Objection to appearing in a street photograph

[geoffk]

I and two other guys had an unusual experience today while photographing the Devon General Running Day at Newton Abbot. The first bus to pass our vantage point was a Stagecoach bus on service which the two others photographed, at which point a woman pedestrian crossed the road and said to us “if any of you has included me in your photograph I want you to delete it”.

We were all bit taken aback and said more or less the same thing, that there is no law prohibiting photography on the public highway and a street scene generally includes people. Her reply was “but I want you to respect my privacy” or similar words. The others checked their photographs and she wasn’t in either of them. We had a couple more exchanges but she wasn’t going to change her stance and walked away.

We could have mentioned all the CCTV cameras in the street or asked why she was walking in an area with lots of photographers, but there didn’t seem any point. One of the guys then said there was a woman bus driver in Plymouth who objected to her bus being photographed and had been known to get out of her cab to argue. Takes all sorts, I suppose.

I also heard that privacy laws in Germany now state that the faces of people who appear in published photographs have to be blanked out. Can anyone confirm that? The law will vary from one country to another but this was the first time I'd had such an encounter.

 

[Open top 80]

It happens quite a lot in Bournemouth at the moment. I saw one bus photographer getting abuse from a guy many a time.

 

[Mwanesh]

As a bus driver I would be happy to see my photo. I always slow down when I see photographers. Some people are just good at moaning about everything.

 

[AlterEgo]

She was in the street and had no right to ask for her image to be deleted, or any right to object to you capturing her image.

 

[InOban]

I think that it's in France that the rules are very strict.

 

[gka472l]

It happens quite a lot in Bournemouth at the moment. I saw one bus photographer getting abuse from a guy many a time.

From a bus driver or pedestrian?? Just asking as I'm down there in a few weeks......

 

[yorkie]

We were all bit taken aback and said more or less the same thing, that there is no law prohibiting photography on the public highway and a street scene generally includes people. Her reply was “but I want you to respect my privacy” or similar words. The others checked their photographs and she wasn’t in either of them. We had a couple more exchanges but she wasn’t going to change her stance and walked away.

You are not under any obligation to do as she asks, though you could choose to do so if you wanted to (if she was in any of the photos, you may have wanted to decide depending on how nicely she asked!)

If she wants people to do that, she really needs to ask nicely, as she is effectively asking for a favour and can have no expectation the request would be carried out.

 

[RailAleFan]

Concerns around face recognition technology may be a factor here.

The capabilities are insane, you can be picked out in a crowd photo of 100s or even 1000s.

That despite those worried quite likely carrying around a phone with high resolution location services enabled!

 

[Gloster]

I believe that the law in France means you must get permission if you take a picture in a private: as to where exactly the boundaries of a private place lie I am unsure. In a public place you must not deliberately photograph a specific individual or take a photo that harms their dignity, nor must you in any way manipulate anyone’s image without permission. If taking pictures of buses you do not (normally) need to ask permission from everyone in shot, although there are suggestions that if someone does object, then you must delete your picture: this area is unclear.

Thirty years ago in Denmark you could take a photo in a public place, but could not in any way single anyone out. A picture of a crowd with individuals identifiable was acceptable. A picture of a crowd with, say, the caption ‘One of these people will die of cancer within five years’, was not, even if nobody was specifically indicated.

I am not a lawyer in any jurisdiction.

 

[Open top 80]

From a bus driver or pedestrian?? Just asking as I'm down there in a few weeks......

It was a Security guard that was doing it, outside WH Smith near the stop for buses towards Boscombe and Christchurch (1a M2 )

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I take photos of many things - sometimes buses, sometimes street scenes, sometimes buildings (as I have a love of architecture). I have experienced this a few times though relatively rarely.

The rules are that you are free to snap away freely in public streets. Freely in this context does, of course, not extend to patterns of harassment of people or being overly intrusive (snapping away at your neighbour sunbathing in her back garden), or upskirting/downblousing naturally, or where there are specific laws about certain buildings e.g. MOD facilities. Note that in private property, you may need permission but again, if a security guard comes along, they are able to ask you to leave but not to demand access to or delete photos. There is an extensive article here https://amateurphotographer.com/technique/expert_advice/the-law-around-street-photography/ which is rather wide ranging (and so difficult to pick out the relevant quotes).

Of course, some people will come up to you as barrack room lawyers, and as I'm not qualified, I'd be as guilty. If people ask genuinely, I reply with a smile and an explanation. If they are more arsey, I'll just say "look, I'm not taking a photo of you, and you've just photobombed me" and try again to defuse things. If they are still giving me grief, I just say I'm not breaking the law and walk away.

I did have one experience in Wymondham (nr Norwich) last year. I was snapping the bus I was about to catch. I didn't know that some guy had flicked the bird at the time (only realised later), and I got on and went upstairs. He then confronted me and said I needed his permission. I said I didn't but in any case, I was just snapping the bus. Five mins of him simmering, he then gets his phone and moves up to me to take a photo asking me how I like it - I said I wasn't fussed so cue cheesy smile and thumbs up from me. He wasn't happy about that so after some chuntering, he calls me a 4 letter word beginning with C. I commended him on his razor sharp wit - he wasn't happy.

 

[gka472l]

It was a Security guard that was doing it .outside WH Smith near the stop for buses towards Boscombe and Christchurch (1a M2 )

Thanks....much more interesting places in the area for bus shots anyway

 

[Buzby]

Wasn’t there something within GDPR that introduced the ‘right’ of individuals to request their image is removed from any storage system. If she was ‘captured’ via CCTV she has the right for her image to be deleted - therefore a request to the Council or store with external cameras has to be complied with. I would think her demand would extend from this. Of course, you could say you deleted it but didn’t - but it won’t be a police matter, only the Data Comissioner!

 

[Russel]

I had a female Wilts and Dorset driver march across the road to me after changing drivers in Salisbury to inform me in a rather angry tone that taking photos of buses is illegal and to stop at once...

A quick "It's not illegal and I don't care if you don't like it." seemed to do the trick, followed by a walk to the nearby bus station to ask for a complaints form.

This was in 2012, so hopefully said driver has found alternative, non public facing employment since.

I suppose there is no harm in sharing the photo that caused said drama!

 

[yorkie]

Wasn’t there something within GDPR that introduced the ‘right’ of individuals to request their image is removed from any storage system. If she was ‘captured’ via CCTV she has the right for her image to be deleted - therefore a request to the Council or store with external cameras has to be complied with. I would think her demand would extend from this. Of course, you could say you deleted it but didn’t - but it won’t be a police matter, only the Data Comissioner!

That's not the case, no.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn’t there something within GDPR that introduced the ‘right’ of individuals to request their image is removed from any storage system. If she was ‘captured’ via CCTV she has the right for her image to be deleted - therefore a request to the Council or store with external cameras has to be complied with. I would think her demand would extend from this. Of course, you could say you deleted it but didn’t - but it won’t be a police matter, only the Data Comissioner!

Personal photographs are outside the scope of GDPR (as indeed is any other data storage for entirely personal use by an individual such as phone numbers stored on your phone or in a personal phone book).

My own take is that if someone's asked you not to photograph them then it's a bit rude to do so, but the law isn't on their side so it is just a case of ask nicely and complying with a reasonable and polite request. As with anything, asking rudely usually doesn't bring results

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

My own take is that if someone's asked you not to photograph them then it's a bit rude to do so, but the law isn't on their side so it is just a case of ask nicely and complying with a reasonable and polite request. As with anything, asking rudely usually doesn't bring results

Unfortunately, I think often it's a case that you're taking a photo, and only afterwards do people come up to you. TBH, most people are fairly sanguine but you will get the odd person who is full of fury. I think if you've tried to explain that it wasn't them you were snapping, and they're still giving it some, best to just walk away. My offensive Wymondham photo - with the gentleman suitably disguised

 

[The exile]

I also heard that privacy laws in Germany now state that the faces of people who appear in published photographs have to be blanked out. Can anyone confirm that? The law will vary from one country to another but this was the first time I'd had such an encounter.

It is certainly the advice / requirement of German websites - not just the face but anything that could identify them. In the same way everyone has the right to have their property blanked out from Streetview - hence the very limited coverage of Germany.

 

[bramling]

I and two other guys had an unusual experience today while photographing the Devon General Running Day at Newton Abbot. The first bus to pass our vantage point was a Stagecoach bus on service which the two others photographed, at which point a woman pedestrian crossed the road and said to us “if any of you has included me in your photograph I want you to delete it”.

We were all bit taken aback and said more or less the same thing, that there is no law prohibiting photography on the public highway and a street scene generally includes people. Her reply was “but I want you to respect my privacy” or similar words. The others checked their photographs and she wasn’t in either of them. We had a couple more exchanges but she wasn’t going to change her stance and walked away.

We could have mentioned all the CCTV cameras in the street or asked why she was walking in an area with lots of photographers, but there didn’t seem any point. One of the guys then said there was a woman bus driver in Plymouth who objected to her bus being photographed and had been known to get out of her cab to argue. Takes all sorts, I suppose.

I also heard that privacy laws in Germany now state that the faces of people who appear in published photographs have to be blanked out. Can anyone confirm that? The law will vary from one country to another but this was the first time I'd had such an encounter.

Really the response should start with and finish with F.

If someone asks very politely, the key words being asking and politely, then one might be prepared to consider such a request, but that’s as far as I’d go.

If people aren’t happy with this then they can always stay at home and not go out.

Where people start quoting bull, such as “it’s illegal to take photos here” or whatever then they’re fair game. A good lecture about their own (lack of) importance is certainly in order in such a situation.

I did once have a run in with an utterly obnoxious woman who objected to me standing in a (rural) road near her house taking a photo of a railway bridge - neither she or her house were even in the photo. In the end I told her that it would be happening whether she liked it or not, and suggested that perhaps if she got herself a job then she might have more productive things to be spending her time doing than staring out of her front window all day long. Learned a few new swear words that morning.

 

[Simon75]

Yet I bet the same person would share a photo without proof of crime on Facebook, or accuse people of taking photos of a school bus, of being a child abuser

 

[Nawm8]

Why not try the old 'okay I shall' and then continue snapping away? Don't have to delete anything, saves an argument and tends to flummox people as they only want that aforementioned argument. Worked for me a handful of times.

 

[Vespa]

Anyone who makes up a law that's "it's illegal" to photos of buses or trains will get laughed out by me.

I did get confronted once by a guard as to why I'm taking a photo inside an empty train, ultimately he didn't try to be an idiot making rules up as I have a much higher security clearance than him if he tried to play the "security" card, I would have had so much fun with him in the end he was just a unconfident young guard uncertain of the rules.

The public can be the same, they think they know the rules and make things up and if confronted with the correct information, they throw a massive wobbly because it's something they have no control of and losing face.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I once saw the Google car coming down the street so raced to the front door and smiled and waved...they still blurred my face!