Author Topic: Sweden bans 'private' photograpy without permission. (Read 7802 times)

OM · « **on:** May 30, 2013, 08:03 »

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59570-Sweden-prohibits-taking-photo-s-or-video-privately

Quote

Sweden prohibits from 1 July all photography or film in the private sphere, even if the images are taken on the street, in the garden or for example during birthday parties at home. There should be only such pictures taken when the people in the photo or video have given their prior consent. The Swedish government confirmed this Thursday after the bill was ratified by parliament.

Would seem a little tricky to police. Say, I'm an architectural photographer standing on a street taking shots of buildings but using a very slow shutter speed to ensure that any passersby are blurred and unrecognisable. A passerby objects to you taking photo's that they may be on (doesn't accept your explanation of the technique) and calls the police who cart you off to jail!

tickstock · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:09 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:16 »

What do you have against De Telegraf, which was quoted:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/21607371/__Fotograferen_verboden___.html
Feel free to translate, if you don't feel the OP's link was accurate enough:
Zweden verbiedt privéfotografie
STOCKHOLM -

Zweden verbiedt vanaf 1 juli alle fotografie of film in de privésfeer, ook als de beelden op straat, in de tuin of bijvoorbeeld tijdens verjaardagsfeestjes thuis worden gemaakt. Er mogen alleen nog zulke plaatjes worden gemaakt als de mensen in de foto of video vooraf toestemming hebben gegeven. Dat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

Journalisten en persfotografen vrezen dat de nieuwe wet zal worden gebruikt om hun waakhondfunctie en daarmee de persvrijheid te beteugelen. Formeel maakt de wet wel een uitzondering voor nieuwsgaring, maar volgens de Zweedse journalistenbond zijn de voorwaarden onduidelijk.

OM · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:21 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 30, 2013, 08:09

Maybe you could find a more reputable source than that?

Yep. I did try to find another source with more details because I realised after posting that this is an 'English' translation of an article in the NL sensationalist rag 'Telegraaf'. Because I read Dutch as if it were English and vice versa, I thought it was an article from the Daily Telegraph UK!

Ha,ha (Liz)Sue! I read the article first on NL NOS News and went in search of an English version to post here! De Telegraaf is a bit of a rag but usually doesn't print wildly inaccurate stories. So maybe it is true!
Does Chris Lagerek (sp) still come here? He should know?

tickstock · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:22 »

roede-orm · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:33 »

Here is another source: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/ny-lag-kan-forbjuda-smygfotografering The law is primarily directed ainst pictures (and filming) of people, if the persons were captured in secret. It is hard criticizes from representatives of photographers and media organizations. röde-orm

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 30, 2013, 08:22

I just looked at the forum "where science and spirituality meet", now that I've looked at that ~~news~~ ad filled website for De Telegraf (didn't know this was a world leading news org) I think a better source is still needed, maybe a primary source.

Your Swedish must be better than mine. I can't Google in Swedish.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:47 »

De Telegraaf is the Netherlands largest newspaper, its known for fattening up stories and make boring news more digestible, but its a renowned news paper.

Here is the artikel in het Algemeen Dagblad a more serious Dutch newspaper, 2nd largest in the country.

Translated
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1013/Buitenland/article/detail/3449747/2013/05/30/Fotograferen-in-prive-omgeving-mag-in-Zweden-alleen-nog-met-toestemming-vooraf.dhtml

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ad.nl%2Fad%2Fnl%2F1013%2FBuitenland%2Farticle%2Fdetail%2F3449747%2F2013%2F05%2F30%2FFotograferen-in-prive-omgeving-mag-in-Zweden-alleen-nog-met-toestemming-vooraf.dhtml

tickstock · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:51 »

falstafff · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:54 »

This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:56 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?

Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

I see it is primarily to stop unwitting/unwilling photos appearing on Fb etc.

falstafff · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:59 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 08:56

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?
Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES! and if Im not mistaken its the same in UK, Germany and France? exeption: news which are daily news, such as wars, etc.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:01 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:59

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 08:56
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?
Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES!

Oh, totally different from here. So editorial photos from Sweden must have releases from everyone in the photo?
That must be interesting when trying to get releases from criminals, rioters etc.

falstafff · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 09:01

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:59
Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 08:56
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?
Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES!
Oh, totally different from here. So editorial photos from Sweden must have releases from everyone in the photo?
That must be interesting when trying to get releases from criminals, rioters etc.

No not everyone, if its a crowd and none in particular stands out a mile, i.e. camera not zoomed in on a specific person, no release needed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:14 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:59

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 08:56
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?
Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES! and if Im not mistaken its the same in UK, Germany and France? exeption: news which are daily news, such as wars, etc.

Not in UK. If taken from a public place, editorial photography/footage is legally fine. Some might think it immoral if someone on the street photographed someone in their own home or garden etc, but it's stock in trade of paps.

OM · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:15 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54

This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

If you know for certain that the legislation hasn't yet been passed then part of the Dutch article is inaccurate because that asserts that "Swedish government sources confirmed today that the new law has been passed and will take effect from July 1st."

Quote

Dat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

falstafff · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:23 »

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 09:15

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

If you know for certain that the legislation hasn't yet been passed then part of the Dutch article is inaccurate because that asserts that "Swedish government sources confirmed today that the new law has been passed and will take effect from July 1st."

Quote
Dat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

Well the exact swedish wording was " trying to pass this bill, trying to get it through" thats the wording. So I take it its obviously not passed yet and there is huge opposition, not the least from journalistic sides.

All the troubles seem to stem from that a 14 year old girl was candidly photographed and then ofcourse the parents got mad and created a heck oif a noise.

OM · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:33 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 09:23

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 09:15
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

If you know for certain that the legislation hasn't yet been passed then part of the Dutch article is inaccurate because that asserts that "Swedish government sources confirmed today that the new law has been passed and will take effect from July 1st."

Quote
Dat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

Well the exact swedish wording was " trying to pass this bill, trying to get it through" thats the wording. So I take it its obviously not passed yet and there is huge opposition, not the least from journalistic sides.

All the troubles seem to stem from that a 14 year old girl was candidly photographed and then ofcourse the parents got mad and created a heck oif a noise.

Thanks. That means that the Dutch language articles are inaccurate/misleading. "Nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd".....means, "passed into law."

falstafff · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:39 »

Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 09:33

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 09:23
Quote from: OM on May 30, 2013, 09:15
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
This legislation have not gone through yet and its hard opposition, especially from journalistic sides. At the moment they are trying to pass it but its highly doubtful it will go through.

Basically you cant take candid shots of people in public places, at their homes, gardens, etc without their written consent and so forth.

Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you? Not really sure what they are trying to say.

I know this much. Sweden is sometimes run by a bunch of old women, desperately trying to be pioneers in just about everything and teaching other countries how to solve their problems, ofcourse forgetting their own backyard.

If you know for certain that the legislation hasn't yet been passed then part of the Dutch article is inaccurate because that asserts that "Swedish government sources confirmed today that the new law has been passed and will take effect from July 1st."

Quote
Dat bevestigde de Zweedse regering donderdag nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd.

Well the exact swedish wording was " trying to pass this bill, trying to get it through" thats the wording. So I take it its obviously not passed yet and there is huge opposition, not the least from journalistic sides.

All the troubles seem to stem from that a 14 year old girl was candidly photographed and then ofcourse the parents got mad and created a heck oif a noise.

Thanks. That means that the Dutch language articles are inaccurate/misleading. "Nadat het wetsvoorstel hiervoor door het parlement was bekrachtigd".....means, "passed into law."

Ah Ok, then they certainly got it wrong. Big cry from, trying to pass. They tried this a few years back but failed, never got through and I doubt it will this time.

On a side note. This

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:47 »

Confirmed as a passed law on Swedish Radio

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5549542

It seems the Dutch have it right.

Xanox · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2013, 10:01 »

considering how easy is to publish images on the web this law is unenforceable and therefore it's useless.

besides, you don't go in prison but you just pay a fine.

i think it's because lots of people have enough of random guys taking snaps with their mobile phones and posting cr-ap on FB and Twitter.

OM · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2013, 10:14 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 30, 2013, 09:47

Confirmed as a passed law on Swedish Radio

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5549542

It seems the Dutch have it right.

Goed gedaan, Ron. Thanks.

cascoly · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2013, 11:49 »

would that also ban the Swedish govt from using cc cameras for surveillance the way its increasing in every country? would face recognition programs be banned without prior releases? will 'person of interest' be able to have another season?

falstafff · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2013, 12:45 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 30, 2013, 09:47

Confirmed as a passed law on Swedish Radio

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5549542

It seems the Dutch have it right.

Oh well if its confirmed by the radio then its passed. The newspaper headline however said, they were trying to pass it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2013, 12:48 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 09:03

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 09:01
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:59
Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2013, 08:56
Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 08:54
Personally I dont know what the big deal is?? you need a release anyway, dont you?
Do newspapers, editorial books, television news reports etc normally need releases in Sweden?

YES!
Oh, totally different from here. So editorial photos from Sweden must have releases from everyone in the photo?
That must be interesting when trying to get releases from criminals, rioters etc.

No not everyone, if its a crowd and none in particular stands out a mile, i.e. camera not zoomed in on a specific person, no release needed.

Will there be a Swedish editorial release? Will the agencies know about this? None is currently required for iS or Alamy, and when I've asked for a template editorial release (for a person), no-one has been able to suggest one.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sweden bans 'private' photograpy without permission. (Read 7802 times)

OM

tickstock

ShadySue

OM

tickstock

roede-orm

ShadySue

Poncke v2

tickstock

falstafff

ShadySue

falstafff

ShadySue

falstafff

ShadySue

OM

falstafff

OM

falstafff

Poncke v2

Xanox

OM

cascoly

falstafff

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors