethics.
The problem with the ethical question is that my code of ethics and yours may or may not differ the law on the other hand is (usually) well defined. I personally find photographing people in the street uncomfortable.
We have a lot of “auditors” or as they claim to be “citizen journalists “ in the UK and also the US who push the legal argument to its limits ignoring the ethics. I’m really undecided if I am with them or against them. Governments, police and those in pseudo authority cannot be allowed to overstep their authority and infringe on our rights but on the other hand many of these auditors create situations and conflict just to produce social media content making fools of themselves and other photographers in a way that a conscientious reasonable person wouldn’t do.
Really interesting subject without an easy definitive answer. Thank you.
Best wishes
Brian.
You are absolutely right about journalistic work. Showing someone in bad light can be illegal in journalistic work. It depends. Let's say there is an article about the problem of drunks in a park. A magazine cannot publish photos of people taht are rocgnazible unless they are politions or otherwise known people with power. (CEO of big compaby etc.) Journalistic aspect could have been included, but I decided to leave it out since this video is aimed to more hobbiest photographers.
stuff like this begs the question: what is there to hide if you're disallowed to take photos in public?
As an American, I think people in public are fair game, but I don't like disparaging photos either. Swiss laws are a bit of a stretch for me being overly protective in a situation where everyone is out in the public eye. But I also hate the tabloid "paparazzi" style of people getting intrusive photos and making money off of others images.
Discretion is the best guide. Bad actors force bad rules.
I do not like paparazzis either. On teh other hand they usually photograph public figures and the laws are a bit different.
@@ForsgardPeter agreed 👍
The law is an ass.
Come to the UK, Peter. There is much more freedom to photograph in a public space, including for commercial or publishing needs. So long as you do not break the law, such as pornography, there is nothing to stop you. You can even stand in front of the MI5 building in London and take photos of it, including employees walking in and out of it.
Im doing street photography myself for 15 years for now and the reason you saying i mostly do my photography work on 3rd world nations (been to Turkey, Tunisia, Thailand, Vietnam, Thailand, Cuba, Nicaragua, Tajikistan, Uzbeikistan, Georgia and more) which ironically more open to street type photography legally and by public crowds. And yeah i never thought about making money with this either. I never went to visiting any of western european countries because what you saying and never will.
As you saw from the website in most western countries photographing people in public places is totally ok.
I wonder how it can be legal to take recognizable photos of people in Finland, because the European GDPR applies. A digital photo of a face is personal data, capturing is a way of processing and thus you need a legal basis for doing that. Or is there a law in Finland that explicitly allows it?
If there is no names that can be connected to the face, it is not a problem.
Probably comes down to it not being private data at all. If you are in a public place then your expectation of privacy is limited or zero. Obviously different countries have a different take on things but your name for instance is not private data but your date of birth might be.
@@petegleeson1 Private and personal is not the same. Personal can be public, but is still personal.
@@ForsgardPeter Are you sure? A picture of a face is clearly subject to GDPR, even without the name. As is an IP number, f. i.
A single piece of info that cannot be indentified to a person is not a problem. Once you connect the name and the face it becames a data collection.
my question is a gallery show considered publishing, is a photo book of my work considered publishing
It is in the contex of art so it might be ok in many places.
The way I understand it, at least in USA, is that street photography limitations would be showing / publishing for commercial use, being as an example someone eating ice creme in front of a store photo if sold to that store or manufacture for use is commercial. The reason being, you are implying the person is using a branded product or store, and thus they are endorsing that product. The same photo CAN be published or presented as art, and can be sold as such. Mostly common sense helps in life. I know, the laws don't have to actually make sense, but from a human stand point, and not a legal one, just be kind your fellow man. In showing the human condition, do not get into the shock power, or showing the down and out, unless the story is of need to be shared so that others will understand where we are today, then later viewed as where we were. As for legal advice, yup I guess it takes a lawyer these days - such a world this is! - loren
Hi! Are you sure the verbal agreement (regarding picture usage in your public gallery or video) is enough for your safety? People can change their mind and you can get big trouble if you do not have evidence. Maybe I do not trust in people :)
A written consent is always a better option.
Spain is quite relaxed about street photography and publishing as art eg social media etc . However, this does not mean that people don't care about being photographed...and don't object to being photographed. Discretion is key...
Taking photos of human beings is always and will be a very complicated affair. That's why i prefer to do wildlife photography.
It is not that complicated, you are right.
Here in the US we can shoot and publish any image taken in Public. So if traveling to the more authoritarian nations it would be wise to check the Laws.
An interesting view. What I know about the US is that unfortunately it is not as liberal as many thinks. i know that you can get inot trouble photographing federal buildings etc. As you saw from the chart the laws about photographing in public arew not that strict exept in a few countries. GDPR might restrict that a bit more than the document tells us.
@@ForsgardPeter You do not get in trouble photographing public buildings. Federal or otherwise. The only time an issue arises is when the Law man does not know the Law. But anything he or she does will be thrown out in Court if it goes that far.
Good to know. I have heard otherwise before.
i
Interesting how this subject keeps coming up discussion. Back in the 1970s, when I got my first SLR film camera, me and a friend decided to do a cityscape photo shoot in a major city in the North West of England.
We encountered no problems whatsoever from anyone. I love architecture of all types be it modern or older places like say York or Bath. Now, here in the UK you can be challenged in shopping malls by some jobs worth holding a walkie talkie saying you need permission to take photos in here, yet there are probably hundreds of people wandering the mall with mobile phone cameras!! What the heck has changed, why is everyone so paranoid or fearful of? What's the difference between a phone camera and a real camera? We photographers are ok taking landscape and pretty flower photos for now I guess. How have we come to this state of affairs in street photography?
What privacy is a person walking down a public street entitle to? They are out in the open for everyone to view? All your camera is doing is viewing them as they are. Can your camera see them as your eye can see them? Can they tell you "Do not look at me"? The new world is surrounding us, THEY want people to get a permit to have a camera. THEY have started it already with some states making citizens get a certificate to operate a toy dji drone.
I think drones are a bit different. The regulation has more to do with aviation laws than photography "laws".
Yes, each country, and each person, has a difference, especially if the photo is focused on the person. It is interesting, trying to make photos without persons. Sometimes, i have asked permission, and some times i kept a notice on my diary, where I asked the person to write his permission. But how about publishing the photo, some years later, in a thematic group of photos? Avoid publishing it in real time, even the same year. Good photography is just like good wine. The older, the better.
How do photojournalists practice their trade with these kind of restrictions? Perhaps I should go to jail for taking that photo out the window of the Bernina Express of a maintenance worker scratching his ass?
Journalism is a different thing. That is usually ok if it covers some major news. There too the published photograph has to be relevant to what has happened.
It is easier to beg forgiveness than to seek permission.