Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hungary law requires photographers to ask permission to take pictures Civil code  (Read 2725 times)
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2014, 03:15:05 PM »
ReplyReply

There seems to be basic misunderstanding about the meaning of "information" contained in a photograph of a person, and a database listing certain exact attributes about the same person. An image is just an image, all "information" contained therein (like gender, height, skin color etc) are just an interpretation which requires a viewer judgement. If I photograph people on the street there is no (publicly) known way to turn my folder of photographs into a database containing "information" about these unidentified persons, as meant in the privacy laws.

I rest my case.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2014, 02:31:09 PM »
ReplyReply

There seems to be basic misunderstanding about the meaning of "information" contained in a photograph of a person, and a database listing certain exact attributes about the same person
Indeed there does.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4123



« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2014, 03:42:11 AM »
ReplyReply

In my understanding, where English is my 3th language

Can I respectfully suggest that it is a bad idea to attempt textual analysis of a tightly-drafted document, involving legal concepts which may involve words used as terms of art, in your third language?

Jeremy
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2008


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2014, 04:14:08 AM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand taking pictures of anybody who is in his/her house or yard is strictly forbidden (that's why we have practically no paparazzi here).
or probably more accurately there isn't a market for pap photos. There's not a lot of international A listers there.
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672



« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2014, 04:38:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Technically you're right it's keeping those pictures stored that's bound by the privacy rules.  For example on a memory card, film, LR or any other DAM software or storage system (HDD).  The same goes for a cabinet with negatives for example.
Practically it's the same for almost all purposes.

I also think that the fact that you have practically no paparazzi in Finland, could be the reason that there are no court cases.


Look at :

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
see for example :
"Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;"

"Article 7

Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:

(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or..."

"...or to one or more factors specific to his physical..."
--> a picture seems to fit that part.


You are very, very confused.

A  photograph may allow a person to be identified - but it does not include any personal data about such persons.

In UK the law is very simple - any citizen can take any photograph of anyone or anything provided they take it from a public place (even if the subject is in a private place).

The Royal Photographic Society, jointly with the Association of Chief Police Officers, provides every member with a card to carry which explains this right as, sometimes, over-zealous policemen can be ignorant of the law. The card also explains when anti-terrorism legislation might be used to curtail photography - which is practically never. It also explains that the public have a right to photograph the police in the discharge of their duties - which some police don't like!

The only area of possible confusion is in the definition of "public place". It does not necessarily include "private places to which the public have access" where the owner can specify the conditions under which the public have access and such conditions might include restrictions on photography.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 04:42:57 AM by PhotoEcosse » Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2014, 05:45:35 AM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand taking pictures of anybody who is in his/her house or yard is strictly forbidden (that's why we have practically no paparazzi here).
That tends to be the case in Europe generally. Taking photos of people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is not something that even the paps can get away with.
They may appear to at times, but I recall seeing a magazine cover with some supposedly 'sneaky' shots of Robbie Williams and his latest woman. The shots were made to like like they were taken from a distance by a pap in a tree, but the perspectives were all wrong. The photographer was obviously standing much closer and taking pictures with consent of the subject.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad