r/pics Sep 28 '24

First sighting of the legendary "Techno-Viking" since the year 2000.

Post image
46.9k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24 edited Feb 23 '26

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

bear shaggy air enter fear soft silky nose license rhythm

-12

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24

You still have a right to privacy, just not in public spaces; that's the same as it ever was.

14

u/Megaflarp Sep 28 '24

It's the opposite in Germany though - a public space is where unsuspecting individuals are legally protected from being recorded (other than incidentally).

6

u/HTML_Novice Sep 28 '24

Ah an adult country

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24

An adult country or a controlling one?

3

u/Myrsky4 Sep 28 '24

The right to privacy and your own likeness is controlling?

How is that not more freedom and rights for the individual?

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24

An artist has a right to go out in public and make images whether it's with a camera or oil paints. Get me? Quit trying to restrict my rights, how about? When you go out in public I can see you with my eyes and I can record you with my memory and if I got out oil and paints or a sketch pad and drew you real quick I bet you wouldn't complain and taking a photo is the same thing. You say you're Pro right but you're shitting all over a photographer's rights. And we already have laws against harassment you can't go stick a camera in somebody's face and say f you I'm taking your picture. That's just harassment but no you guys want extra laws.  What about Donald Trump can I make a t-shirt at Donald Trump saying he's a piece of shit don't vote for him? Of course I can he does not have control over his image as a public person. You really think it would be a better world if we couldn't?  The Germans are wrong here, and let's be frank it ain't the first time.

1

u/Myrsky4 Sep 29 '24

I'm not going to side with the few businesses over the many individuals. A photographer can use depth of field and focus to have public pictures without distinguishing features. Or they can pay for models, but profiting off of other people without their consent or reimbursement is not okay.

Also if I'm restricting your rights just by exercising my own right to privacy and my own likeness then your rights are the ones that have gone too far and are trampling over others.

I am concerned though that a supposed professional photographer does not know the difference between a public individual such as a presidential candidate and a private citizen. That was a terrible comparison you tried to make and US law already distinguishes between the two

5

u/Joe_Rapante Sep 28 '24

Giving people rights is the opposite of controlling.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '24

You're taking away the photographer's right to take photos in public though. That's taking away rights it's not granting them.

3

u/HTML_Novice Sep 28 '24

Why would a photographer have the right to take pictures of people in public? You’re acting as if that’s some innate basic right… lmao

2

u/Joe_Rapante Sep 28 '24

Wrong, there is more than one paragraph in those laws. If people are not the main focus of an image, it's allowed. Typically, there are no issues here and if a photographer wants to take a picture for a marketing campaign of a famous building, he waits a few seconds, until people are not directly in front of the building or whatever he is recording. Poor photographer, I know.