Annoying thing with Mavic 3

[GadgetGuy]

Really now ...

Google "Recht am eigenen Bild" if you understand German. If not I surely won't translate it for you. If you can't Google, then here is one passage you would find (there would be thousands like that):

Recht am eigenen Bild – das steht im Gesetz​

Jeder darf selbst bestimmen, ob er fotografiert oder gefilmt werden will und ob und wo die Aufnahmen veröffentlicht werden dürfen. So folgt es aus dem allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrecht, wie es [COLOR=var(--color-petrol-dark)]Artikel 2 Absatz 1 des GrundgesetzesArt 2 GG - Einzelnorm garantiert. Schon fürs bloße Knipsen gilt: Sie dürfen nur Menschen fotografieren oder filmen, die damit auch einverstanden sind. Wer Foto- oder Filmaufnahmen von Personen ohne deren Einverständnis veröffentlicht, dem droht sogar eine Strafe. So steht es ausdrücklich in Paragraf 22 und 32 des [COLOR=var(--color-petrol-dark)]Kunsturhebergesetzes[/COLOR]. Bis zu ein Jahr Freiheitsstrafe verhängen die Gerichte bei Verstößen.[/COLOR]

Put that in Google translate, it comes out nicely in English.

It has nothing to do with drone laws, but with basic people's rights. If you do it commercially, then there is also the issue of DSVGO - which is about what information you are allowed to store about people, including images of said people.

Thank you. I do understand German.

What you have quoted appears to be German common law.

However, apparently the German Supreme Court has decided otherwise.
Street photography is legal in Germany. Street photography is considered an art form, and creating art is within your constitutional rights. No permission is needed to photograph individuals in public. It is only the publishing of such images that may require permission under certain circumstances, if the subject is recognizable, and the subject objects. Even then, the courts may decide that your constitutional right to create art outweighs their right to their own image! See below.

Doing Street Photography in Berlin

Berlin is a wonderful city for street photography. Before getting into the street photography part let me give some background information about Berlin. Berlin is the capital of Germany and as such a big city with 3.5 million inhabitants. More importantly Berlin is a vast city, New York has more...

fujilove.com

But isn’t street photography “verboten” in Germany? ​

"Is street photography allowed in Germany? That is the question I get asked a lot by visitors from abroad. The short answer is “YES”. Street photography is allowed in Germany. And there is a very active street photography scene in Germany. Recently the German Supreme Court ruled that street photography is to be considered as an art form – and creating art is within your constitutional rights. Things get a bit more complicated when you want to publish your image. If your subject is recognizable, this person has a right to its own image and may object to publication. In that case it would be for the courts to decide which right ranks higher in that particular case."

=======

This citation is corroborated by thousands of others, by merely googling, "Is street photography legal in Germany?"

Here is another:

Photography laws in Germany

If you take or share photos of other people in Germany, you need to follow certain rules.

allaboutberlin.com

 

[codex22]

Didn't know we're talking about "street photography" now . But well, if it would be that easy ...

In the link you provided there is just one image in which there is one identifiable (!) person as the main subject. The others are either crowds or mostly blurred. Do we know whether that one individual gave consent or not?

There is the conflict of the rights to express yourself as an artist and the rights of an individual to his/her privacy.

If it comes to going to court, these conflicting rights will be judged against each other, and every case is different. And of course it also matters what you do with the pictures. Especially since the introduction of DSVGO it has become even more complicated.

I leave it up to you to judge whether taking a picture with a drone on top of a hotel of a woman wearing a bikini in a pool is so much art that it supersedes the lady's privacy rights ... just to not forget what we were actually discussing before.

In Germany I don't take pictures of people in public without consent anymore, it's just not worth the trouble you will get in. I have been confronted by security personal, police and of course the people themselves. If you like confrontation, then go ahead - and remember, when it gets as far as going to court, your chances to sell your work as so artful to win the case are pretty slim imho.

 

[MS Coast]

I'll offer this as a summary based on my observations and opinions.

Regarding the use of drones to observe or photograph people without their consent ... In the particular situation described by the original poster and in general.

Is it legal? It may be. The examples of laws prohibiting it that have been cited here all seem to prohibit only sharing or publishing photographs and videos.

Is it objectionable to the general public? Yes.

Does it contribute to the negative feelings many people have about drones? Yes

Is it an appropriate activity for drone pilots that most members of this forum condone? No.

 

[PAW]

This has probably gone on long enough, but legal or not, perceptions by the public can have a greater impact on us than the law.
The quote, "Some guys here go around, and video girls they don't know, and put it on YouTube. Why else do you think DJI put a zoom lens on the mavic 3?" is just the type of ammo that can be used against all of us in the public perception battle.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Didn't know we're talking about "street photography" now . But well, if it would be that easy ...

In the link you provided there is just one image in which there is one identifiable (!) person as the main subject. The others are either crowds or mostly blurred. Do we know whether that one individual gave consent or not?

There is the conflict of the rights to express yourself as an artist and the rights of an individual to his/her privacy.

If it comes to going to court, these conflicting rights will be judged against each other, and every case is different. And of course it also matters what you do with the pictures. Especially since the introduction of DSVGO it has become even more complicated.

I leave it up to you to judge whether taking a picture with a drone on top of a hotel of a woman wearing a bikini in a pool is so much art that it supersedes the lady's privacy rights ... just to not forget what we were actually discussing before.

In Germany I don't take pictures of people in public without consent anymore, it's just not worth the trouble you will get in. I have been confronted by security personal, police and of course the people themselves. If you like confrontation, then go ahead - and remember, when it gets as far as going to court, your chances to sell your work as so artful to win the case are pretty slim imho.

Street photography is the best legal analogy to what the OP is doing by photographing people in public, where the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and is being photographed in public without prior consent.

Any image in the link I provided had nothing to do with the legality of taking the original unblurred image . The cited German Supreme Court case ruled that the taking of the photograph is perfectly legal. The balancing test you refer to only applies when you want to publish said image. The OP never made mention of wanting to publish his images. He was merely defending his right to take them. When his subjects are waving at him, instead of giving him the bird, it's hard to find fault even morally. On the other hand, if they flip him off, prudence would dictate moving along!

There are lots of legal activities that one would wisely still choose not to do. Your own choice not to photograph people in public without permission is certainly a reasonable one. Far better to have their cooperation and collaboration for a better image!

It could be argued that he is seeking subjects that are willing to be photographed, as demonstrated by their waving at the drone. As long as he isn't annoying anyone in the process, and avoids anyone who is annoyed, everyone wins. The girls get the attention they are seeking, and he is flattering them by filming them.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I'll offer this as a summary based on my observations and opinions.

Regarding the use of drones to observe or photograph people without their consent ... In the particular situation described by the original poster and in general.

Is it legal? It may be. The examples of laws prohibiting it that have been cited here all seem to prohibit only sharing or publishing photographs and videos.

Is it objectionable to the general public? Yes.

Does it contribute to the negative feelings many people have about drones? Yes

Is it an appropriate activity for drone pilots that most members of this forum condone? No.

I would argue that it all depends upon the circumstances. If his goal is to find girls that wave at him and therefore want to be filmed, as long as he moves along when they clearly indicate they don't want to be filmed, how is it any different than a guy approaching any girl in person at the poolside and trying to befriend her? They are at a public hotel pool in a bikini where they know they will be seen, and attract attention.

 

[codex22]

Street photography is the best legal analogy to what the OP is doing by photographing people in public, where the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and is being photographed in public without prior consent.

Any image in the link I provided had nothing to do with the legality of taking the original unblurred image . The cited German Supreme Court case ruled that the taking of the photograph is perfectly legal. The balancing test you refer to only applies when you want to publish said image. The OP never made mention of wanting to publish his images. He was merely defending his right to take them. When his subjects are waving at him, instead of giving him the bird, it's hard to find fault even morally. On the other hand, if they flip him off, prudence would dictate moving along!

There are lots of legal activities that one would wisely still choose not to do. Your own choice not to photograph people in public without permission is certainly a reasonable one. Far better to have their cooperation and collaboration for a better image!

It could be argued that he is seeking subjects that are willing to be photographed, as demonstrated by their waving at the drone. As long as he isn't annoying anyone in the process, and avoids anyone who is annoyed, everyone wins. The girls get the attention they are seeking, and he is flattering them by filming them.

Now you're assuming that the persons in the images were blurred after taking the pictures? I disagree. Street photographers I know work with long shutter speeds to make sure people moving by are blurred, so if confronted they can show the pictures on the camera to prove that no individual can be identified.

You're ignoring that the Supreme Court ruled that art versus personal rights has to be evaluated and each case has to be decided individually. You cannot just say "street photography is legal" as an absolute, you always have to weigh it against other rights, e.g. privacy of individuals! By the way, in the mentioned case the Supreme Court decided against the photographer due to the way he used the picture (not taking it, I give you that). Depending where interests lie, this court ruling is interpreted differently - street photographers celebrate it as "street photography is an art form", whereas privacy advocates say it "strengthens the rights of the individual".

I still doubt that taking a picture in a busy street is the same as taking one hundreds of feet up on top of a building in terms of expectation of privacy. Is this hotel pool really public? Can I just walk into that hotel and use the pool without being a registered guest at the place? Does this hotel have rules regarding photography in the pool area? In my 2nd home I live right next to a hotel with a nude beach, there are signs everywhere that forbid photography - which I won't see if I start my drone from the road outside and just fly over there. Does not seeing the signs make it legal to take pictures?

The laws here are complicated. You can walk around and take pics of historic buildings. As a photographer you might say, hey, if I use a little ladder to get to higher vantage point for a better pic - illegal. You can't use any tool to get higher than street level. What does that say about using a drone? This again isn't black or white, there are different rulings about that depending on the case.

Asking people for permission to take their pictures is of course a way to avoid the problems, but then you don't do real street photography anymore, as you don't catch people in the moment. Plus when it comes to sharing / publishing, you will still need to have proof that you had the consent.

Many approach this problem in a simple way - "wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter", which means as much as "where there is no complainant, there is no judge". You can take pics without anybody knowing, or at least without revealing your identity. And then keep the pictures to yourself. Or share them on Instagram with a few followers. As long as nobody sees the photo who can identify the person nothing will happen. Our fellow drone pilot surely can't be identified - at least not yet (RemoteID?). Does he delete the pics/videos of the persons who give him the finger? Has the annoyance not already happened when the drone shows up, with the targeted persons not knowing whether pics have been taken or not?

Anyways, let's just agree to disagree. This has already taken up too much time that we should have used to fly our drones - in a senseful manner I hope ...

 

[MS Coast]

I would argue that it all depends upon the circumstances. If his goal is to find girls that wave at him and therefore want to be filmed, as long as he moves along when they clearly indicate they don't want to be filmed, how is it any different than a guy approaching any girl in person at the poolside and trying to befriend her? They are at a public hotel pool in a bikini where they know they will be seen, and attract attention.

That sounds uncomfortably close to "She was asking for it."


One has to wonder what the universal signal is for clearly indicating you don't want to be filmed while someone is inspecting you with a drone to determine whether you're a "good one" as the OP said? Waving only a middle finger?

how is it any different than a guy approaching any girl in person at the poolside and trying to befriend her?

Ask a few women and see what they say.

 

[MaxHam]

The laws here are complicated. You can walk around and take pics of historic buildings. As a photographer you might say, hey, if I use a little ladder to get to higher vantage point for a better pic - illegal. You can't use any tool to get higher than street level. What does that say about using a drone?

I'm German as well and in my job (mostly in the US) I am often confronted with 'street level' photography copyright implications. I don't find it complicated, it's pretty well explained by nation under this term in Wikipedia, you probably know this:
Freedom Of Panorama
This eye-level thing, not using a ladder, man lift, drone etc is obviously aimed at people trying to take a peak over a hedge/wall intruding private space. Makes all sense to me.
If you need to get higher, depending on what you want to shoot, I find it quite relaxed in regards to permitting/consent of parties involved. This is US/German experience.

I agree with everything you said so far. Greetings to my home country!

 

[codex22]

Greetings to my home country!

I will greet our home country when I'm back there in about 4 weeks - I promise!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Now you're assuming that the persons in the images were blurred after taking the pictures? I disagree. Street photographers I know work with long shutter speeds to make sure people moving by are blurred, so if confronted they can show the pictures on the camera to prove that no individual can be identified.

You're ignoring that the Supreme Court ruled that art versus personal rights has to be evaluated and each case has to be decided individually. You cannot just say "street photography is legal" as an absolute, you always have to weigh it against other rights, e.g. privacy of individuals! By the way, in the mentioned case the Supreme Court decided against the photographer due to the way he used the picture (not taking it, I give you that). Depending where interests lie, this court ruling is interpreted differently - street photographers celebrate it as "street photography is an art form", whereas privacy advocates say it "strengthens the rights of the individual".

I still doubt that taking a picture in a busy street is the same as taking one hundreds of feet up on top of a building in terms of expectation of privacy. Is this hotel pool really public? Can I just walk into that hotel and use the pool without being a registered guest at the place? Does this hotel have rules regarding photography in the pool area? In my 2nd home I live right next to a hotel with a nude beach, there are signs everywhere that forbid photography - which I won't see if I start my drone from the road outside and just fly over there. Does not seeing the signs make it legal to take pictures?

The laws here are complicated. You can walk around and take pics of historic buildings. As a photographer you might say, hey, if I use a little ladder to get to higher vantage point for a better pic - illegal. You can't use any tool to get higher than street level. What does that say about using a drone? This again isn't black or white, there are different rulings about that depending on the case.

Asking people for permission to take their pictures is of course a way to avoid the problems, but then you don't do real street photography anymore, as you don't catch people in the moment. Plus when it comes to sharing / publishing, you will still need to have proof that you had the consent.

Many approach this problem in a simple way - "wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter", which means as much as "where there is no complainant, there is no judge". You can take pics without anybody knowing, or at least without revealing your identity. And then keep the pictures to yourself. Or share them on Instagram with a few followers. As long as nobody sees the photo who can identify the person nothing will happen. Our fellow drone pilot surely can't be identified - at least not yet (RemoteID?). Does he delete the pics/videos of the persons who give him the finger? Has the annoyance not already happened when the drone shows up, with the targeted persons not knowing whether pics have been taken or not?

Anyways, let's just agree to disagree. This has already taken up too much time that we should have used to fly our drones - in a senseful manner I hope ...

At the very least, we agree that arguments can be made for either side. It's not clear cut either way. It all depends upon the circumstances and the jurisdiction. For the most part, it is the publication of such images that commands greater scrutiny, rather than the taking of the images in the first place. Fly on!

 

[GadgetGuy]

That sounds uncomfortably close to "She was asking for it."


One has to wonder what the universal signal is for clearly indicating you don't want to be filmed while someone is inspecting you with a drone to determine whether you're a "good one" as the OP said? Waving only a middle finger?



Ask a few women and see what they say.

"Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter."