>>3913767>fucked up privacy lawsTo quote the corresponding law (rough translation because I don't know the first thing about legalese):
>An image may only be published with the explicit consent of the subject. The subject accepting payment is considered consent. After the subjects death their immediate family may grant or deny consent for ten years.Exceptions from this are:
>Historically significant images.>Images in which the person only coincidentally appears (not as the primary subject)>Images taken at public events in which the subject has participated.>Images that are meant to be used for artistic purposes.Two problems:
>The public's perception. People have never looked this up and just assume they can stop you taking photos. They can not. The law is only concerned with how these photos are published.>The very vaguely defined exceptions. Especially "artistic purposes" leaves room for interpretation. It's generally accepted that this means you may display any photo without consent in an art exhibition with restricted access, but in many cases a court has to decide. Which sucks because it means significant legal cost for the photographer.In any case, if you're not trespassing or photographing people in private places, you will be fine. Someone might call the cops, but in most cases they won't even respond. That's because
>The mere act of taking a photo can not be taken as an indication for future illegal use of that photo.Also, if the subject doesn't find out that their photo has been published, no one can come after you either way.
