Data Protection...?

“Therefore, this Office strongly recommends that when the photographer intends to publish or commercially use a photograph clearly identifying a data subject”

Says it all really. To the lawmakers, were just data subjects.

The problem is, we let them get away with it.
Political correctness, health and safety, data protection has all gone mad.
 
Dave70D said:
As I am not really clued up on this, does that mean if I take a photo of some bloke just sitting and doing what ever I then have to ask him if it`s fine to publish it ?
Click to expand...


Christ knows.

You need to be able to speak legalese, read between the lines and bribe someone I'd have thought.
 
I notice it is explicit in regard to the face being the prime identifier for the purposes of the document but cynic that I am, no doubt somewhen in future someone somewhere will report that they are identifiable because of their unique clothing and hairstyle!

Remains to be seen when we get law firm adverts ~ "has someone taken your photo without your consent, at Bloggs & Co we can help you claim what is rightfully yours....."

Does this aspect of GDPR and Data Protection pass the 'common sense' test???

PS looks like I might have delete the very few pictures on 500px that have people in them!

PPS like the way family photography has gone from the baby pics in album passed round at get togethers to all digital & social media. I fear that future generations when history is read there will many fewer photographic records of the 'lives of people'. C'est la vie :(
 
Last edited:
I was thinking it wouldn't only be photographers this affects.

Would it mean that TV news reporting will have to blur the faces of individual passers by when they show footage of a high street for example? Also, if they are doing a live broadcast and people pass by in the background how does that work? They can't blur faces while going out live, could they?

Bugger, I fancied having a shot at street photography. I'm not so sure now.
 
Surely its just a late April 1st joke?

Just imagine if this was true... that classic pic of the couple kissing in Times Square in 1945 would not be published... along with many other pics!
 
cambsno said:
Surely its just a late April 1st joke?

Just imagine if this was true... that classic pic of the couple kissing in Times Square in 1945 would not be published... along with many other pics!
Click to expand...

It's EU law. Of course it's ill thought out and is probably true.
Just like the cookies law which now does nothing but mean you have to tick a box on every website
 
I'd take the advice more seriously if it wasn't riddled with typos. Just makes me wonder if it's authentic?
 
ecoleman said:
It's EU law. Of course it's ill thought out and is probably true.
Just like the cookies law which now does nothing but mean you have to tick a box on every website
Click to expand...
Or go into the setting and deny them, which is generally what I do. If the site says it can't function correctly without permission, I leave. Thats generally for sites I infrequently visit, for more regular ones I tend to allow certain cookies.

Edit: Mind you with the recent news that google track your location even when you ask them not too, I'm not certain it makes a difference if you give permission or not.
 
Last edited:
JohnX said:
I'd take the advice more seriously if it wasn't riddled with typos. Just makes me wonder if it's authentic?
Click to expand...
The website it is linked to is Maltese - nothing I can find regarding data protection on the Gov.uk website relating to this.
 
jakeblu said:
Or go into the setting and deny them, which is generally what I do. If the site says it can't function correctly without permission, I leave. Thats generally for sites I infrequently visit, for more regular ones I tend to allow certain cookies.

Edit: Mind you with the recent news that google track your location even when you ask them not too, I'm not certain it makes a difference if you give permission or not.
Click to expand...

Cookies are an integral part of most websites. There isn't an online shop in the world that can't work without cookies. Cookies are used to store session data, cart contents, currency choice, language choice etc. Not all cookies are tracking you. Just because a website can't work without cookies does not make them bad.

Unfortunately the EU have made cookies out to be a bad thing and many customers don't really understand what they are and what they are used for.
 
Bythesea said:
The website it is linked to is Maltese - nothing I can find regarding data protection on the Gov.uk website relating to this.
Click to expand...
Malta is part of the EU and its an EU directive. I've read somewhere recently, but can't find it now, its actually a piece of legislation the UK was heavily involved in and likely to continue after Brexit.

There's a piece on the RPS site about its implications
 
Last edited:
If you go to the UK website ico.org.uk there is an extremely long set of pages relating to the GDPR. I searched the whole of the ICO website (which includes these GDPR pages) for the word "photo" and there were 20 hits. Most were relating to photos of children, but none seemed relevant to street photography.
 
jakeblu said:
The piece on the SRPS site seems fairly balanced and not overly concerned.

http://www.rps.org/special-interest...ogs/2018/february/gdpr-and-street-photography
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that and one of the comments I thought was particularly relevant was where the poster had contacted the ICO whose reply was:

"The GDPR allows member states to introduce exemptions/derogations. These will be set out in the Data Protection Bill - it's likely there will be a similar exemption for personal data processed for the purposes of "journalism, literature and art" but as the Bill has not yet been approved and adopted by Parliament, we can't yet confirm what those exemptions will be.

In relation to street portraits of individuals; these will not be 'biometric' data."
 
JohnX said:
I'd take the advice more seriously if it wasn't riddled with typos. Just makes me wonder if it's authentic?
Click to expand...

Bythesea said:
The website it is linked to is Maltese - nothing I can find regarding data protection on the Gov.uk website relating to this.
Click to expand...

Just another scare story from a barrack room lawyer with nothing better to do.

For real details of how our government sees GDPR relating to photography, it’s all on the website and written much more clearly than this nonsense.
 
Hopefully someone will see sense and realise that this just isn't 'police-able'. Any filming in public would just about have to stop?
 
ecoleman said:
I think we should all wear Burkas when leaving the house.
Click to expand...

I am sort of considering this when I am out and about in some hellhole. I looks refreshingly fashionable when driving a your big SUV or when going to a bank. Good luck with your AI-based facial recognition CCTV suckers!

it is cheap too.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Hopefully someone will see sense and realise that this just isn't 'police-able'. Any filming in public would just about have to stop?
Click to expand...

They will just write exceptions for the big players. EU institutions are already exempt from GDPR.
 
Thanks for the replies, it came up at a camera club meeting and provoked some interesting discussions. As people have said, its impossible to police as everyone has a camera phone these days!
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Fingers crossed it is!
Click to expand...
No, it definitely is.

Actual details are available in plain English on the UK GOV website, which again helpfully is called Gov.uk

This ‘article’ isn’t even written in proper f*****g English, or published in the UK.

It’s only relevant to the kind of people who send their bank details in return from those emails HMRC send out about tax refunds.

It should never have made it to here except as a ‘have you seen this load of b****x’ thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top