Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Taking Photos Without Permission Now Illegal in Hungary

If this idea spread to enough countries, it would be practically impossible to report any news. Imagine photographs of civil unrest - could a journalist get an angry mob to pause for an hour or so while everybody signed a model release form?

A massive percentage of the image contents of the internet would have to be removed - who's going to trawl through that lot picking out pictures of people in countries which have imposed this law?
It's a ludicrous law, and hopefully an ideal opportunity for the opposition political parties in Hungary to win votes by pledging to remove it.

And here's a thought - The UK has the most CCTV cameras per capita in the world. If I don't approve of being constantly monitored on CCTV wherever I go, would they switch them all off?
 
agreed people

also, what about tourists?

are they to wait for days until a scene is totally cleared out or should they take consecutive photographs and median them out...:confused:
 
Inconveniencing tourists and street photographers is merely an inconsequential side effect to what is ultimately meant to reduce transparency in society and stifle freedom of information. Considering they already have a law that prohibits publishing photos of police officers without blurring their faces (WTF???), I doubt the concern was about the privacy of people walking along the Chain Bridge in Budapest as numerous tourists and travel photographers aim at them.

This law is outrageous in its implications, and I suspect enforcement will only be seriously considered when it is beneficial to the local authorities.
 
This opens up another huge issue. If someone on the street merely believes a photographer has taken their photograph - what is the protocol? Do they confront the photographer? Do they call the cops? How does a photographer prove they didn't take a photograph? Just because you some images on the viewfinder, doesn't mean you are seeing all the photos.

I can see this leading to street level blackmail as nefarious folks threaten to call the cops on photographers, unless they''re paid off, for photos that the photographer may not have taken. I suspect tourists will be especially targeted since they won't know the law.

If I was a camera club in Hungary I would organize a day when hundreds of members go out and flaunt the law, either as the photographer or as a un-cooperative subject. Make so many criminal complaints the police stations and courts clog up. They could totally bung up the system in a day, if they had enough members working at it.
 
snberk103 said:
This opens up another huge issue. If someone on the street merely believes a photographer has taken their photograph - what is the protocol? Do they confront the photographer? Do they call the cops? How does a photographer prove they didn't take a photograph? Just because you some images on the viewfinder, doesn't mean you are seeing all the photos.
Click to expand...

I was taking pictures on public street last summer with my least subtle configuration. During a point of transition I was just holding it up and a guy got nervous and confronted me. I assured him no shots were taken and offered to show him my screen. He accepted this and that was the end. Until I got around the corner and started shooting a group. The center one got similarly indignant. So I deleted all photos of the group, immediately.

Had either not believed me, I would have shown them the 334/335 numbers and explained how the count shows position 'in the role'. Ultimately, we need to ask before shooting people. Give those who are reluctant the power to opt out.
 
ElectronGuru said:
I was taking pictures on public street last summer with my least subtle configuration. During a point of transition I was just holding it up and a guy got nervous and confronted me. I assured him no shots were taken and offered to show him my screen. He accepted this and that was the end. Until I got around the corner and started shooting a group. The center one got similarly indignant. So I deleted all photos of the group, immediately.

Had either not believed me, I would have shown them the 334/335 numbers and explained how the count shows position 'in the role'. Ultimately, we need to ask before shooting people. Give those who are reluctant the power to opt out.
Click to expand...

I agree. And of course when the folks involved are genuinely concerned a little openness and trust is usually all that is needed. But with this new law, what would have happened if either of your subjects had not believed you? At that point they may feel that this new law authorizes them to confiscate 'evidence', for example. It may only happen rarely, but it does hugely complicate things for some photographers, potentially.
 
I have to agree with what is being stated here in that some people do not like to be photographed and have that right to object. Would never disagree with that. I also understand why police would want their faces blurred as they have families to protect from people they have to deal with on the streets.

I can also see why media photographers would find this ridiculous. But the law is the law. What are the paparazzi in Hungary going to do now?
 
firedept said:
I have to agree with what is being stated here in that some people do not like to be photographed and have that right to object. Would never disagree with that. I also understand why police would want their faces blurred as they have families to protect from people they have to deal with on the streets.

I can also see why media photographers would find this ridiculous. But the law is the law. What are the paparazzi in Hungary going to do now?
Click to expand...

I know of no other country where an officer of law needs to have their face blurred on published photos. They walk around the streets with their faces uncovered, with their uniforms and badges visible - they are not hiding from anyone. They are not Batmen and anonymity is the opposite of what they have.

Seriously, if anyone thinks this law was designed to "protect" civilians from paparazzi, creepy street photographers and the like - I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. The real issue is the ability to document and report cases of police brutality, civil unrest, and anything else that an incumbent government would rather keep under wraps.
 
snberk103 said:
I agree. And of course when the folks involved are genuinely concerned a little openness and trust is usually all that is needed. But with this new law, what would have happened if either of your subjects had not believed you? At that point they may feel that this new law authorizes them to confiscate 'evidence', for example. It may only happen rarely, but it does hugely complicate things for some photographers, potentially.
Click to expand...

In between the two moments mention above I captured this:


_MG_1738.jpg by ToWhit - Portraits from the Whiteaker, on Flickr


I don't know that this group would have been particularly receptive to being 'caught' but my biggest issue with asking is loss of the moment. You ask and then get poses and then all candid ness goes right out the window. People taking people pictures are usually trying not to mimic vacation snaps.

The part I find interesting is that how we react matters less about the camera or the guy holding it or even what we are doing. What matters is what we think the image itself will be doing. Folks fight to get in front of a camera if they know its the shot that will end up on the stadium screen or the holy grail, on TV. So part of my strategy is showing that I'm just an amateur guy sharing portraits from my area.

As with most laws, this is the result of someone somewhere going to far enough times that the society decided to do something about it. Maybe this is the best way to keep that guy under control or maybe he just ruined it for everyone.
 
ElectronGuru said:
In between the two moments mention above I captured this:
...
I don't know that this group would have been particularly receptive to being 'caught' but my biggest issue with asking is loss of the moment. You ask and then get poses and then all candid ness goes right out the window. People taking people pictures are usually trying not to mimic vacation snaps.

The part I find interesting is that how we react matters less about the camera or the guy holding it or even what we are doing. What matters is what we think the image itself will be doing. Folks fight to get in front of a camera if they know its the shot that will end up on the stadium screen or the holy grail, on TV. So part of my strategy is showing that I'm just an amateur guy sharing portraits from my area.

As with most laws, this is the result of someone somewhere going to far enough times that the society decided to do something about it. Maybe this is the best way to keep that guy under control or maybe he just ruined it for everyone.
Click to expand...

Wise words. All I know for sure is that I'm glad I don't have to contend with this law. I don't tend to take people's photos without their permission - but I don't do street photography. However if someone (mistakenly) believes I have taken their photo at least I don't need to worry about it escalating to point of involving the police.

For the record, I don't believe that photos of police officer's faces should be blurred (with rare exceptions). They are public servants, serving in public. It is rare (at least in Canada) for an officer's family to be targeted. Any criminal who wants to get revenge merely has to look at their own arrest report… the officer's name is right there.
 
themumu said:
I know of no other country where an officer of law needs to have their face blurred on published photos. They walk around the streets with their faces uncovered, with their uniforms and badges visible - they are not hiding from anyone. They are not Batmen and anonymity is the opposite of what they have.

Seriously, if anyone thinks this law was designed to "protect" civilians from paparazzi, creepy street photographers and the like - I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. The real issue is the ability to document and report cases of police brutality, civil unrest, and anything else that an incumbent government would rather keep under wraps.
Click to expand...

My paparazzi question was completely separate from my police comment and was meant more towards humour.
 
firedept said:
My paparazzi question was completely separate from my police comment and was meant more towards humour.
Click to expand...

I get the joke, but it does seem that a lot of people are genuinely concerned about the effect this will have on casual street photography. Ultimately, as many have already found out, even if there is no law prohibiting street photography in their jurisdiction, some accidental subjects will still try and go after the photographer, if not with legal action, then at least with intimidation (works in most cases).
 
I find this law troubling. It will be interesting to see how the application of this unfolds, it may turn out to be simply unworkable. It will also have a huge impact on the cultural, social, and historical record of the country. Can you imagine the situation in 100 years when archivists and historians look back and discover there is absolutely no visual record for this period.

I will also comment that I absolutely disagree with comments on this thread regarding people objecting to having their photo taken. If they are in a public space, and the laws of the land state that taking photos of any individual in a public space is legal, then tough luck. If you want to opt out of this situation, either don't go out in public, or petition your politicians to change the law.
 
That was a really hard law.
but how does that impact surveillance, i would mean if you can not take photos then any kind of video will be banned to?

I think the law is a problem for tourism since only people who take pictures a lot look into laws about photography before traveling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back