> paparazzi taking topless photos on people on private beaches from public vantage points
this is illegal almost everywhere.
e.g. in germany it is even illegal to take a picture of a person (one specific) in a public space without their consent (unless they are a person of public interest).
As long as the photo is taken from a public location, it is legal almost everywhere.
US [0] “ In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech.”
Denmark [1] “ you can almost without restrictions shoot anything as long as what you're seeing is visible from public property. You are allowed to shoot people, including police officers or other government officials.”
In Germany [2], you can photograph people from public locations but not if they are nude or vulnerable or in their home. “ You can’t take photos of people if it shows their helplessness.1 For example, you can’t take photos of accident victims, drunk people or nude people without their permission.”
The link you posted [0] states there are limitations on the use. Places where you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy are not allowed to be photographed. Like at an ATM or in a public restroom.
Indeed. There are limitations. Restrooms aren’t public, they are places where privacy is expected. The link I posted describes how in the US it’s perfectly legal to take a picture through someone’s open window (as long as you don’t trespass or do anything illegal to take it).
My point isn’t that there are no limitations on photography or use. My point is that if you make something public, people can view it and use it. And that’s legal. People seem confused about this that somehow consent is required for use. Not for things publicly released. (In the US and many countries at least)
> In Germany [2], you can photograph people from public locations but not if they are nude or vulnerable or in their home. “ You can’t take photos of people if it shows their helplessness.1 For example, you can’t take photos of accident victims, drunk people or nude people without their permission.”
Not how I learned it. You can take pictures of public spaces as long as a specific person is not the focus of the picture. The other aspects, like the invasion of privacy when a person is nude, only come on top of that.
The law around questions like this is not definitive, so a lot depends on recent court decisions.
The actual law is cited, so perhaps law changed since you learned it. Or you are just incorrect. According to German law and court decisions, it seems quite definitive. Although I know very little about German law, perhaps there’s some local law that supersedes regional, national, and EU law.
What I try to do is track to the actual source rather than relying on my own memory of things.
I see no link for the [2] in your comment. I sincerely doubt I'm wrong about this, you can read about it for example here: https://hoesmann.eu/fotos-von-gebauden-personen-und-marken-i.... It also explains under which exceptions pictures of a single person can be valid anyway, without explicit permission.
> According to German law and court decisions, it seems quite definitive.
That's impossible. Basically nothing is definitive in the german Medienrecht ;) Ok, not really true, but it's true that things can change and that it is a less defined area and you'd have to be really certain to know the relevant case law to be almost certain here.
> Nach dem Bundesverfassungsgericht (BverfGE NJW 2000, 1021) ist bereits ab diesem Punkt [that a photo is taken] ein Kontrollverlust der ohne Einwilligung abgebildeten Person über das Bild gegeben, und dieser mögliche Kontrollverlust rechtfertigt sogar unter Umständen ein Fotografierverbot.
But that is debatable and actually the point that could be outdated.
In practice, the guide is not completely wrong: You can take pictures in public spaces and they can show people, but those people should not be the focus of the image and you might want to make them unidentifiable if you publish the image.
one thing is to take pictures of things that you as a person see. i doubt that you can use these pictures any way you like. for example use them as magazine covers without consent of depicted person. provided its a portrait. or for example for tracking people that regulary walk through same place.
Taking a photo of a public square with a lot of people in it is still legal without asking everyone for consent. But the topless photo example would not be legal at all without consent or even just a photo where one specific person or small group is the focus.
Edit: taking the photo itself might be ok in the latter case, but publishing it (like posting to facebook or a blog or forum) is not.
What if you're on the beach and taking a photo of your kid and there's a topless woman in the background. Very common in Scandinavia. And if there are German tourists there, they might be completely naked.
That ends up being a prohibition on taking photos in public at all except in areas devoid of others as it is impossible/unreasonable to get the written consent of all parties who would be photographed in the background of a photo of a person who requested thier photo be taken....
Not necessarily, as there are other exceptions to this rule. A person can also be "Beiwerk" [1] (= accessory/props) which in the context of personality rights means that you are not the main focus point of the picture.
The (UK) press get around the law, by reporting a story and then relying on the reader using search engines to get the information from other jurisdictions like I have just done here, located in UK, EU google servers, and where ever the wordpress server is located.
It kind of makes me think, what is the point of law?
You need a lot of money to fight these entities and fight them in multiple jurisdictions where relevant laws exist.
What also makes a mockery of the legal system at least the Royal lawyers is, whilst Kate Middleton has some injunction to block press publication in the UK, they cant stop the search engines from publishing the data to users in the UK, as I have just demonstrated with the link above and the search term "kate topless holiday photo" and then clicking the images option!
Now what if I meant "kate beckinsale topless photo" instead of "kate topless photo"? I just got someone elses topless photos without even expecting them, ie the future Queen of England.
Are the Royal lawyers from the stone age, do they not understand search engines or do they buy the targeted filter bubble narrative highlighted by Eli Parsier in his Ted talk?
I like German privacy, they even stood up to Google and the Streetview project, however Google have edited me from their Streetview images where I'm giving their car the bird as it drove past me so there is some human oversight, but they still have that data and refuse to hand it over via GDPR DSAR requests.
To many big entities including the Police, fulfil GDPR DSAR requests by relying on being able to identify the individual using todays existing systems.
If someone cant be identified, like my giving the Google Streetview car the bird in their streetview data, Google will say no data exists.
Yet GDPR law doesnt address developing and future technology which will be able to identify me giving the Google Streetview car the bird if they run facial recognition over their streetview data.
So the GDPR DSAR is useless law as is, although I havent read it, but I suspect Google's privacy policy is as well.
this is illegal almost everywhere.
e.g. in germany it is even illegal to take a picture of a person (one specific) in a public space without their consent (unless they are a person of public interest).