Jump to content
GuillaumeL

[Legal] EU street photography under the GDPR

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently came across this document that made me wonder about the future of street photography in Europe under the GDPR.

 

To sum it up: this Malta based organization interprets the "personal data" concept contained in the GDPR as also encompassing pictures of identifiable people taken on the street. It basically states that street photographers wishing to publish their work should systematically get model releases or blur subjects faces lest they violate data protection principles.

 

I had never thought of the GDPR that way and failed to find any other paper, official or non-official, that concurs with that. To the European street photographers here - what do you think about the document? Has Malta had a history of strict privacy regarding photographing people in public places, hence the overzealous interpretation of the EU directive, or do you see this spreading to other EU countries as the GDPR gets transposed in local laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently been sent an email by Instagram telling me that my profile shall he deleted because i have photographs of people. 

I am a maltese street photography enthusiast and i find that the laws are way to strict and it is very appalling to see that the eu is taking away the one aspect that made street photography so great, the candid part of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Posts

    • @epscott looking at the size difference between the (photo oriented) X-T1 and the (video) X-T4 shows exactly why Fujifilm is going wrong by giving in to the video generation. The X-T4 is not only a lot bulkier, but also a lot heavier. Plus, the development effort spent on creating video features cannot be spent on making the best photo camera available. Fujifilm should not cripple their photo cameras with video futures, but should create a different line for video cameras.
    • I have been a Fuji user only relatively recently.  My previous system was Canon and the weight was becoming a factor.  Sold it all and now a Fuji convert. I have tried to keep it simple and small.  XT2 AND XT3  with 16-55, 50-140 plus Samyang 8mm fisheye and 100mm macro.  Still making mistakes but hey ho  there's always the delete button. I live in Dundee,  Scotland and have settled here until my toes point to the sky.
    • pixel shift would be nice to be able to get higher resolution files but from what i've read the x-trans pixel pattern makes it harder to achieve this compared to the bayer arrangement... the GFX100 i think does have pixel shift but i'm not sure whether it's bayer or x-trans
    • That is simply not true. It makes the camera more complicated and more expensive, and the camera usually ends up being a compromise. So there's more to break, more stuff to cool (so the camera is going to be heavier than needed for photography), and more to pay. I wish Fujifilm would resist the market pressure of the Youtube generation, and focus on creating the most usable and best photo cameras possible.
×
×
  • Create New...