American reacts to TOTALLY DIFFERENT Privacy Laws in Germany

Thank you for watching me, a humble American, react to Photography in Germany: What tourists need to know
Original video: • Photography in Germany...
Thanks for subscribing for more German reactions every weekday!
Join as a member to get the ridiculous emojis and badge!
/ @ryanwass
Got a video request? You can fill out this form!
forms.gle/gmHJ...
Got a fun local news story? Submit it here!
forms.gle/FvRA...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS

[@MichaEl-rh1kv]

German law (as well as Austrian and Swiss law, but also Italian law) recognizes the "Recht am eigenen Bild" (right on pictures taken from you) as part of personality rights - the copyright by the imaged person can override the copyright by the photographer. Exceptions are generally images of "persons of public interest" taken in public (= not in private situations) or images showing people at public events (if not deliberately concentrating on a single person).

[@hushus10021971]

Also in Denmark. Here it's "Privatlivets Fred" (pease of privat life) It's in our danish constitution

[@sfred2978]

Also in the Netherlands

[@alanarixxx4860]

This does not stop at photos. This whole deep fake sex tape thing that happened to Taylor Swift would have been very illegal without her consent to the use of her image. Very wild moment for me when I found out that the legal response to the tape was "it's complicated, maybe this will change things now".

[@-Gothicgirl-]

The recht am eigenen Bild doesnt care if you not public the picture because kunsturheberrecht allow to make pictures of everyone in the public area when you not public it

[@MiaMerkur]

​@@alanarixxx4860 And I winder what legal changes have ti be made with KI implemented fake pics and videos.

[@MrsStrawhatberry]

I think many Europeans were also raised to think that taking pictures of strangers is impolite. So even if it is not illegal to do when someone is not ‚in the focus‘ I‘d say people would also not do it for that reason. And this is also why people get offended when they think you take a picture of them/with them in it.

[@xrecix]

ahh that's why i find it so weird and also feel a little bit i guess guilty when i take a picture in public when people are in it, it's a cultural thing, right?

[@MiaMerkur]

But IF I want to photograph a stranger there IS a reason. And when I ask maybe, may I take a foto of your hat? About 40% says yes, goes back and gives opportunity with a smile. 40% says yes, but I do not want to be recognized ( and I show them the pic as footage). And only 20% grumply yells a "no!".

[@MrsStrawhatberry]

@@xrecix I think so, yes. It’s something you were taught not to do. I often catch myself wondering why people don’t complain when I witness it happening abroad.

[@sandraankenbrand]

@@xrecixwhats weird about it? If you have my face you or someone else can easily do a lot of criminal stuff with it… also maybe I told someone I can’t come bc I’m sick and then I’m seen online being out having fun… its just: i don’t know you, I don’t know who you are and what you’re doing with the photo of myself… I’m bavarian, I traditionally go with my girls to eg the Octoberfest, we do wear traditional antique clothing - but we are not tourist attractions to be photographed and shown around like we would be a weird tribe… at least be polite enough to ask for permission! I myself waited already pretty often to make a shot the moment there is noone - mostly bc I want to have a shot of eg Angkor Wat and not of a thousand tourists in front, but yet still I think it might be annoying for simeone catching a weird face and posting it online.

[@xrecix]

​@@sandraankenbrand I'm from hessen, it actually doesn't even matter which state i'm from, but you didn't get my point quite well. If i want to photograph for an example a historic building people still might be in my picture, which is okay, but i still feel some sort of guilt that i might upset someone because they do not want to be photographed. i'm not talking about photographing single individuals, which is not allowed without a permission anyway.

[@Alias_Anybody]

You can boil it down to "crazy Karen cries in corner" type videos being illegal, while "Paul accidentally walking through shot of your wife 50m away" isn't.

[@Dalmen]

a Karen oder Daren is a person how call cops or cry on lawfull activitie not on unlawfull activities. Beside this, you are right.

[@ryanwass]

hahaha gotcha. The line could get blurred in interesting ways though

[@Alias_Anybody]

@@ryanwass Well, if you upload it to deliberately shame or embarrass a random civilian for cloud it's a pretty clear case.

[@friendlyreptile9931]

@@Dalmen But you didn't understand his comment. Even if she is crying about something unlawfull (or what she thinks it s), you are not allowed to film here while she does so and that was his point.

[@dinonuggies2276]

​@@Dalmennot really, a karen can still be a karen if shes being an annoying bitch to people who are doing something illegal but not bothering anyone

[@reBlink]

The Google Street View matter changed a bit and new footage is again available in Germany. Instead of the video shown at 1:23 I would suggest the Video by Matthias Schwarzer: How a small German Village killed Google Street View

[@kipchickensout]

living kinda near that village i never met anyone that lives there

[@pixelbartus]

@@kipchickensout you just have not recognized them, because they are also blurred in real life.

[@kipchickensout]

@@pixelbartus 😂

[@georgwinter8406]

Germany was the only modern country where street view wasn`t available. And now germany is the only country why you can get your house blurred out by request to google ^^

[@skn31]

Germany was known as "Blurmany", because only a few big cities used to be visible on Google Streetview before this change !

[@jimmyincredible3141]

"I assumed DB is government owned" Thats a can of worms you might want to leave closed :D

[@delqyrus2619]

It is actually pretty easy. DB is a private incorporated company owned by the government. There are a lot of companies owned by governments. The US have about 30 of them, like the Federal Financing Bank and so on.(There is a whole wikipedia article about "State-owned enterprises of the United States".)

[@pixelbartus]

@@delqyrus2619 I guess the "can of worms" is more about the history behind that status and how privatizing DB has made the company worse for the customers.

[@delqyrus2619]

@@pixelbartus I think many people romantisizing that situation. It isn't worse, it is just different. Some stuff became worse, some became better. The same goes by the way for the streets. For example the IGA(Autobahn GmbH des Bundes) is a similar corporation, which runs the highways(Autobahn) in Germany - private company, owned by the government.

[@klarasee806]

It’s definitely a can of worms, but PLEASE, Ryan, let the little critters out! 😉😎 It’s an interesting topic! There once was a time when people used the trains of the Deutsche Bahn to adjust their watches. That’s how punctual they were. And then… privatisation happened.

[@jimmyincredible3141]

@@delqyrus2619The can of worms I would avoid is peoples views on rail privatization, not the actual ownership structure behind DB... Although - its probably not even controversial ... just emotional :D

[@Paddeltroll]

The principle of privacy seems to be very difficult for Americans to understand. And no: you don't have to ask yourself permission before taking a selfie. Unless you sue yourself...

[@thorstenhaul6866]

Calm down guys. In public space its not as strict as you might think - just be kind and everything will be ok. Ryan: It is more complicated when schools or kindergarten want to publish pictures of festvities. In this case the school needs the ok of the specific parents!

[@jillbarnes199]

Same in the UK with schools

[@Gaston413]

Try filming the police in Germany and see how strict they are. In a critical situation (e.g. police violence), there is a chance that you will have to do without the recording device you are using for two years because it can be confiscated.

[@kipchickensout]

as a german I'm so paranoid, whenever someone is in my view-distance and even remotely in the direction I'm taking a picture in i feel bad af

[@voyance4elle]

same haha :D

[@MiaMerkur]

That is really paranoid.

[@desperadox7565]

That's a bit absurd.

[@MrHerrS]

One thing people seem to miss, regarding drones. 1. You need a drone piloting license for 90% of all drones, for example for the DJI Mavic 3. This includes an official test (multiple choice, appr. 30 minutes) you need to finish successful and of course have to pay for it. Each drone has a specific class and needs different (more complex) tests. 2. You need to register EVERY drone to the german equivalent of the FAA and register your license ID in the drones software and need to put a badge on your drone itself with your registration-ID. 3. You need to have a special drone liability insurance for EVERY drone. Even the ones you don't need a piloting license for. 4. Depending on the use-case of your flight and your drone class , you must comply to different rules specified in an official catalogue and depending on your drone class and use-case of your planned flight you might need an additional license. So, taking your drone from the states to germany (and many other european countries) and simply fly your drone miles away from civilisation IS AGAINST THE LAW. You most prob. need a drone piloting license, you definetly need to register your drone and you definetly need a drone liability insurance. Also there is an official map available with all the restricted drone-fly-zones. Have fun ^^

[@jancleve9635]

8:05 Okay, STORY TIME. I work as an eventmanager, we organise a pretty big Festival in the north. We also advertise a lot, usually with photos from the year before... We rented some billboards and than we got sued. A guy who was visible at the corner of the picture was a guest the year before... the problem was the woman in his arm... Not his wife, he worked in his father in laws company, lost wife and job because one of the billboards we rented were on the mainstreet of his village. Lost two days in court and the guy lost his case, because: A) He wasn´t the focus and B) if you visit our festival you agree being filmed (as we clearly state in our terms of service). I am not sure if there is a point to make here, maybe Karma is a bitch or don´t cheat on your wife...

[@MiaMerkur]

It is ... Do not cheat on your wife! 😅 ❤ I love your story. Made me smile. This might be a good reason why everybody should be allowed to take pics of everybody on parties and festvals and put online. Maybe over the time boys recognize Karma is Not a Bitch, but a friendly helper, for someone (else).

[@LonelyMind]

:D

[@dan_kay]

@@MiaMerkur And you still believe that cheating is a pure male problem? Bless your heart...

[@jancleve9635]

@@MiaMerkur Got one: Do not blame the eventmanager of the festival for your infedility. It steals time from judges, advocates and the Veranstalter/eventmanager. We already loose enough resources because of idiots and fanatics, who think driving into a crowd to kill and harm is a good idea. I don´t want to fortify my events like the green zone in Bagdad...

[@desperadox7565]

@@MiaMerkur Boys? I've seen at least as many girls cheating on their boyfriends, if not more.

[@reBlink]

8:04 If there are people who are clearly identifiable and the crowd is the main subject of the picture, you also have to ask them for permission to publish the picture. But there are some exceptions. This is the law translated: (1) Without the consent required under Section 22, the following may be distributed and displayed: 1. Portraits from the area of contemporary history; 2. Pictures in which the people only appear as accessories next to a landscape or other location; 3. Images of protests, processions and similar events in which the people depicted took part; 4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the distribution or display serves a greater interest of art. (2) However, the authority does not extend to distribution and display that violates a legitimate interest of the person depicted or, if the person is deceased, of their relatives.

[@t.a.k.palfrey3882]

KZbin videographers who wish to film inside a shop or supermarket, in most European countries, incl the UK, they must first obtain written permission from the shopkeeper. This is especially true if the video shows the shop's name or location. Individuals taking photos in a store just for personal use, not for commercial purposes, are OK in most cases, provided the photo is not purposely focussed on a person other than the photographer or his/her family.

[@paulozavala3232]

Not in Sweden. Never heard of that. Thats stupid.

[@aphextwin5712]

@@paulozavala3232There is always a blurry line. If you operate a sauna, you probably would want to have the ability to outlaw photography on your premises. But what a swimming pool or a hair dresser? Or a high end jewellery store? Or a sex shop?

[@vonBlankenburgLP]

The form of approval is not specified by law. Informal verbal approval or even - and this is often the case - implied action is sufficient.

[@T1m3thief]

My two cents towards the spirit of the law: first of all, laws are also moral statements and it primarily serves as a notification how you ought behave. Enforceability is a secondary concern regarding those who violate their duty towards others. Certain events change your status regarding "public interest" and your privacy rights. Being in an accident or participate in a demonstration puts you into the public interest and reduces your privacy rights, especially as the idea of a demonstration is to show your support for a cause. Being part of a crowd or scenery "conceals" you like a herd of zebra. In contrast, being the center of someone elses focus singles you out and the publication of that picture means that you as a Person gets exposed without public interest or your consent and this violates your right of privacy.

[@voyance4elle]

Perfectly said.

[@vonBlankenburgLP]

That's a very important point. Those videos can easily lead to the wrong conclusion that you better should not take any pictures in Germany unless you want to risk to end up in jail. This is far away from the truth. In 99.9% of all cases, nobody will even notice you taking the picture. Convictions under § 33 KUG are extremely rare. I have not even found an entry in the criminal statistics. Furthermore, this is a petition offense - the injured party must therefore actively file a complaint. Uninvolved third parties, including the police, do not have this right.

[@cadeeja.]

POV: Germans stare because they aren't allowed to take pictures of people to stare at them later. PS: I'm German and my name is Caren. Bam. Gotcha ^^

[@Dalmen]

In germany you have the rights on the picture of you....its a part of of the personal right law. If someone are just randomly in the picture, its is not the problem. If someone walks up and put his face into the camera..like the Hassbürger in the last video, he agrees to be filmed. The reason is that he puts himself as the main part of the image.

[@boelwerkr]

My understanding is: A camera is allowed to photograph what an human eye can see. You can't take out your eye and hold it over a wall, so don't do that with a camera. Your eye don't have infrared vision, so don't use that to peek beneath clothing. Your eye don't have a polarization filter to see through the reflection on windows, so don't do that. And so on. The don't focus on single persons or small groups is the "don't be a creep" part. And accidents are allowed. As long as you don't show intent, by example repeating the offense, taking special actions to commit the offense, or presenting the photograph in a way that focuses on an individual (cropping, burring the surrounding, encircling, etc) you're in the clear.

[@aphextwin5712]

In reality, it might come down to intent. You are allowed to wear polarised sunglasses. You thus probably are also allowed to take a picture of a house with a polarisation filter if you don’t do so with the intent to view inside the house.

[@martinhuhn7813]

The content is outdated, due to the more restrictive european law. The original german law allowed to publish pictures of people without consent in context of a panorama, which means, if they are not the motive but just in the picture. The european law however, restricts it to publishig without consent, only if the people are not recognizable. (the restrictions do not apply for the use of images by the press and there are other exceptions, but "I am a tourist and I want to put my vacation footage on the internet" is none of those exceptions). But you are still allowed to take the foto, no matter how much you are focusing (of cause, unless you break other laws). There are no accidental crimes there, you can fotograf people all day long. The rule restricts publishing, not taking pictures. That is different from the rule, that it is a crime to record non public conversations without consent. That is illegal without publication.

[@WantedVisual]

There's also the concept of intent in a crime. If you fill out your tax return to the best of your ability, it's possible your ability is sub-par. If you post a picture of your family having a picnic online, and don't notice the nudist rambler in the background peeing against a tree with your DSL capturing every crisp, glittering detail...Those things have a good chance of only being a crime once you refuse to correct your mistake.

[@Yotanido]

Something to keep in mind about "if you fly your drone high enough": If you end up in class E airspace, there are likely some additional restrictions on how to operate your drone or what equipment it must have. Be very careful about flying high up.

[@Helmut_aus_N]

and don't forget you need a drone licence if its heavyer than 250 grams...your drone needs a badge with Name and adress of owner...and so on...

[@franconianbike]

DB used to be a governmental thing, but was privatized in the 90's. Same for postal service or telecommunication.

[@aphextwin5712]

As mentioned above already, what about the Autobahn GmbH? Public or private?

[@franconianbike]

@@aphextwin5712A good question. Currently only partially private. Wouldn't be surprised, if it's privatized in the next couple of years.

[@franconianbike]

@@aphextwin5712aeh BTW. ... is there a GmbH? I'm currently not aware of that.

[@aphextwin5712]

@@franconianbike Search for ‘Autobahn GmbH’ to get more information. And how do you define partially private? Anything that uses the legal form of a private corporation but is still 100% owned by the state?

[@BennoWitter]

DB is a state-owned enterprise. It's organized like a private enterprise, but the state holds all of the shares.

[@NineBerry]

Deutsche Bahn is a private company, but 100% owned by the government.

[@helloweener2007]

The point of taking a picture of a place that has been taken a picture from a million times is that you have the copyright on your picture. You can do whatever you like with it.

[@reinhard8053]

As a photographer I like to take the photo myself for myself. I can put it in a blog without problems. And I don't understand the wish to be on every picture. Only to prove you were there ? I don't need a prove for myself. I want a clean(?) picture without many people (if not necessary) and certainly not with myself on the picture. I did some selfies, but only if I accomplished something, e.g. after reaching some mountain top. And these are not the main pictures.

[@nedludd7622]

In France also there are restrictions on taking identifiable pictures or making such videos of John Does or Jane Does in public and publishing them without their consent. I have warned a couple of American commentators in France about it when they have shown such photos and videos.

[@reinhard8053]

And they have different laws regarding photos of art. You can't publish a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night because the lighting is considered a copyrighted(?) art.

[@gruenerLutscher]

"a friendly local at the Brandenburg Gate took our picture"... yeah right, a friendly Berliner AND finding any local at a tourist hot spot in Berlin. things that never happened for 200 XD

[@Jeni10]

In Australia, you’re not allowed to take photos at the beach if you include other people. Bondi Rescue will have taught you that. Also for drones, it’s illegal to use them within 50 metres of people or private property.

[@haggihug3162]

An example of photographing people in crowds: You can take a photo of a crowd without asking the individuals. You can take a photo of a group without asking. I believe there are about 7 people or more... You can take a photo with a single identifiable person in it without asking, IF THE PERSON IS NOT THE SUBJECT of the photo. For example: You are photographing a car and there is a person standing nearby, but obviously, they are not the subject of the photo. What you cannot do: publish the image with a single person in it without permission. However, you can publish the crowd. What you cannot do: Use the crowd for marketing/advertising if individuals are identifiable. Something like this happened: The CDU (one of the major parties in Germany) made a poster advertising their party, showing a crowd standing in front of a well-known politician (who was giving a public speech). Unfortunately, one person was clearly recognizable in the foreground. He claimed he would never vote for the CDU and that they could not associate him with their political ideas. All posters had to be removed throughout Germany. The law regarding photographing people and property in Germany is complex. Even when it comes to art and copyright issues, it should be clear that this is not a pony farm.

[@alexia2189]

Nope, in some museums or churches with tourist flow, they put a tax for photos. If you want to photograph, you need to pay. Sometimes, the objects from the building can be damaged by the flash from your camera: painting on the church walls, old wooden or clay objects and so on.

[@alexia2189]

@@kirstenjakob1138 yes, this too. I remember when I was in uni we went to a Romanian monastery and one of my annoying colleagues, after we were told we are not allowed to take photos inside, not only did she took a photo in front of the nun, she put the flash on. The disrespect...

[@MiaMerkur]

​@@alexia2189Yes, I hate disrespectful people, too.

[@fenrisulfr8]

oh wow, I must've accidentally completely avoided these places in Italy and Germany. Is it that common?

[@BlaulichtRatingen]

To conclude the photo laws: As long you aren't going up to people holing your camera in their face or you are taking pictures of houses (except for really old and nice looking ones, for example in the cities) your're basically fine

You may photograph every house if you do this from public space.

[@Flamebeard0815]

Regarding the photos/videos taken in a supermarket: Just assume that the videographer recording has asked permission before/after making the video and definitely before publishing it. Most companies won't mind as long as you depict them in a positive way. Fun fact: they may rescind their permission at any point in time. So if, say, you take a video in a supermarket, stating obvious and/or neutral/positive things, but later on, you edit that into a video criticising said supermarket for any kind of stuff, true or not, they can rescind their permission and make you take down/edit out the video taken on their premises.

[@MarkusPalcer-u9m]

Since you asked about crowds and I didn't see an answer in the first comments: If you photograph a crowd (there were court rulings that a crowd starts at 4 ppl. I think) then it is legally not a photo of an individual anymore, so it's okay. I _assume_ if someone from the crowd tells you to not use the photo then it isn't anymore? In the end it boils down to "Respect the boundaries of others" as it should always when interacting with people - in both directions.

[@matzeberlin555]

5:32 Here in Germany there are very few people who really know the legal situation. Most people think they understand the essence, but are in a legal error. In fact, very often the taking of a photo is confused with the distribution of a photo. Taking a photo is usually legal. Publishing the photo is usually illegal (without permission). Many people have heard something about the “right to the image”, but unfortunately they didn’t understand what that meant. The Internet is full of confusing discussions in which people refer to the "right to their own image" i.e. the art copyright law and mistakenly believe that taking photographs itself is forbidden. In fact, the law mentioned is about the publication, distribution and display of photos, not about the taking of the photos. The ban on taking photos only applies to very few exceptions - accidents, drunk people, people in changing rooms, people on the tanning bed, people in their private rooms - photographed through a window, etc... And this ban is not in the Art Copyright Act but in the penal code written down. The law is less restrictive than people imagine. Another follow-up remark about the “hat citizen”: That man with the black, red and yellow fishing hat was in the wrong. The TV team had made no mistake. The scandal at the time was based on the fact that nearby police officers were unaware of the legal situation and harassed the TV team. The police leadership later apologized and promised that the police would receive better training in the future.

[@MiaMerkur]

Question: most publication websites/app do write: If you publish a pic ( insta, tiktok, pinterest, fb, yt,) THEY own it. Please tell me more about the legal ownership.

[@TaeNi95]

16:20 so true! We were on a roadtrip through Italy and we werent gonna use our phones much. We only took 1 or 2 photos OF US at the famous places or at the beach. But everyone else just like stood in front of Pisa tower just all getting the same picture. And I always said: "The picture is already online." Or "This picture has been taken a million times" I really dont see the point! I didnt even wanna take pictures of us there but I figured we wouldnt believe it a few years later haha. Yes we have been there ❤😂

[@LemmyD_from_Germany]

18:10 : Ryan makes Selfies... Intresting 😂

[@voyance4elle]

😂

[@hieronymus542]

In my first year of studying photography (in the Netherlands) we had an assignment to photograph a town with the idea that the local tourist office could use such photographs for the town's promotion. When we all presented our work, the teachers commented we had made it look like a ghost town and asked where the people are haha. Most of us were afraid to have anyone in the frame and waited until not a single person was in sight and some just liked their photographs better without any people shown. I still try to avoid getting people in my frame when I photograph something, no matter what camera I use. But if it's inevitable and I'm sharing the photo online, I always cover people's faces.

[@christineschmidt8501]

Here in Munich, you can get a permit from the public transport authorities to take pictures on the subway and on stations, for example. Without it, you can't take pix or film video. I've done that for photography sessions and you do get asked, even by passers-by, if you have the permit.

[@aphextwin5712]

I’ve been wondering if this extends to the Autobahn now that it is owned by a GmbH?

You may photograph demonstrations, parades, and events including the people who are part of without asking them. You also may photograph people if they are not in focus, for example: If you would like to photograph the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, you may photograph the persons who are walking through and by or linger arround without asking them. So §23 of the German "Art Originator Law". The restrictions of this law are only correspondable if the photos are going to be published. Violations of this law are only prosecuted criminally, if the "injured" person claims for penalty.

[@Kl3inerFuchs]

When you enter a shop in Germany there are signs indicating that recordings are being made (actually mainly via security cameras), But when you enter the store you automatically agree to it. On the other hand, the owner also explains that recordings are permitted there. greetings from Germany

[@AdamMPick]

The idea of making money on it or not is acutally very valid in today's hustle culture. People who are not big companies would like to not pay taxes and not follow the law, but it goes the other way round. It makes you a peer to Disney. Which means when they hit you with illegal demands, they don't just attack a fan, they attack a fellow buisness, which can have very harsh consequences. Google learned that the hard way, when they tried to just drive around Germany and record everything for Google Street View. PS. Fair use does not exist outside the US.

[@uvolio4737]

Basically, it is not allowed to take photos in the supermarket or something like that without the owner's consent, it's called "domestic law". At public demonstrations it is assumed that one has to expect to be photographed. At festivals or in clubs, the organizer must point out when entering if photos are being taken. Anyone who then takes part declares their consent. However, this does not apply to private photos of people, but only for press or advertising purposes.

[@Orchideenblume]

The Rakotz Bridge near Bad Muskau and the Bastei Bridge in Saxon Switzerland can be seen in the video - I'm very happy about that. 😍 I have to say about the Rakotz Bridge (also called the Devil's Bridge) that it has to be photographed at a certain angle (straight ahead) in order to see the reflection, a circle, in the water. That's why there are so many identical photos of this bridge. However, it is most beautiful when the azaleas and rhododendrons are in bloom, which is what Kromlauer Park, in which this bridge is located, is known for. Greetings from Saxony ☺ Then it occurs to me that the Eiffel Tower with illumination is actually not allowed to be put online because the artist has a copyright on it.

[@michaausleipzig]

The idea behind the german law is that every person owns the rights to pictures of them. Which isn't a bad idea imo. 🤷‍♂️

[@JakobFischer60]

Google came back and now most streets have street view.

[@prixtront7240]

13:15 no, commercial use is very much not antiquated and distinguishing it from other types of usage is good.

[@Roberternst72]

Fun fact: You can take pictures or film in, say, a supermarket, you can even publish it on social media, BUT: If a certain kind of specialized lawyers finds out about this, they will sue your arse off... They are called "Abmahnanwälte", and they have been around since the 1980s.

[@TomtoThomas]

Here in Austria it isn't even allowed to use a dashcam in your own car. In Germany they removed this rule in 2018

[@hamdepaf6686]

Also if you are asked to delete the picture I am pretty sure you are required to do so by law and they could call the cops on you. If the picture was somewhat illegal. Stuff that is illegal includes photos that show the person in question in an uncompromised situation. The afformentioned "focus of the person" (I think if it's more than 3 people it counts as a crowd and has less strikt rules) The way it's enforced is basically if someone finds out, they sue the heck out of you. While you can take pictures of private things and if nobody finds out, you can obviously take them home and look at them by yourself, but if you are seen doing so or upload it, you are caught doing something illegal. Pretty much the same way theft is enforced really.

[@ftrueck]

@Ryan: Don't forget: the automatic upload to facebook photos or iCloud also counts as publishing. As soon as the picture of a person is processed by a service or third parties it gets finnicky. Taking photos of a crowd is fine. Usually a crowd means either a popular place or an event. Both are of general interest and the cowd depersonalizes the individual person as which it is fine to take a picture.

[@remy2718]

The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is applied in criminal cases. But publishing a picture without the person's consent would be a civil matter, so "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) would apply

[@QookieCrumbles]

Note that everything he said only applies to publishing the images with the exception of you standing in a private property or a property with own regulations. One thing he did not mention, it is not allowed to publish pictures of a schoolyard full of kids, even if the schoolyard is visible from a public area.

[@NightwaIk3r]

in germany the law is quite simple, everyone has the right to freedom as long as it does not restrict the right of others and this also applies to the right to your own picture, but if you take a picture of a landscape (or groups and there is nobody directly focused) and there are people in the background "not focused", that's okay, but you can still say I don't want to be in the picture, these rights are very well defined and cannot be circumvented because you like to speculate. in the usa I find that terrible in the land of freedom you don't have the freedom to decide about the representation of yourself... (translated with deepl and slightly corrected because im lazy )

[@firestorm5371]

In America you have the freedom to be exploited

[@fabianstriebeck8054]

This is why I didn't take a video of me standing at the train track crossing, even though I wanted to show the people back home how diligent the Germans are. we all waited till the light changed and the boom raised, even though the bikes & pedestrians could easily go over, as the boom only covered the street, thus the cars were blocked. As I need to protect the privacy of the people around me. also because my German is so fluent, most think I am local and are therefore confused when I speak to them to applaud them on their manners. haha

[@PizzaMineKing]

The fact that DB is no longer state owned is why it's terrible for everyone inside germany: doing stuff in other countries makes them more money than taking care of the domestic railway network. 12:10

[@dnocturn84]

Agreed. It is a clever concept by them. Use all of the profits you gain in Germany to invest elsewhere, while you beg on German tax payer money to pay for the maintenance of German rails or construction of new ones all toghether, instead of using your own money for that purpose. Privatize the profits and make the public pay for expenses. And somehow it works, because they employ more and better accountants, who throw around their figures, so no outsider could make sense of it anymore.

[@haraldschleicher7863]

Actually you may take a picture of any person in public,unless it is a picture of an injured person in a traffic accident. But if the picture is considered a portrait or the picture was aimed at a person, you may not publish, distribute or commercialise the photo without the consent of that person. But you can keep the picture privately for yourself. Besides people, you are free to make pictures from any point in public space of anything you can see from there, be it private property or a peace of art like a statue. But you may not create special perspectives by using a ladder, climbing on a tree, photographing from a neighboring building or using a drone or alike. If you are in private space, say at home or maybe in a museum, the owner decides if you may take pictures and what you are allowed to do with them.

[@MiaMerkur]

Well, the renter of the apartment, my then-partner took half-naked pics of me w)o my allowence and surely w/o my permission. I was shocked when I accidently saw these masturbation helps in his cloud and it was one reason to quit him. Private place or not, you should ask for permission.

[@APCLZ]

everything wrong with German privacy laws at 5:00 :D Well done, Ryan! As a former street photographer, those are exactly the things i had to think about back in the days. And i've put extensive research into them back then because obviously, i did not want to do anything illegal. Now, the problem is, we have european GDPR Laws now which seem to be a little more complicated nowadays so this might be outdated but as far as i know, "Recht am eigenen Bild" (right to your own image) law was not changed. But the "Recht am eigenen Bild" is exactly that what you're saying... it prohibits publishing them, NOT taking them. Now, if you record police however, they have an extra authority which is the "Gefahr im Verzug" (GiV) law (translates to "imminent danger") which states they can take action against you if they "fear" a crime could potentially be committed. So they can take your camera or SD Card away because they could fear you are going to PUBLISH those photos. And yes, that happened to photographer friends of mine before, so i know it's enforced sometimes. From an american standpoint, that would be crazy. Now if you are recording something that could potentially be used in court because it's a crime that is being recorded, you as the one recording it, are allowed to record. BUT if police is doing something illegal... well... you get my drift. Imo German privacy laws are really one thing that is worse than in the US.

[@Andr_W_]

You are the best! Greetings from germany! :D

[@T0mahawk145]

Almost 100k subscribers - let's go!

[@bultvidxxxix9973]

Wasn't the point of the video, but fun fact: The photographer has the copyright on the photograph. That means if you pay a professional photographer to make nice pictures of you and you upload them to social media without their consent you are committing a copyright infringement. Also interestingly enough is that the whole thing with people filming in the gym is not an issue in Germany. First of all gyms usually have house rules that limit the time of day when you are allowed to film, if you film others you have to delete the recording, and you shouldn't hinder others (which effectively makes it only possible from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.). At least that are the rules for FitX (German discounter gym chain). Violating these rules could get their membership revoked. And even without that, if someone posts a video where you are just in the background but obviously the main attraction of the video, just sue them. Also people are just way more sensible in general (at least compared to the picture I got from online content, which may not represent the real life experience).

[@DirkMetall]

Public demonstrations are of course not private, as participants intended to be seen publicly. It’s just a violation if you focus on a single person without his or her consent. VIPs (people of public interest) are allowed to be focused though. German press and privacy laws are always a compromise between personal privacy and public interest.

[@black_platypus]

"went probably too in-depth" FWIW, you can always go deeper as far as I'm concerned! MUCH better than the opposite, IMO

[@MaxMustermann-nd4uy]

Those laws are particularly used by policemen who are caught beating up black teenagers, and by people being photographed while doing wrongdoings.

[@Mokrator]

inside any business you should ask the businessowner - you may want to blur customers or promise to cut them out. He may and most likely will decline to allow filming and might ban you from the business if the owner get annoyed or there are any complains... It will be better to ask upfront as a business will not have benefits to allow you filming. Maybe they want to know if you are reporting critical about the business - you may do but you are not entitled to film inside.

[@diamant1081]

I live in the Netherlands and it is very rare to see someone filming in public or taking photo's from strangers. I think only tourists will do that. And I am glad it is. I wouldn't be happy when there are people in the grocerie store or in the library or whatever filming and taking pictures. It feels oncomfortable for me.

[@Jakob-j7y]

so just fotograph only birds in the air....😂

[@b.b.8163]

There has also already been a reaction to a video in which an exchange student obviously filmed a class without permission and recorded sound (including that of a teacher) AND published it - that is definitely illegal and I would immediately report something like that to my school. where do we go please?

[@desperadox7565]

Like in other countries, above the law is the 11th commandment: Don't get caught.

[@ebbhead20]

I think Denmark can beat this. Here you cant have a ring cam installed if it can film your genbo.. A word for the guy that lives across from your house. So cant film his house but also.. You cant film anybody walking outside on the street and pavement. So makes the point of having that cam useless. Cant even film from your car in the road so cant look for thieves either..

[@TheSuperappelflap]

Yeah we have the same in the Netherlands, but then when people do point their camera at the street, the police will ask them for access to it instead of enforcing the law

[@MiaMerkur]

Same in germany. These cams are only aloud to show your property areas. Also dash cams are not aloud for this reason.

[@thekosylife]

It all depends on whether you are taking the picture for your private use only (e.g. private Insta account, photo album at home, etc.) or if you are publishing it for everyone to see (e.g. public account, KZbin video, etc.). In that case, privacy laws will apply and if a person or their property is clearly visible and recognizable, you will need their permission. It's all based in the DSGVO law I think. And there are fines if you don't comply (at least for companies, not sure if it applies to normal people as well though).

[@Joanne-t6j]

That’s funny, as a kid I had the exact same photo of the Rothenburg ob der Tauber as a jigsaw puzzle 🤔❓🧩

[@giantrider4182]

After the last video, I knew this video was coming 😂👍

[@LarsEllerhorst]

There are many differences between Germany and the USA, which can be boiled down to the different constitutions, laws, and judicial systems. The U.S. Constitution starts with the structure of the republic, rights and freedoms are amendments. The German constitution starts with the basic rights of the people. The U.S. law is split into common law and statute law, and the German law is way more statute law in comparison. Finally, in Germany exist no juries, all are bench trials. There are jurymen, who are not professionals, but the main judge is always a professional. And finally, German law tries to mediate between the two conflicting parties, it's not simply guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt decided by a jury. Privacy in Germany is a high-ranking right, the privacy of your home or the privacy of your data, both are direct consequences of the basic right to thrive freely and the indefeasibility of human dignity.

[@TRPLD]

Heavily disagree with the statement that it is antiquated to ask for money if you publish photos of private property. It is not yours to use, it is the owners to choose what to do with. You can they picture for yourself just fine but if you want to monetize your pictures/videos, you have to pay for it.

[@BennoWitter]

They had a second go at Germany and we now have Street View

[@MtheHell]

I just speak for myself, but I "hate" 'landscape+a person' pictures. When I take photos (for memories or souvenir), I don't want anyone in the view, because I want my "own eyes perspective" on the landscape or attraction without interference. Photos of people are a complete other context. Portraits or situations caught in a photo are gorgeous sometimes. But as the photographer from the video already stated, those "Me in front of...", "my wife in front of..." pictures are raging me up. Like he said: Watch a scene/panorama/landscape/attraction or whatever, get a feeling of it for your own and try to catch exactly this with your photo. The main difference between private photos and business photos (for money) is: The only person, who should like the photos is you. The latter you take to sell, so others have to like it.

[@kerouac2]

Ha ha -- one of my photo reports is called "Ceilings of the Louvre" and shows none of the art on the walls.

[@Rakso5809]

It's much easier than you make it seem, you look at the picture, and if it shows a person, in clear focus, on private ground, your intention doesn't matter, you can't post it anywhere and have to delete it if asked.

[@kipchickensout]

we do have google street view now

[@Gleiswanderer]

what should be mentioned: these rules apply to Germany not to whole Europe, for example freedom of Panorama isn't allowed in whole Europe. I.e Eiffel tower at night isn't covered by it, and when the new european law for photos and data protection came, the French even tried to kick it in whole Europe but luckily didn't manage it. So best way to get around in Europe would be to have a European lawyer to your side. About catastrophic monsters like DSGVO not to talk, that made life even more worse since then.

[@Flamebeard0815]

The "money for video/photo permits" is quite a thing here in Germany, as you cannot indefinitely render ownership of art created. So it is assumed that you, as the creator of the work (photo/video), will be able to sell that many times over. Also, there is a governing body for photographers/videographers that sets guidelines for pricing of this kind of work, in relation to the way of publishing. As for the 'woe is me, I'm a small youtuber not making any money on this' argument: That's just an unfortunate side effect of the whole deal. It's mainly targeted at people creating pictures for stock photo databases (because that was a really sore point here for some time). Also, especially museums want to ensure that people take good pictures of the displayed art as to promote the exhibitions. They frown upon badly staged, poorly lighted and slightly askew grainy pictures taken by the average Joe Shmoe. Also, most of the time the photo/video permit costs like, 5 bucks in a standard museum and is only hiked up for exhibitions that display widely reknowned high profile art collections or pieces.

[@peterhacke6317]

Filming inside stores, that are private property is usually a case of it's only crime if someone is there to accuse you. Meaning technically you need the owners permission, but the store owner will only bring it to court if you did some really unbecoming stuff.

[@dnocturn84]

It can serve as a guideline for criminals to train the act they're planning, or it can be used as proof against your supermarket, that documents errors the owner may have made following the franchise rulebook, a violation on terms that you made with your supply contracts with various brands (maybe their products are not placed in the right position) or even violations on general law, such as emergergency escape routes, fire preventation or positioning of fire alarm, fire extinguishers, etc. A video showing the wrong things can destroy your business in some rare circumstances. This is not a joke and usually the reason why most supermarkets here in my area won't allow filming their stores to anyone.

[@dnocturn84]

There was a legal case in my region regarding a supermarket who made an error on one of their price tags. This price tag showed an expensive TV (or computer - I don't remember it exactly anymore) for 14.99 EUR, while it was supposed to show 1499.99 EUR. It wasn't a special item in any way, so it wasn't anounced in their weekly advertisement flyer or on their internet page at all (or it was, but it showed the correct price tag anyway - again, I don't recall anymore). They corrected this mistake quickly, but not without a handful of customers realizing this and demanding to buy this item for the error price. They all gave up except one crazy guy, who wanted to sue the supermarket for this. On court he presented a picture as prrof taken by his smartphone, but without the consent of the owner. While it did prove this, the supermarket house rules covered the owners a**, by allowing them to change a rediculous false price tag on the fly. That this item wasn't that cheap should have been obvious for the customer, the court ruled. Otherwise they even imposed a fine on him, for taking that illegal picture.

[@kathischmiddldiddl4201]

at 9:31 If you didn't mean to take the picture of that person, you will probably have no issue deleating the pic if that person asks you to do it!

[@eucitizen78]

99.000 subscribers, soon 100 000 😍

[@glaubhafieber]

I agreed to an interview with a KZbinr. It’s kinda weird that someone took tat video and added subtitles to it. I really enjoyed reading the ( google translated) comments. I’m fine with my face being reuploaded but it feels weird 😂

[@manuelh.4147]

Overall the German law has more common sense. And in reality it is not that hard to follow. No one constantly thinks "Can I take a picture here?".

[@LythaWausW]

I don't know what is wrong with the Germans in my town but they seem to have no problem taking video of me. I'm totally alone in the woods riding my horse and someone will pull out a phone and start taking photos/video. And last week we were trying to get some balloons out of one of our trees and someone stopped on the street, held up their phone and made a video of us. Rude!

[@-Gothicgirl-]

The kunsturheberrecht allow to make video and pictures of someone on the street as long as it is not make public. And streets are open public and there you need no allowance of the people. When you want the material to publish then you need to ask. And on mass events there is no ask the people needed.

[@jadenothingcompares]

Hallo 👋🏽 another crazy privacy law in Germany is with criminals especially sex offender they blur their face & keep them private absolutely crazy to me that’s what I love here in the states they being called out

[@schweinheiligtv7744]

Filming and Photos is allowed but Focus on Faces is forbidden .Thats penetraed the personal right.

[@jansykora2493]

Fun fact about the drones, most of them should have built in their firmware (the GPS specifically) restricted locations. Like Prague castle for example, where it does not even let you fly there. Friend of mine who is professional photographer told me he can't update his drone's firmware, because it has updated restricted locations and would not be able to fly at all at certain locations.

[@hansmeiser32]

Isn't there something similar for Smartphones? I remember once my Smartphone didn't allow me to take a picture outside a train station (it was either Essen Hbf. or Gelsenkirchen Hbf). If I remember correctly the Smartphone told me that I'm not allowed to take photos at that location.

[@allmountainjon3718]

As a german i cant imagine someone taking pictures of you and walk away.. must be terrifying! You dont know what they or the AI or the Internet does with those Pictures?!

[@dooley-ch]

Ryan, all of this stuff starts with an EU directive which sets the minimum standard acceptable throughout the EU and through other agreements with members of the EFTA, which from a practical point of view means it is the basic standard throughout the EEA. Each country then implements this directive in their national law, some do it one for one and some enhance it. From a practical point of view states with the same legal framework and national language will borrow the wording from each other. So you'll find that the laws in all Germanic countries will be very close, the same with the Francophone countries and so on.

[@Wildcard71]

No-fly zone? Tell it the gnats!

[@alwynemcintyre2184]

Drones restricted in Australia, where, how high are all controlled by aviation authorities I believe

[@hanshansen8137]

Urheberrecht Nutzungsrecht Persönlichkeitsrecht You want me to explain the difference? And: There are difference of photographic a crowd of germans on a square and if you focuse single person(s) in the centre of your photo.

[@gerbre1]

Just heard about California Lego heads.

[@halatirtirmorne7252]

When there is a Wall out of Wood, Stone or even plants that protects the property against viewing into the property (protected property) you are not allowed to lift up a camera or drone or something else over the top of the wall to take pictures from inside the property. It's illegal and viewed as stalking or harassing. You than get into serious trouble than.

[@TheKerberos84]

The way the US and for example Germany handles the Topic. Privacy. Is in many cases a 180. For example. Gyms. In the US you have currently "Influencer" who take Photos or Film them self and others. In Germany this would be incredible illegal.

[@alexandrorocca7142]

Reasonable doubt applies exclusively to criminal law cases. In civil cases, being found liable requires a preponderance of evidence.

[@joeaverage3444]

There is still one minor caveat. Even when taking pictures of someone's house, you aren't allowed to deliberately focus on the inside of it that may be visible from the outside. Just taking a wide shot of the house is fine, but if you zoom in on their livingroom or bedroom etc, so that the inside of it can be seen, then that's an unlawful invasion of privacy. Somebody I know had to pay a penalty in court in a neighbor dispute case because they deliberately took photos of their neighbor's livingroom from the outside.

[@klarasee806]

That we might make money of it is not the reason why we have to pay for taking pictures in museums and the like. To take pictures is often strictly forbidden to everyone. But sometimes you can buy a quite expensive permit. And economically speaking, this only makes sense if you are making money of it.

[@feieralarm]

Half of this video boils down to American being surprised other people have rights, too.