1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

GDPR impact on photography, street photography, travel photography, etc.

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by EightBitTony, Apr 27, 2018.

  1. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Tony,

    The link says that it is designed for "small organizations". Many of the people I deal with are (like me) one person, usually photographers.
    • However, information about individuals acting as sole traders, employees, partners and company directors where they are individually identifiable and the information relates to them as an individual may constitute personal data.
    • The GDPR sets a high standard for consent. But you often won’t need consent. If consent is difficult, look for a different lawful basis.
    There's a load of waffle about "good practice" and "being careful/ thoughtful/ etc." but almost nothing of any value when it comes to photographers and writers dealing with one another. Or indeed with galleries and publishers.

    In other words, the ICO guidelines are completely useless in the context of photographers reading this thread. You have already stated some of your beliefs, e.g. "If you take photographs, for free, of a school event, and you collect the names and addresses of the people to send the photos to, then I personally believe the GDPR would apply". Having read the same material, I see a lot of pious and non-specific drivel -- IT specialists pretending to be lawyers -- which is almost entirely devoid of specifics in the situations we are discussing here: above all, of the meaning of "protection", as I noted in post 37. If no-one can get at the information without either physically breaking into my house, or remotely hacking my computer, that looks pretty much like "protection" to me.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  2. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I think Tony and Roger are both correct. The GDPR is 89 pages of "if and maybe". The document I linked to in #32 is the single true source of the regulations and the only way we can know what's allegedly happening is to wade through it. It will probably help if you read it when you hang upside down from the luggage rack of an Italian train compartment while facing away from the direction of travel. :confused:
     
  3. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I've been shooting other folks bairns along with my own at sporting events for years and can continue to do so. Where a company has paid for the right to sell images of events I tend to avoid shooting other people's kids out of courtesy to people trying to earn a living but as school sports days that tends not to be a problem and I'm free to share images with other parents I talk to and usually the school.

    It's not a law against giving and making friends......no contract and no cash = no problem:cool:
     
  4. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I never said, or even hinted at that not being the case. Again, I've at no point been talking about _photographs_. Photographs, in and of themselves, in my view, do not constitute personal data.

    And I never said anything to the contrary.

    GDPR doesn't care if you're an amateur, professional, make-believe fantasist, or a fairy. If you're collecting personal data for anything other than purely personal use, then you're obliged to follow it.

    I'm done here.
     
  5. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    That doesn't seem to be true. Look at the sections towards the end of the document where exemptions are mentioned. News gathering and artistic endevours fall outside of the regulations.
     
  6. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Well yesterday I had my first run-in in a very long time with someone who objected to my having taken a photograph of a street in which they happened to be.

    I have been asked if I would be interested in supplying some of my images as postcards to a local shop and thought to top up what was already in the archive with some street scenes showing folks enjoying the uncharacteristically good weather we've been having as if that were the norm for this neck of the woods. The seafront was looking almost continental with people sitting outside cafés, eating ice creams and so on. There's one snag though. It's very often also lined with cars because parking is an issue round here and bins because the businesses are all in a terrace and there's nowhere else to put them. So it took me a while to figure out the best place to stand to get the view I wanted which probably made me quite conspicuous. Anyway I eventually got more or less what I'd been hoping for and started to move on.

    "Did you just take my picture?" said an accusatory voice.
    "Erm, well I took a picture of the street and yes, you probably are in it, but I wasn't taking a picture of you specifically."

    I even showed her the picture where she's just about the smallest figure in it. "There you go...you can see I wasn't really focussing on you as such."
    "You should have asked. You have to ask now. That GP thing means you can't do that any more and you have to ask."

    I was quite taken aback at how aggressive her tone was so I'm afraid I blurted out "No I don't." and walked off. But then I got thinking...do I?! I don't feel like I can use that picture for a postcard now, or even post it online because if she was a local and if she sees the postcard she seems the sort who would complain.

    Now I would argue that it would be unrealistic to work as a local postcard photographer and have to ask everyone in a scene for a model release form...the vast majority would have moved on before I could get to them...and the scene is changing all the time...so surely this would have to fall under one or other of the exemptions. It's not like I'm putting her name on the back of the card, nor even the date it was taken. But it has rather dented my confidence a bit because prior to GDPR I would have known what to say in my own defence and now I really don't!
     
  7. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Nothing has changed. There are exemptions for art.

    https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/

    The more I've read since asking the initial question, the happier I am that nothing has changed. As with all law, we'll never know the 'truth' until a number of cases are brought, but I don't think there's any measurable change over the DPA in terms of photography in a public space.

    GDPR is about the processing of data, and talks about that being focused on 'the kind of data you would put in filing cabinets'. It's not interested in photography, unless that photography is intended to catalog people and link their image with their name or other personal data.

    IANAL, free advice, etc., etc.
     
  8. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Untitled-3.jpg
    That's on the ICO's website. I'm going with it's fine for me to publish this!
     
    daft_biker and EightBitTony like this.
  9. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Yup. I think it's a key distinction that the GDPR makes clear early, that the same information is classed differently at different times depending on the purpose and intent. Data in and of itself is not covered, it's the processing and handling of that data which is governed. It's all about purpose and intent. As I say, the more I've read, the more sure I am nothing has changed in this regard.
     
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Correct. The more I understand about GDPR, the better I think it is. It sets the bad guys up for a massive fall, encourages good practice, and isn't as restrictive on the good guys as it was made out to be.
     
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Yes. I think that myth was put about by people who have a lot to lose from enforcement of the GDPR rules.
     
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    And at one point, by those wishing to profit from putting things in place, too...
     
  13. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    FWIW I'd like the DVLA to do a better job protecting data.....in Scotland you can park in places without gated access and private companies issuing parking fines are just chancers and the DVLA should not be giving data to them.

    The practice might be fit for England but it has no place in Scotland IMO.
     
  14. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/dvla_ban_driver_database_access/

    https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...nment-backs-clamp-down-on-rogue-parking-firms
     
  15. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

Share This Page