So yesterday I was out shooting and I came across a great location

>>2931345
Cop or not, he's got no reasonable expectation of privacy so if you're in a civilised country you're fine taking the shot. That said, it's a dick move taking photos of people who have specifically asked you not to.

>>2931345
when u know ur rights and can take this shot you will be stronger

>>2931350
I don't usually take photos of people who have specifically expressed that they don't want it taken. I should've been quicker and just walked away after taking the shot.

>>2931352
I'll have to read more on the subject. I'm sure it will give me a boost of confidence once I know what I can and can't do legally.

All that disinformation.

Isolating a person in a public space on a photo is an act of entering his/her privacy. What you misinterpret is the right to shoot pictures at public spaces, also with people involved. But not isolated. A group: ok. A single person: nope. Especially not when the person explicitily denies it. In this case it's even duress.

Also do not misinterprate with 'people of public interest'. A celibrity: ok. A cop: nope.

Also don't throw that 'identifiable' bullshit. The act of infiltrating a space of privacy is not related to if a subject is identifiable in the end or not. .. just sayin'

>>2932702
That is patently false, at least in liberal democracies. Many people are not happy about being photographed, but if you're in a public place then it's legal and the shot is yours.

>>2932702
Can you site any of these legally? I know this topic is very much a gray area, but I'd just like to know the full scope of the law surrounding it.

>>2932703
source please.

I'm referring to German law, which is commonly and mostly seen as a quite democratic and free country.

>>2932705
>>2932702
>>2932703
I am an American that would like to know my laws regarding street photography and candid shooting, however I think this thread should be open to contrast varying laws across countries.

>>2932706
I don't know the US laws in regard to this. But the sentence 'you can shoot whoever you want in a democratic country' is simply false.

Imagine being an off duty cop with a burned up face from nog protests and some weeb wants to take a photo of you as you get out of your car and go to the station for the last time to get your things.

Imagine how you would feel if you looked right at this stranger and he just takes your photo

>>2932705
In this area, Germany is rather illiberal. You can take any pictures you want, but you can only distribute/publish them with the subjects' consent, unless they're VIPs or the events are newsworthy.

Meanwhile in the USA or UK, it's a matter of "expectation of privacy". Any person out in public does not have an expectation of privacy so you can take their photo and do what you want with it. However if someone is at their home, you're not allowed to sneak pictures of them with a long lens.

>>2932711
I completely agree. Thats why I didn't take the photo. It would've made a good photo but it just wasn't worth it. Honestly, if I was better at this he wouldn't of even seen me, which was my intention.

>>2932711
Who gives a fuck? It's a free fucking country. This isn't France; I'll take a picture of whoever I like on public grounds for my own purposes.

It might get complicated if you print the picture, or sell it, and try to make money off of it. It'd be still legal, but there'd be some noise about it.

>>2932715
I don't know about US as I said. But I know for Germany. And what you say is not correct. It is not even the question of publishing or not. That's a whole different and even more complicated story. It is the sole act of shooting a picture of an isolated person in public which represents an infiltration of privacy. In Germany people own a right of their picture. And this includes the decision to get pictured or not. Let alone being published. And only under the circumstance being in public and not being isolated (being the focus of interest) the right to shoot a picture of a public space is to be seen as more important as the right of the own picture.
Or of course if you are part if a public event where you have to count with being pictured. In such cases an implicit agreement to get pictured is assumed. Even an agreement to being published, e.g. aired, is implicit. But not e.g. getting shown in an advertisement. This is then not implicitely agreed to.

In sum you can't do much in Germany without people's consent. Which is a good thing.

If I see someone I'd like to shoot, I simply ask. "Excuse me, may I take a picture of you? It's okay to say no of course." Then most people ask why and for what purpose and I explain my recent project. Dependant on what I do 60-80% of people reject my inquiry. But this means 20-40% accept and then some great shots can happen with nobody having a problem with anything.

>>2932725
>Europe

>>2932728
I have a strong feeling you americucks merely live under the delusion you would have rights like shooting anybody in public how you want. But in the end you don't. But I've no evidence and it is not worth it searching for it since I happily will never put a foot on your shit nation.

>>2932730
its the person taht is getting their photo taken that is deluded.

>>2931345
depends on where you from. None in the US AFAIK, where I'm from you could get sued

>>2932732
That's exactly what a deluded person would say.