Go to bottom

Photo/video consent at parties

category: parties [glöplog]
leia: Yes, and in most countries (at least western countries) the law is pretty much equivalent to "If you're not in the privacy of your home you have no right not to be photographed". If you plan to photograph in public always be aware of local the laws as well as your rights as a photographer.

Some examples (far from exhaustive): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography#Legalities

Also, the end of my post was a bit of a hyperbole.
added on the 2015-08-04 14:21:08 by noby noby
The point is: everyone is entitled to have all privacy at home. But if you're sitting at a *public* (in a sense that anyone walking on the street can just enter, if he pays the ticket, no questions asked) event with 150+ (400+, 1000+, etc...) visitors. I know some people think about the demoscene as part of their private space, but that's just naive. It's not.

Much like I'm absolutely against tracking of users and big scale data collection on the web, but we'll monitor the network usage (*not* the contents, of course) at Function to detect abuses. Just like it happens on every bigger public event. Because it's not your network, but ours, and we have to keep it running for the sake of the event itself.

It's all so simple.

And just for the record (country by country argument), in Hungary, it's now illegal to take photos without consent, even in public. Make no mistake: unlike the official bullshit states, the regulation was invented to restricts journalists uncovering and document the corrupt business of some politicians, and the real nature of some questionable Police actions ordered by the govt. Basically they restrict your right to document them restricting your rights, in the name of everyone's privacy. How beautiful is that. This is where unrestricted privacy gets you.

Therefore, considering all the above, we stated in our rules: if you come, you gave us your consent. End of story.
added on the 2015-08-04 14:29:23 by Charlie Charlie
i.e. I'm not required to delete a photo of you even if you ask for it, and I'm even free to publish it.

That, at the very least is not true in Germany: Recht am eigenen Bild. In essence, as the photographed person, you have the right to decide if / how a picture of you gets published.
but that refers to portraits and is also quite ambiguous if you just happen to be 1 of 100 people walking somewhere in the distance on a picture ;)
Saga: good to know, that's the point where laws between countries usually start to diverge. As far as I know Germany does have some of the strictest Western laws regarding this. This simplifies proper conduct in the German parties at least.
added on the 2015-08-04 14:38:48 by noby noby
Well in germany (and according to wikipedia also in austria, switzerland and italy) every person holds the rights to a picture if he or she is the main focus of it, regardless of where the shot was taken. That implies you as the photographer have to delete it upon request and definitely need a permission prior to publishing it (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild).
I think demoparties in said countries operate in some sort of gray area since its unclear if uploading it to slengpung and the like counts as publication, also there has been a silent consent about not asking everybody before doing so.
Thats of course because of best-practice but if you really piss someone off with your camera they are many ways they can piss you off back for it, including legal charges.
added on the 2015-08-04 14:40:00 by wysiwtf wysiwtf
oh, saga beat me too it (again) :p
added on the 2015-08-04 14:41:54 by wysiwtf wysiwtf
Maali: There are nuances, yes, I just wanted to point out that you can't just go ahead and deny a photo to be deleted because "it's yours".
It's 2015 and the best we can come up with to battle evil big data analytics schemes is a fucking variation on the hanky code?

Demoscene I am so disappoint
added on the 2015-08-04 15:33:12 by havoc havoc
Look, there's (at least) two concerns here, what's actually legal and what is reasonable/wanted.

For what's legal or not, it's basically down to "are you allowed to take a given picture" and "are you allowed to publish a given picture". Note that posting an image on a website, twitter, facebook, instagram etc. is publishing, as publication is the distribution of copies or content to the public.
The laws that govern publishing on a website depends on where the website is located, not where you are when publishing it or where you took the picture. So if you take a picture in Germany and post it on a website in USA, it's governed by two different countries' laws respectively.
As a photographer and/or a publisher it's your responsibility to adhere to these laws, and you can't just claim ignorance.

When it comes to what kind of pictures getting taken (and published) at demo parties, it's a fallacy to just argue that people should just "don't do stupid shit and then there won't be a problem". Being caught in an unflattering moment is not the only reason one might not want to be taken a picture of. And while you might not understand those reasons, you should be able to acknowledge that they exist and respect them.

In general, applying your own view universally is just nonsense. The fact that you don't care if your employer sees pictures of you being drunk/stoned/naked/whatever is only relevant for you. Implying that anyone else who feel differently should change employer is absurdly arrogant.
The same goes for "I don't mind being taken pictures of, so noone should" and basically every other variant of "I feel this, so you should feel the same" argument you can think of. You get to decide what's right for you, and that's it.

As someone said, some decency/discretion from photographers go a long way. Don't do "paparazzi" shots from far away just because you have a fantastic zoom objective. If someone doesn't seem like they want to be photographed, take a picture of someone else. Avoid your urge to document how insanely drunk someone is, unless you know they don't mind.

Apart from that, there is a tradition of taking pictures at demoscene parties, and to some extent there are situations where you should expect it. For instance, taking pictures from the price ceremony documenting the winners is not unreasonable, it might even be regarded as journalistic work. The same goes for people like me, who put themselves on a stage as performers.
In those situations you choose to step out of the general audience and into the spotlight, making yourself a person of interest. If you're uncomfortable with that, either let someone else get your price for you, or wear a ski mask :)
added on the 2015-08-04 15:54:30 by lug00ber lug00ber
Apart from that, there is a tradition of taking pictures at demoscene parties, and to some extent there are situations where you should expect it.

I agree, but how does e.g. livestreaming fall into this picture? I think in 2015 that's also one of those things that can be mostly taken for granted.
added on the 2015-08-04 16:02:10 by Gargaj Gargaj
.. or wear a ski mask :)

Ola, you gave me an idea about organizing a Terrorists of the Scene party in the future ;-)
First general rule:
"No entrance without the obeying the masquerade! "
added on the 2015-08-04 16:22:47 by Maugli Maugli
i can think of a handful of sceners who would jump onto this instantly ;)
added on the 2015-08-04 16:27:37 by wysiwtf wysiwtf
Apart from that, there is a tradition of taking pictures at demoscene parties, and to some extent there are situations where you should expect it.

I agree, but how does e.g. livestreaming fall into this picture? I think in 2015 that's also one of those things that can be mostly taken for granted.

General rule: point the camera at the stage/big screen, not the audience.
If you do a hall overview stream, do it at a distance and at a resolution that makes it impossible to identify individuals.

If I understood picard correctly in the Evoke thread the timelapse was in 4K resolution, and that you could freeze a single frame and get a hi-res still image with clear focus. Now you no longer have a timelapse video, but a large collection of hi-res pictures from an area over time (aka surveillance).
So if you want to do a timelapse, see to it that you can't grab single frames and get high quality still images from it. I'm guessing some motion blur would do the trick quite nicely without destroying the timelapse effect.

If you are going to do a "TV production" with multiple cameras for instance for an award show, inform in advance that the audience (or certain segments of the audience seats) will be filmed, and then people can go sit elsewhere if it's not ok.
added on the 2015-08-04 16:44:55 by lug00ber lug00ber
idk about other countries but here in holland putting any (semi-)fixed camera in a public space without proper announcement beforehand is a crime and punishable with up to two months in prison

in other news: outline is considering to once again not offer live streaming from the party in 2016!
added on the 2015-08-04 17:06:36 by havoc havoc
Pro tip: if you're doing time-lapse make your exposure time as long as the frame interval (i.e. if you're doing 2 seconds per frame you want 2 second exposures, making sure of course you don't blind the camera ;)

That way the people tend to blur out naturally, and your time-lapse looks more awesome because you've got nice motion blur.
added on the 2015-08-04 18:25:39 by psonice psonice
We today live in such a photo saturated world that I would not mind less being taken.
added on the 2015-08-04 18:52:00 by _-_-__ _-_-__
.. and as photographer, how about not shooting questionable stuff (is that a joint? ..

BB Image
added on the 2015-08-04 23:36:25 by blasty blasty
what lug00ber said

I would love to be able to get rid of certain images floating around on the internet. Mostly of Dwarf.
added on the 2015-08-04 23:47:56 by farfar farfar
i would love to be able to get rid of dwarf!
Well in germany (and according to wikipedia also in austria, switzerland and italy) every person holds the rights to a picture if he or she is the main focus of it, regardless of where the shot was taken

Not so! As I already wrote earlier (and as is explained on the Wikipedia page you linked yourself), there is an exception for event photography. Which is not the whole picture, but if you want that then read what I wrote on page 2. I don't want to repeat myself.
added on the 2015-08-05 01:29:44 by MedO MedO
Hmm, I know of a case were a guy successfully prevented the press from publishing a picture of him being chased by the police at a demonstration here in bremen, and id say that is as public as you can get :P
But you are right, I have no insight what law applied there. Might have been one of those "special situations".
added on the 2015-08-05 11:43:20 by wysiwtf wysiwtf
No rule without exception:

"Die Befugnis erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten oder, falls dieser verstorben ist, seiner Angehörigen verletzt wird." (§23 Abs 2 KunstUrhG)

I guess he was able to argue that he had a legitimate interest in not having the picture published (maybe since it would affect his reputation, perhaps wrongly - I have no idea what he actually did). I would also guess it was a consideration whether that outweighed the also legitimate interest of the press to publish the picture to inform the public. But again, IANAL :)
added on the 2015-08-05 13:47:32 by MedO MedO


Go to top