Hungary: Ask to photograph people first

[Brian C. Miller]

Guardian: Hungary law requires photographers to ask permission to take pictures

"There is a great tradition of Hungarian photography, and we plan to continue it, but this law is not making our job easier. Capa would be ashamed, or would do what he did: leave for somewhere the policemen have a face."

In the UK, the rationale is if you are in public, then you can expect to be photographed. But in Hungary, with the passage of this law, it's questionable about when a person may photograph other people. It's not about publishing the photograph, it's about clicking the shutter.

[Leszek Vogt]

I think the tourism will take the brunt of this "shoot self in the foot" policy. I've seen others on PN already stating their displeasure about this issue. If the person would not be recognizable in the slow-shutter photo (blurred face), what basis would they have to detain someone ? Oh, I'll yank out the film out of my F2A to show them that there is nothing on it NOT. If I need to battle their idiotic administration, I'd rather go elswhere....where the policies are not so regressive. But, that's just me.

Les

[Nathan Potter]

Interesting law. I wonder if it applies to government and private security video surveillance cameras scattered around the city. Maybe they are a special exclusion.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Gem Singer]

That stupid law would never fly in a Las Vegas casino.

[Curt]

"Shoot first, ask questions later"

[Dirk Rösler]

This has been the situation in France, Germany and others for many years by now.

We are not in the romantic post-WW2 era anymore. It's the age where you can take someone's photo, run some face recognition algos and have >20% chance of identifying them via Facebook etc.

[analoguey]

Are the govts/agencies exempt from such rules?

[Dirk Rösler]

That's probably quite a complicated legal question, even re. CCTV. To truly find out, you would need to legally challenge what they do. Targeted surveillance by court order is obviously legal. Mass surveillance less so IMHO, but it depends on the country and their "anti-terror laws", the "secret courts" etc. It is a battle of the 21st century for sure. I for one think that if we are fighting against mass surveillance, it gets difficult to justify "hey, I'm a photographer and I should be allowed to take your photo and put it on the Internet within any context I like as a piece of art". It's a very one-sided view of your liberties while denying any right to the person that is pictured.

[Dirk Rösler]

This has been the situation in France, Germany and others for many years by now.

We are not in the romantic post-WW2 era anymore. It's the age where you can take someone's photo, run some face recognition algos and have >20% chance of identifying them via Facebook etc.

Correction:

Facebook has developed a face-recognition system that works almost as well as the human brain:

Asked whether two unfamiliar photos of faces show the same person, a human being will get it right 97.53 percent of the time. New software developed by researchers at Facebook can score 97.25 percent on the same challenge, regardless of variations in lighting or whether the person in the picture is directly facing the camera.

[NancyP]

You can bet that government agencies are not only exempt but do not have to report to a court. The sole purpose of this law is to shield official wrongdoers, politicians, police, army, etc. This law is not meant to protect the average citizen from anything other than information. The government has effectively outlawed photojournalism.