Happy halloween - Europe to introduce Article 13 - Making filming and photography in public illegal

[Cas1]

Loosing 'rights' every day,

Under cultural attack every day,

Being told I'm guilty of the worlds 'problems' every day,

Forced to paying taxes to fund all this propaganda,

Such is my life as a white male in our place of origin, Europe.

We're at the most technological amazing time, why do we let this get messed up?

[Mokara]

I am pretty sure that you are mis-interpreting the law. In practice it will be directed at content that focuses on a particular person or property for commercial gain. Selling postcards or souvenirs depicting some landmark or personality for example. If it was implemented in the way you are suggesting then any sort of imaging would become illegal and I seriously doubt that was the intent.

[Robert Collins]

I agree it is easy to see us falling into a dystopian future.

Eventually Apple will be deemed liable for any copyright infringement taken and stored on an iphone. Then when you use the iphone it will scan the shot beforehand before it actually allows you to take a photo. Meanwhile, according to The Independent, the average Londoner is caught on security cameras about 300 times a day.

 

[kaylee]

i "stole" so many shots for my short i just made. the bus, a train, a public parking garage. if anyone has a problem with that... well...

[leslie]

the Internets a big target for a lot of reasons. no doubt governments will or are looking for their slice of the pie and its no secret that governments need more money not to mention those corporations that whisper into their ears . unfortunately due to an lack of common sense and a lot of apathy  and a propensity for political correctness  most people collectively aren't much smarter than a herd of cows they are counting on the fact as proposed that it will create mass hysteria, everyone will have a hissy fit.it will get watered down  till everyones happy and eventually pass , but by then you will need to obtain a permit to stay within the laws and seeing not government does anything for free it gonnna cost you $$ .its just an additional revenue  stream some crazy smart person has come up with. film corporations already pay $$ to make movies in cities and popular spots and not so popular.why not get a slice of  the little guy  that does youtube or vimeo as well  ? i bet a bunch of of permits from the little guys would add up to a truck load of money.

[nathanleebush]

Terrible.. When I was in the UK a few times over the last decade, it always felt like 1984. I'm am always shooting street photography everywhere I go, and it's the only place I've ever been stopped and questioned by the cops, and not once, but many times. Sad to see Europe following suit. 

Liberal governments are always trying to regulate the shit out of everything. Just leave us alone!

[Cas1]

It would be naive not to expect people cheering on a reduction of rights, they always do to stay in the middle and maintain accepted by their peers. Fact is the EU is less democratic then the countries we live in. Historian Carroll Quigley, foresaw this trend of increasing individual freedom shifting over to a reduction of personal freedom. According to him history is directed by technological progress. I think now is the time that machines can do many peoples work, and are making people redundant, like horses in the beginning of the past century when the car was invented. Keeping the producers/horses in good shape and happy is becoming less of a priority.

[chrisE]

8 hours ago, Mokara said:

I am pretty sure that you are mis-interpreting the law. In practice it will be directed at content that focuses on a particular person or property for commercial gain. Selling postcards or souvenirs depicting some landmark or personality for example. If it was implemented in the way you are suggesting then any sort of imaging would become illegal and I seriously doubt that was the intent.

Well, that's the crucial question. Where's the border between commercial use and personal use? If I record a video in Germany with people (strangers) and building and post it on youtube, it that illegal already or only in case, I monetize it? How about Instagram, without gaining any money?

If I'm on a family trip and take a photo of my family with some stranger in the background, can he/she request to delete the photo, even if this photo will never be published on any social media platform?

[Sanka]

Thanks a lot for that information I had seen nowhere else.

Sorry, I do not want to be too political, but this new project of law is just a sample of Europe way of dealing with its population: unadapted, against our will and destructive (for freedom and creation).

Brexit is a great opportunity to leave the Titanic before hitting the iceberg. How lucky you are to not depends on the Euro ! Switzerland is doing well with Europe being an outsider. Why not UK?

This Europe was wrongly designed for us. It is a bureaucratic monster that benefits to lobbies and costs a lot while forcing every country to adopt new laws (we had never been consulted for) which are not adapted to our need/life style/tradition/cultural difference. My country totally lost its  power of decision in politics and economy, we randomly elect a useless president every 5 years who is just obeying Europe, creating new taxes while destroying our country (industry, social balance, education, health care...) to please a European institution nobody had elected, but working hard for lobbies.

 

[Mokara]

47 minutes ago, chrisE said:

Well, that's the crucial question. Where's the border between commercial use and personal use? If I record a video in Germany with people (strangers) and building and post it on youtube, it that illegal already or only in case, I monetize it? How about Instagram, without gaining any money?

If I'm on a family trip and take a photo of my family with some stranger in the background, can he/she request to delete the photo, even if this photo will never be published on any social media platform?

I don't think there will be too much doubt. If you are selling posters or porcelain figurines of some iconic landmark in a souvenir stand, then you will run into problems. That is what they are really trying to control. If you are posting your holiday pictures or the product of hobby, nothing will happen. Judges are not that stupid, and those that are will be replaced in short order.

As far as people are concerned, the point of these laws is to protect privacy, and you have no expectation of privacy in a public place. They will only be applied in the case of images recorded when there is an expectation of privacy, such as images taken on your private property or in the course of your personal relationships.

Like I said before, people are getting hysterical and blowing this way out of proportion.

41 minutes ago, Sanka said:

Thanks a lot for that information I had seen nowhere else.

Sorry, I do not want to be too political, but this new project of law is just a sample of Europe way of dealing with its population: unadapted, against our will and destructive (for freedom and creation).

Brexit is a great opportunity to leave the Titanic before hitting the iceberg. How lucky you are to not depends on the Euro ! Switzerland is doing well with Europe being an outsider. Why not UK?

This Europe was wrongly designed for us. It is a bureaucratic monster that benefits to lobbies and costs a lot while forcing every country to adopt new laws (we had never been consulted for) which are not adapted to our need/life style/tradition/cultural difference. My country totally lost its  power of decision in politics and economy, we randomly elect a useless president every 5 years who is just obeying Europe, creating new taxes while destroying our country (industry, social balance, education, health care...) to please a European institution nobody had elected, but working hard for lobbies.

 

The European president does not make laws, randomly or otherwise. And IIRC, the European parliament is elected. They are no different from any other elected legislative body. If you don't like what your elected representatives are doing, elect someone else. If you don't like what someone else's elected representatives are doing, tough shit, they are not your elected representatives, they are someone else's who presumably support what they are doing. Talk to your representative if you want something different to happen. If you don't, and keep electing the same guys either deliberately or by not voting, then you have no right to complain.

5 hours ago, leslie said:

the Internets a big target for a lot of reasons. no doubt governments will or are looking for their slice of the pie and its no secret that governments need more money not to mention those corporations that whisper into their ears . unfortunately due to an lack of common sense and a lot of apathy  and a propensity for political correctness  most people collectively aren't much smarter than a herd of cows they are counting on the fact as proposed that it will create mass hysteria, everyone will have a hissy fit.it will get watered down  till everyones happy and eventually pass , but by then you will need to obtain a permit to stay within the laws and seeing not government does anything for free it gonnna cost you $$ .its just an additional revenue  stream some crazy smart person has come up with. film corporations already pay $$ to make movies in cities and popular spots and not so popular.why not get a slice of  the little guy  that does youtube or vimeo as well  ? i bet a bunch of of permits from the little guys would add up to a truck load of money.

Nothing new about requiring permits to film commercially in a public place.

[Shirozina]

Already the EU has plans to force the big OS platforms ( Windows, Apple, Android etc) to design software to be built into the OS that will scan your drives for images containing people, buildings and commercial products that will delete any images which  don't have the necessary rights attached to them. Even camera manufacturers have been advised that 'pre - auth' tech will be needed in all new cameras so that when you frame up a shot  it does an image analysis and if it finds unauthorised or unlicensed content the record button will be disabled. The end goal the EU has in mind will make it illegal not just to record these things but to actually simply look at them either in reproductions or in real life! Everyone will have to wear special VR goggles which can scan their environment and selectively block any subjects that we don't have licences or agreements to view. 

[chrisE]

59 minutes ago, Mokara said:

As far as people are concerned, the point of these laws is to protect privacy, and you have no expectation of privacy in a public place. They will only be applied in the case of images recorded when there is an expectation of privacy, such as images taken on your private property or in the course of your personal relationships.

 

Unfortunately, that's wrong. If you were right, street photography would have a problem, but it HAS. 

[Snowfun]

57 minutes ago, Mokara said:

I don't think there will be too much doubt. If you are selling posters or porcelain figurines of some iconic landmark in a souvenir stand, then you will run into problems. That is what they are really trying to control. If you are posting your holiday pictures or the product of hobby, nothing will happen.

In terms of how a court would interpret and apply the law I think you are correct. 

But as I understand it, the problem more concerns automated software which identifies those iconic landmarks (photos and videos) and takes action (deletes them or bans the user) with little opportunity to challenge it.  

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

As far as people are concerned, the point of these laws is to protect privacy, and you have no expectation of privacy in a public place. They will only be applied in the case of images recorded when there is an expectation of privacy, such as images taken on your private property or in the course of your personal relationships.

In Germany, that is absolutely not the case and has been well defined in law for over a century.

If someone is identifiable within the image then you absolutely need their consent to publish it whether that be in a gallery or social media.

Technology makes the detection and prosecution of violations of that law much easier so this will have an impact when content distribution platforms are obliged to uphold it.

https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/med/20849366.html

[Snowfun]

10 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

If someone is identifiable within the image then you absolutely need their consent to publish it whether that be in a gallery or social media.

Presumably if I attend a football match in Germany the ticket contract will state that by attending I am giving my permission to appear in photographs or TV within the ground?

[BTM_Pix]

13 minutes ago, Snowfun said:

Presumably if I attend a football match in Germany the ticket contract will state that by attending I am giving my permission to appear in photographs or TV within the ground?

Yes

Although it would possibly be covered by the exceptions in Paragraph 23 where they would be considered "accessories" to a scene but it also covers clubs to use clearly identifiable images of people within the crowd.

In my experience, of course, football fans in general don't exactly need much persuading to leap in front of a lens.

2 hours ago, Sanka said:

Brexit is a great opportunity to leave the Titanic before hitting the iceberg.

I'm going to respectfully disagree and say that my view of it is that Brexit is the iceberg.

And we are still sailing a course directly at it.

In broad daylight.

While pretending its a Fox's glacier mint.

[Sanka]

@Mokara

Your comment is according the book, an illusion. Fact is that election campaign success depends on money and media propaganda for the mass. Who is having both? Lobbies. And they get enough power to force leader decision (once elected with promise they never fulfill) or to position their own pawn on the political's chessboard (more efficient). Macron election in France is the perfect example. At the end, we are having no choice except voting for "plague" or "cholera" once every 5 years. There is nothing democratic in the system, it is plutocratic: A minority get the money and they get full power against the majority of people. And European institutions are even further ahead in this system, untouchable for the people. 

[MattH]

Cognitive Dissonance:

Person (A) recognises that an anti democratic bureaucratic multinational corporate controlled syndicate is trying to implement draconian laws that infringe on civil freedoms in the most blatant way possible, and is deeply unhappy about it.

Person (A) wants to remain part of that syndicate.

[MattH]

14 hours ago, Mokara said:

I am pretty sure that you are mis-interpreting the law. In practice it will be directed at content that focuses on a particular person or property for commercial gain. Selling postcards or souvenirs depicting some landmark or personality for example. If it was implemented in the way you are suggesting then any sort of imaging would become illegal and I seriously doubt that was the intent.

You think that isn't a problem?  You can't photograph a landmark and sell a print of it?  That's the end of profesional photogrphy. 

[cameraeye]

Wow.

What I also don't like is the idea that it's ok for advertisers to bombard us everywhere we go, but we're not allowed to photograph it. So, they can fill our mind-space with their products to make money- but we would not be legally allowed to record it ourselves. That's like a one way street.