More and more, i see people wearing these ‘smart’ glasses as sunglasses which i find totally creepy and intrusive. Living in the EU, i am wondering how these glasses are even ‘allowed’ in public or may even be sold here. It becomes harder to avoid cause they become so hard to identify. How to deal with this? To what extend is this allowed? (cause apparently it is some way)
Less and less so; at least here in France and in Germany and also in the UK, which was quite surprising to me. In the EU, the GDRP being another nail in the coffin of the right of photographing on public space and photographing random people in that public space. Most of the cases I’ve heard of in the last few years ended up with the plaintiff winning against the photographer, even if the picture was not exploited professionally.
Smart glasses will raise a new flag and push all rules to the next level of paranoia (rightfully so, I’m afraid) and will then be used as an excuse to remove even more of our liberty to use public space (which is supposed to be ours).
Edit: clarifications.
I think you are mistaken. In Germany public photography is legal as long as it is not your intend to photograph/monitor individuals. They can totally be part of the image, just not the focus. Videos are also legal as long as it is not targeted or constant indiscriminate monitoring.
I don’t think other EU countries have largely different laws given how common dashcams are.
I was vlogging in Berlin and there were some turkish street scammers and I caught on camera when sb got pickpocketed and the officers told me that I’ll be getting in trouble.
Police officers? The main issue here is that those laws are about balance. Balance of your rights and the persons’ you are filming. There are some general rules and a large grey area.
In general your vlogging isn’t an issue. However, if you knowingly start recording a specific person e.g. a busker, or in your case a street scammer, things become more difficult - especially because you are vlogging. The expectation that you are going to upload the video makes it unlikely that you are just recording for evidence.
I am not a lawyer. I think the police promarily tried to de-escalate here.
Many EU countries have their own different laws about this stuff. The GDPR likely does not apply here because of the exception for “purely personal and household activities”, article 2(2)©.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, anyone is more than welcome to do what they want. I simply noticed how frequently justice decisions started to punish the photographer, whether the photo was destined at some personal use or not, whether it was sold or not.
I’m no lawyer. I simply don’t want to waste anymore of my time, and money, dealing with that kind of shit. It’s not worth it… to me at least but, once again, I won’t prevent anyone else to keep doing photography like if nothing had changed if that’s what they want… I may even sketch them if I see them taking their chance doing that ;)
that would mean the death of street photography. Do you have any sources for those cases?
photographing in public space is still a right. There are exceptions, but they are understandable.
it very much depends on the context.
https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/murielle-isabelle-cahen/article-2969238-a-t-on-le-droit-de-photographier-des-inconnus-dans-la-rue.html
1. Les limites du droit à l'image Bien que le droit à l'image soit un principe fondamental, il existe certaines exceptions qui permettent une captation et une diffusion d'images sans le consentement préalable de la personne photographiée. Ces exceptions sont généralement liées à des intérêts publics ou à des contextes spécifiques : - Les lieux publics et le droit à l'information : Dans les espaces publics, la captation d'images est souvent permise, notamment dans le cadre d'événements d'intérêt général (manifestations, cérémonies, etc.). Cependant, même dans ces cas, la diffusion de ces images peut être soumise à des conditions strictes. Par exemple, la diffusion d'une image prise lors d'un événement public ne doit pas dénaturer le propos ou porter atteinte à la réputation des personnes présentes. - Les personnes publiques : Les personnalités publiques, telles que les politiciens, les artistes ou les sportifs, bénéficient d'une protection moins stricte de leur droit à l'image. En effet, leur statut entraîne une certaine forme de renonciation à ce droit lorsqu'ils apparaissent dans des contextes liés à leur activité professionnelle. Toutefois, cela ne signifie pas qu'ils sont dépourvus de droits ; toute exploitation commerciale de leur image nécessite souvent une autorisation. - L'usage artistique : Dans le cadre de la création artistique, certaines œuvres peuvent utiliser des images de personnes identifiables sans leur consentement, à condition que l'œuvre ait un caractère artistique et ne porte pas atteinte à la dignité de la personne représentée. Cette notion est cependant sujette à interprétation et peut donner lieu à des litiges.i mean you would be allowed to wear it in germany, but recordings or pictures would only be allowed if the recorded person agrees