>>3484660>GreeceAhahahah not at all mate.
In Greece freedom of expression (under which photography and most art falls under) is constitutionally protected.
So not only are you allowed to take photos of everyone and everything in public, but also in private spaces that are open to the public (like malls, etc.). Because the law says, you're not expected to leave your *constitutional* rights at the door the moment you step into a private property, the only thing that can happen is if the owner is unhappy with you can ask you to leave. But, since private properties (like malls) are open to the public, the reasonable assumption is made by the law that the owner is happy to have you here, *with* your constitutional rights.
In most countries, there's no concept of "violation of your dignity" by having your photo taken in public. How can this even stand, like you admit you went out in public undignified? Or that your likeness and behaviour is undignified?
There are laws against libel, but a true documentaristic depiction of you is not libel, regardless of how unhappy your are with the way you look. It's more entitlement than right.
And to make it clear, Germany's shitty photographic laws come through historical events and not legal reasoning.
The "right to dignity" with regards to photography was established when a photog cunt bribed his way into dead Bismarck's deathbed and took a photo of him with his head wrapped up (so rigor mortis won't leave a gaping mouth), and published that.
That's a far, far stretch from street photography, because it has to do with
1. private space, private moment where reasonable expectation of privacy unquestionably applies
2. breaking the law to even achieve that
3. the subject being dead and unable to defend their dignity
It's a huge leap to apply that to street photography, and even to this day that law is applied very sparingly and controversially, it's still a huge grey area.
