hmm that's a bit like saying it's OK for me to punch a stranger in the face if I do not know in advance that they do not want to be punched :)
Extravagant examples aside, it's as well to remember that because something is legal (or illegal) or acceptable (or unacceptable) in one country, doesn't rule it out in others.
The stateless nature of the internet of course makes the point a bit moot until the jurists get some case law under their belts about this sort of thing.
Philosophically it's rather interesting - I've recently developed a roll of film that was in a camera I bought; it contains some holiday snaps, nothing contentious or (to me) very interesting.
I certainly feel I own that roll of film.
I don't however feel I have any claim of ownership to "the images". Accordingly I don't feel comfortable to publish them.
Let it be said: About two years ago I contacted a Craigslist poster (young, black female) who had a camera to sell. I negotiated a low price and she met me at a street corner in Philadelphia. The transaction went smoothly and all seemed well. I discovered a roll of film in the camera (amazingly, I had not opened it in her presence because it worked so well). I processed the film and they were normal images of people sitting, etc. I emailed here that I had her processed negatives. I heard nothing.
I blame myself here: clearly I was violating privacy, even though in a very attenuated way. Still, I should not have done this and I was wrong. It's still prying even though no ill-will was intended. I consider her 'ignoring' me to be a gift, in a way: we all need to be routinely apprised of our own selves and how self-perceived assessments of ourselves might be skewed. - David Lyga
Blame yourself for WHAT? You've confessed this transgression. So you're human... with normal human curiousity. Feel absolved and move on!
p.s. would it have been any different if she had been an old white guy?
Hey, we don't own the light photons that bounce off us...
Oh, I do not self-flagellate. I bring this up merely to 'look back' at my actions. I think that we all should do this retrospective and never be satisfied with 'good enough'. Don't tax yourselves over this but it's good to seek continuous improvement. Don't worry, I do not lose sleep but, to tell the truth, I don't think that I would do that again.
The REAL crimes I commit are when I try all mental tactics to get cameras and lenses cheaply. I do not lie but I 'hold out' and become very friendly and convenient. Am I wrong here? It becomes VERY difficult to zero into just how much a film camera is worth today. At camera shows I am known to all, not by name but by face, and I am not hated for my obstinance because I become, oftentimes, the buyer of last resort. - David Lyga
Italy knows as well the concept of "diritto all'immagine" but, in fact, its actual field of application is much more restricted than a superficial reading of the norm would induce to think.
After the enunciation of the basic right in principle, which is probably just like in Germany, the law or different laws state a great amount of exceptions:
dispone, che si possa prescindere dal consenso, nei casi in cui ci˛ sia giustificato da motivi di, notorietÓ del personaggio ritratto, o dall' ufficio pubblico ricoperto, o dalla necessitÓ di, giustizia, polizia, scopi scientifici, didattici, culturali, o quando la riproduzione sia collegata a fatti o avvenimenti, cerimonia di interesse pubblico o svoltosi in pubblico
the consent is not required when [publication] is justified by reasons of notoriety of the person portrayed, the public office he holds, necessity of justice /police, scientific-didactic-cultural purposes or when reproduction is linked to facts or events, or ceremonies, of public interest or held in public.
That practically paves the way to every sort of publication. You can publish the pictures shown in this thread, if they are a way to show let's say the apparel of the time.
If there wasn't such a list of exceptions in Germany we wouldn't see all the war documentaries or all kind of documentaries where people is portrayed sometimes as close-up. Journalism and especially documentarism would be basically impossible. I believe Germany should not be different from the rest of the world under this respect.
Interesting discussion.... The seller actually advertised the film being in the camera...so the film was part of the deal. It actually made it more valuable to me as otherwise I'd have to purchase 620 reels.
i actually contacted the seller the I had images but never heard back. I would happily send the jpegs to her. The fact that the law is so different in Germany shows that you needs to know your country's laws. My guess is she has no attachment to the images...probably bought the camera at a thrift shop or garage sale to resell on Etzy.
You own the pictures and can do what you want with them. If you do something illegal or immoral with them, you are responsible. If you don't want the responsibility, destroy the pictures.
There are exceptions in Germany, but they are quite strict.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
The fact that so much is published against that legislation is due to the media (both as institution and as technology) having changed so much since 1907 when that legislation was passed, and many professional just don't care and many lay people just don't know. Others may only see the private law aspect in it and to establish this typically a layer is needed which means costs.
Nevertheless there are regularly legal cases on this matter, especially with celebrities who try do divide between a public and a private life. But recently there was a case of a cafe/restaurant putting photos of their guests, who wanted to stay private, online, where by means of current ittechnologies the skipped the anonymity of the unknown cafe in a remote city and had been traced.
Also recently there was also a case against someone just taking a photograph of someone else, and the issue was that he could publish that photograph, thus the situation being even aside of that legislation.
Another aspect affecting commercial photography is the ban of publication of buildings otherwise free to publish photos of, in case the owner commercializes himself photos of that building.
As you see another very delicate issue here in Germany.
But this does not only apply to Germany, in a neighbouring country this applies to a world-known building that is banned too.
But this is so sick to always want to ban everything. We walk openly on the street and are paranoid that people take photos. Who should care?
I see so many great photos of people, friend, who ever. Then seeing discussions about if this is legal or not. It is sad.