Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Italian law and street photography  (Read 2055 times)
jeremyrh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« on: January 03, 2014, 04:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting article, but Italy is the country where scientists are sentenced to jail for not predicting an earthquake, so not altogether reassuring :-(
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2014, 06:09:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Concise and to the point!

Has anyone put together (or considered putting together) a blog with links to each of the respective professional photographic societies with contact numbers so that a traveller can use that as a reference rather than try to dig through the WWW?
Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 752


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2014, 07:26:38 AM »
ReplyReply

dreed, an excellent idea. Yes, there are many countries which claim to be a democracy. However, we all know on a personal level that it is the police who you must obey no matter the circumstances and everything gets sorted out later. It's a scary thing how little the police, in almost every country, actually know about the law.
Because we use many police "temps" on our island during tourist season I frequently have to educate them as to the laws and codes of our town. I keep a code book handy for this  Grin.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2014, 07:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

... where scientists are sentenced to jail for not predicting an earthquake, so not altogether reassuring :-(
To be fair, it seems that those scientists were indeed guilty of collaborating with local officials to deny any risk with no scientific basis for those reassurances, perhaps because local officials did not want to spend money on emergency preparation.
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 493


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2014, 08:46:47 AM »
ReplyReply

To be fair, it seems that those scientists were indeed guilty of collaborating with local officials to deny any risk with no scientific basis for those reassurances, perhaps because local officials did not want to spend money on emergency preparation.

Here in Canada, we are much more efficient. We simply eliminate entire departments of government-funded scientists, especially those working in the environmental field. It's the best way to avoid bad news.  Smiley
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 531


« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2014, 08:51:39 AM »
ReplyReply

About the subject: Photographing children even in a public place without the permission of the parents is illegal in Italy, as far as I know.

In France it is illegal to photograph anybody without their permission (but who cares…)

It would be nice to have a precise listing for each country, not just hearsay like the above.
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 493


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2014, 09:04:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Strict legalities aside, I find this whole privacy topic interesting generally. I personally know people who write in detail about their sex lives, marriage break-up, etc., on FB, but I am sure they would go ballistic if someone took a "street" picture of them while walking in a park. I wonder if sociologists are studying this, they must be.

To be honest, I find that a lot of the arguments about "street" photography unconvincing. I know that in general I have no right to privacy when I'm outside walking around, but somehow I don't really think that gives someone the universal right to record what I'm doing either. The law, as currently written, may give them that right, and I see the dangers of curtailing this, but something still nags me.

One thing that nags me is how people with enough money/power can circumvent this. I'm little annoyed how corporate trademark can render some otherwise public scenes up-photographable (certainly unsellable) because some logo was present in the shot. But who sold them my visual space and why wasn't I compensated for the loss? I would have nothing against by-laws forbidding corporate logos on buildings or billboards, and not just for aesthetic reasons.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2014, 11:04:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I have never seen the point of or held interest whatsoever in 'street photography' in the first place.  Snore.
Logged

JeanMichel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2014, 11:33:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Happy New Year to everyone,
Here is a quote from an article by Lucas Oleniuk (Toronto Star), I certainly agree with him. The camera does not give us rights, it really gives us added responsibilities to be ethical.

Here is the quote: “I approached her gently. When I photograph someone who has limited English, I raise my camera and make eye contact and nod in a questioning gesture. She nodded in agreement."

Read the article and see the image at: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/01/moments_in_time_typhoon_haiyan.html

Jean-Michel
Logged
jeremyrh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2014, 12:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply

To be fair, it seems that those scientists were indeed guilty of collaborating with local officials to deny any risk with no scientific basis for those reassurances, perhaps because local officials did not want to spend money on emergency preparation.
Hmmm ... not really, they did not deny any risk, but rather stated, correctly, that the phenomena observed to that point did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of a major quake occurring in the near future.

Anyway - nothing to do with photography :-)
Logged
JayWPage
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2014, 01:37:09 PM »
ReplyReply


In France it is illegal to photograph anybody without their permission (but who cares…)


I think there is a cultural difference between Europe and North America in how laws are enforced. In Europe it is often how the law is interpreted and applied that is important, while in the USA often only the most literal reading of the law is considered by the police, not the intent.

In France and Italy the laws probably have more to more to do with trying to exert some control over the paparazzi who are harassing celebrities and politicians, rather than photographers in general.
Logged

Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 531


« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2014, 01:58:04 PM »
ReplyReply

In France and Italy the laws probably have more to more to do with trying to exert some control over the paparazzi who are harassing celebrities and politicians, rather than photographers in general.

Here in Finland there are no paparazzi, as it is absolutely illegal to photograph (or use any kind of optical aids like binoculars for viewing) people who are in a private place (home, yard etc). On the other hand all public places are fair game (this includes all places with free access to public, including shops, malls, even restaurants).
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2014, 02:36:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Here in Finland there are no paparazzi, as it is absolutely illegal to photograph (or use any kind of optical aids like binoculars for viewing) people who are in a private place (home, yard etc). On the other hand all public places are fair game (this includes all places with free access to public,s including shops, malls, even restaurant).


That's an interesting concept.

Because a place admits members of the public doesn't mean it's a public place. Shops are very private places, as are restaurants. I'm sure their owners must question why, then, they have to pay taxes on places apparently public... Really, the old thing about 'right of admission reserved' should take care of all of these questions: if the owner is happy, so be it, and if not, no snaps!

As for our rights in the street or in other really public places, why do some sections of the community imagine they have divine rights to hunt us? That's all it is: hunting and stalking with a camera instead of with a gun.

Strange how some object like hell to the idea of surveillance cameras which, in reality, are there to discourage and, as last resort, help in the solution of crime, but think a focussed assault on personal privacy is just dandy.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 02:42:03 PM by Rob C » Logged

Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 531


« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2014, 02:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply


Because a place admits members of the public doesn't mean it's a public place. Shops are very private places, as are restaurants.


This is the law here at the moment, if you can walk in without paying for an admission, you can be photographed. Toilets, fitting rooms etc are naturally excluded. Then, on the other hand all truly private areas like homes, private yards etc are strictly off limits to paparazzi. Quite clear, methinks.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6031


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2014, 03:00:32 PM »
ReplyReply


That's an interesting concept.

Because a place admits members of the public doesn't mean it's a public place. Shops are very private places, as are restaurants. I'm sure their owners must question why, then, they have to pay taxes on places apparently public... Really, the old thing about 'right of admission reserved' should take care of all of these questions: if the owner is happy, so be it, and if not, no snaps!...

Indeed, Rob, an interesting concept. But not necessarily for the reasons you quote. Here, in the U.S. shops, malls and restaurants, as private establishments, are at liberty to ban photography. And yet, they are not at liberty to fully apply "right of admission." They can not ban certain protected groups, say, blacks, on the grounds quite the opposite of what you are saying. In other words, precisely because "a place admits members of the public" it has to apply all the laws referring to the public, e.g. no discrimination based on race, gender, etc.

Now, I say "interesting concept" because there were attempts, short-lived though, to adopt your view here to the extreme, that is, to give rights to private owners to ban blacks, gays, or whomever they please, from entering their premises. Son of the former presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rand Paul, currently a U.S. senator, was the one trying to push this idea in his run for the Senate. Did not last long (the idea; he made it to the Senate).
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 03:02:22 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2014, 05:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Well the EU privacy laws state that you can only have databases (or a classic cabinet) with info that can be pointed to a certain citizen under strict conditions.
For most photographers this boils down to have permission from the persons that are recognizable on the photo's in that database.

There are exceptions for "public persons" while they are acting in their public functions.



Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2014, 06:02:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Well the EU privacy laws state that you can only have databases (or a classic cabinet) with info that can be pointed to a certain citizen under strict conditions.
For most photographers this boils down to have permission from the persons that are recognizable on the photo's in that database.

There are exceptions for "public persons" while they are acting in their public functions.


BTW. It is useful to read the effective "Art 8 and 10" and not the interpretation from the blogger.  My interpretation for art. 8 and 10 is the completely different than inside the blog.


Logged
mimare
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


mimare.de - michael mahlke remscheid


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2014, 01:45:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello I want to give a little bit more information because in Europe and Germany the question of personal rights in the public is a big question.
You find a lot of information about streetphotography and social documentary photography in theory and practice on www.street62.de (can be translated mit translate.google.com) and in English a different website on www.street62.com
 
There you find an instruction manual- free pdf - how to make streetphotography under these conditions:
http://www.street62.com/the-best-instruction-manual-for-streetphotography/
 
If you come to photokina to cologne you have the problem that f.e. asian boys make photos and put them in the web under the rules of asian countries and german boys cannot do the same in germany because they live under the rules of germany. The same in Italy.
 
Looking for answers I used the word fineart-streetphotography in contrast to paparazzi-streetphotography to show the differences and I used classical approaches of photography to say how to do the things right today with streetphotography.
 
Here is the copycard from the book for use:

http://www.street62.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/copycardstreet.jpg
 
 
If you look at Magnum photographers you find out that this problem existed 50 years ago.
 
You find examples here: http://www.randomhouse.de/Buch/Magie-der-Bilder-Das-Magnum-Archiv/Magnum-Photos-S-A-R-L-/e437118.rhd
 
Logged
jeremyrh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2014, 03:22:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Lots of good theory but in practice the photographer is always at the mercy of the caprices of the policeman on the ground, e.g.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/investigation-launched-after-photographer-secretly-films-police-officer-threatening-to-arrest-him-and-make-his-day-living-hell-9044719.html?origin=internalSearch
Logged
mimare
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


mimare.de - michael mahlke remscheid


« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2014, 04:16:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you think this is streetphotography?
In this case an accident is filmed and there is an discussion with a police officer. This is very special.

I mean streetphotography is more capture moments in everyday life and not capture accidents.

But you can see it in this way. Then I would say this is an example of paparazzi-streetphotography and I prefer fineart-streetphotography.

May be in this way.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad