Photography law while not photographing

141 posts in this topic

56 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

I just can't grasp who is fining you? You haven't cost anybody anything or caused any damage.

I can see us paying them for their initial consultation with the lawyer. But the 1000 for damages is way beyond my grasp. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

I just can't grasp who is fining you? You haven't cost anybody anything or caused any damage.

These are paranoid times. Instagram here, Twitter there, selfies galore and... a camera not working. WTF! The people who are bitching about this...Twitters, Instagrammers , selfie takers? Hypocrites?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife went over this morning to talk to them. Frau landlord said she was going to be having a busy day today and couldn't discuss anything this weekend due to business. 

My wife is going to talk to them about what exactly they want. Frau landlord said she would have time Tuesday morning to talk and we would be taking care of the details.

OK, that's fair with me. Their willingness to talk and find a resolve will be cheaper than a lawyer. Should they stand by their demands, then yes, we will self pay an attorney to see what our legal options are concerning the 1000 bucks and their lawyer fees. 
Herr landlord was actually very pleasant yesterday morning when I met him while going outside. Hopefully this will blow over. Our time is short here and we will keep the peace.

It's been a struggle, but one to one and a half years more living here is possible to endure. 
UPDATE to follow on Tuesday.

 

Thanks to everyone commenting. 

 

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020, 5:25:45, catjones said:

Don't feel too bad.  Van Gogh had a similar problem in Provence.  He was called out by a woman sitting outside the bar he was sketching.  They ran him out of town.

 

 

Capture.PNG

Nice to know they had 2 metre social distancing with the tables back then! Forward thinking!😀

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an off topic but trying to understand what could be the next chain of event, if the demand of 1000 euro + is denied by OP. The case goes to the court. How will judge justify the penalty when no damage is being done. Police is the witness that nothing damaging was done by the Op. What case the opposition has that can make judge rule in their favour. 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john g. said:

Nice to know they had 2 metre social distancing with the tables back then! Forward thinking!

Who wants to sit at tables rammed close together anyway? :(

 

4 hours ago, fraufruit said:

I just can't grasp who is fining you?

It isn't a fine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vivanco said:

 if the demand of 1000 euro + is denied by OP. The case goes to the court.

It only goes to court if they actually decide to pursue it. As far as I can tell it is not automatic. How can it be? 

 

We have asked our neighbour to pay damages and lawyer fees for what he did to us. He hasn't paid. It's only going to court because we have prepaid court fees and instructed the lawyer to take him to court. We have plenty of evidence and have consistenly involved and informed the Police. 

 

If the OP doesn't pay and the other side do nothing, then nothing happens. It is just a letter at this stage. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the landlord’s attorney wants money! Not a fine but money. For what? The moaners are all doing the Instagram stuff, taking selfies, twittering away, SO offended.. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, john g. said:

But the landlord’s attorney wants money! Not a fine but money. 

But he was instructed by the other side (the landlord) not by the OP. If the landlord doesn't instruct the lawyer to take it further, nothing will happen. In such a scenario the lawyer will bill the landlord for the work already done, the lawyer won't bill the OP for that. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor do I!😂 But will try again! Some people are moaning that they were maybe in danger of being photographed against their will. And my point is - are they maybe people who themselves post photos everywhere on Facebook or whatever and don’t think they are violating other people’s private space?

Or maybe I am just an old-fashioned fool? ( Probably!)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, john g. said:

are they maybe people who themselves post photos everywhere on Facebook or whatever and don’t think they are violating other people’s private space?

I think that's speculation about the people who are doing the moaning.

If they are posting pictures solely of themselves then that's their business. If they post pictures of other people they must have explicit permission to do so. If they don't have permission, they're open to problems themselves. But this isn't relevant to the OP's current dilemma.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lunaCH said:

If they post pictures of other people they must have explicit permission to do so. If they don't have permission


Nope, it is not always like that.   If there are people in the picture that are not the main focus of the picture then they are considered "accessories" (Beiwerk).  This make possible that you can go to the Brandenburger Tor and take a picture of the gate of yourself with people in the background.   Or when you see a picture of an sports event with a bunch of public behind.  Of you take a picture of a street and there are people walking.

 

Some media will blur people that can be clearly recognized if they are doing something unreasonable or that could be criticized in order to protect their good name, but that's something different.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The landlords' attorney is asking that I pay the landlord per Überweisung the 1000. Nothing is stated as to why (damages, etc...) I would need to pay them. 

 

I told the police I had no intention of photographing or videoing the scene. I told him it would be illegal. He told me, no, it's only illegal if I post the photos publicly. I told him also no, that as of May 2018 the law was written to say no photos of people are allowed without a formal permission from that person. I was interested in street photography for a long time. Once the big issue of privacy was made, I stopped taking street photos. I don't have any social media accounts and my photos are for my use only. It's a hobby and used for improvement purposes only.

When I lived in Munich, I got a written permission to do photos of all the U-bahn stations in Munich. It was very challenging to not include people in the shots. Of course, there are some, but again, my photos are for private use. Any photo of a person who is recognizable or identifiable must have that person's permission to possess or distribute.

I'm sticking to nature, wildlife and landscape. Don't even get me started on drone laws...aggggggggggggh

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ludwig13 said:

The landlords' attorney is asking that I pay the landlord per Überweisung the 1000. Nothing is stated as to why (damages, etc...) I would need to pay them.

Then it's just an intimidation letter hoping you get scared and cave in. From what you have written, it's difficult to prove in court  that you broke any law. Court can only fine you if opposition can prove that your action was illegal and damage was done. The police visit informing that no law being broken strengthen the Op's case. A low turnout of their customer due to op behaviour can also be difficult to prove in the current covid time. 

 

If I am were in OP shoes, I will deny their claim outright and wait for the court Termine. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ludwig13 said:

The landlords' attorney is asking that I pay the landlord per Überweisung the 1000. Nothing is stated as to why (damages, etc...) I would need to pay them. 

 

I told the police I had no intention of photographing or videoing the scene. I told him it would be illegal. He told me, no, it's only illegal if I post the photos publicly. I told him also no, that as of May 2018 the law was written to say no photos of people are allowed without a formal permission from that person. I was interested in street photography for a long time. Once the big issue of privacy was made, I stopped taking street photos. I don't have any social media accounts and my photos are for my use only. It's a hobby and used for improvement purposes only.

When I lived in Munich, I got a written permission to do photos of all the U-bahn stations in Munich. It was very challenging to not include people in the shots. Of course, there are some, but again, my photos are for private use. Any photo of a person who is recognizable or identifiable must have that person's permission to possess or distribute.

I'm sticking to nature, wildlife and landscape. Don't even get me started on drone laws...aggggggggggggh

 

OK, I assume you are talking about GDPR, that's a slightly different thing, privacy and data protection are not the same, but people constantly mix them.  Privacy is a broader concept and in most cases it includes data protection.   Truth is that GDPR had good intentions in general, but it is a collection of laws that are extremely impractical and if you follow them no business could operate, companies implemented the basics but not really the detail.   You should be able to take your pictures like before because of "Legitimate Interest", if taking pictures is your thing, either professionally or as a hobby.  The problem is legitime interest is a very gray area.   And in my opinion it would leave out the random average Joe who only wants to take a picture of a touristic crowded place, but then, it has been argued that if you go to a sports event or a touristic place where there has always been people taking pictures, then it is expected that there will be people taking pictures.

 

Notice, when the person is part of the focus of the picture if you ask a person for permission to keep their picture you were supposed to ask before, if you ask after taking the shoot GDRP was not followed.  Of course asking before might spoil the picture.

 

I think in Germany not long time ago there was a ruling considering street photography as an art.  So as long as you find a good privacy balance it should be ok.  The problem is frequently you will find an entitled Besserwisser who will spoil things for everyone.

 

Anyway, GDPR is mostly crap.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Nope, it is not always like that.   If there are people in the picture that are not the main focus of the picture then they are considered "accessories" (Beiwerk).  This make possible that you can go to the Brandenburger Tor and take a picture of the gate of yourself with people in the background.   Or when you see a picture of an sports event with a bunch of public behind.  Of you take a picture of a street and there are people walking.

I was not referring to people in the background who happened to be passing or visible, but people who have had their photo taking knowingly. Taking the photo and retaining a private copy is is one thing, posting it online is another. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vivanco said:

If I am were in OP shoes, I will deny their claim outright and wait for the court Termine

Should there be one. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DoubleDTown said:

 

 

Given Germany's privacy obsession, I can believe this.  But I am curious to know the law.  Do you have a Gesetz section for it?

On 7/17/2020, 3:09:34, El Jeffo said:

Did they (meaning your Rechtschutzversicherung) confirm that simply having an inoperative camera on your balcony is against the law? Because I did some googling and found this list - in short, the only way you'd be violating the law is by publishing the photos online or in a print publication.

 

There is a law against illegal video surveillance: it's not about making photos of people on the street (which would be indeed a copyright law), it's about something you do from your property and applies to CCTV/car dashcams, but also filming of whatever from your property. Of course, no law against pointing the camera, but it is by itself something which may justify calling the cops.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now