Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
h.v., I like to repeat what I wrote in another thread of yours on that matter:

You got a misconception of the legal situation in Germany. It is of NO interest wether the photographer earns any money with those photos or not, not even of interest whether the photographer intends to earn money or not. Actually it is of no interest at all what the purpose of publishing is.
Thus it is even of no interest if you have an artistic intent, because in the end it is not you to decide whether you are making art.

There are exceptions to this rule, but basically it is not advisable to publish photographs of people on street without a a good evaluation of the situation or a consent. I myself was threatened with a legal case.


That there are still a lot of such photos around can be explained by people not being bothered or just not knowing about those photos or their legal position. Or they are detered by the costs a legal case may bring up.

A legal situation not necessarily reflects the attitude of a nation...

...but it may give means to those who are bothered.
No, I get that. But what I am saying is that this may be the case in Germany, but not in Canada or the US or UK. There is no law against publishing street photos for artistic or editorial purposes -- full stop. If you're in public, there is zero expectation of privacy. This may be different in Germany (with regards to publishing) but not where I am. Even these privacy laws don't prevent street photography from occurring in Germany and you guys are lucky to have such people, because you'd be worse off without them.

No, there is still a lot of photos out there simply because street photographers aren't doing anything wrong. Of course someone can make a legal case, but that doesn't matter if they do not win. Time and time again, courts err on the side of the photographer. Even in privacy-laden France, there have been court cases that have ruled in favour of the photographer, citing that French society would be worse off without these documents of life. Street photographers can have success even and yet most won't bat an eye. Street photography is a valid form of artistic expression and societal documentation.

I'm sorry, but if I don't get to decide whether or not I am making art, then nobody gets to decide. What is and isn't art is so subjective and no two people every agree 100% on what is and isn't considered art. There isn't a government regulated handbook on what is considered art and what isn't. So in the end, it is in fact up to the individual, whether or not they consider what they're doing to be art. It shouldn't be of consequence whether or not someone else thinks their work is art or not. If an artist thinks they're making art, then they're making art. That's the only reasonable way to decide if something is objectively art or not.

News agencies around the world routinely publish snapshots from newsworthy scenes around the world, many times it is clear that consent was not arranged. Yet no legal action happens because it is editorial. Same reason why nobody gets all huffy if they happen to be in The Modern Century. If anything, that would be an honour.