You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way.

Nope. You cannot generalize this as a rule, because each country has its own laws. I don't know about every country in the world, so I can't make generalized statements for them, but I live and photograph in Germany, so I made sure I read up all paragraphs regarding photography here and I can assure you that, even for editorial usage photos, you are not allowed to photograph and publish (even for editorial usage) people in public space when they are the main subject of the photo.

 You are allowed take and sell photos of people taking part in events of public interest like a demonstration and you are also allowed to take photos of streets, buildings, nature, etc. even when there are people in these photos. But taking a close-up portrait shot of some stranger walking in the street and sell it as editorial on Shuttesrtock is not allowed in Germany. Sadly almost no one cares about these rules, neither the contributors nor the stock agencies. I have seen countless editorial close up shots taken in Germany on Shutterstock, just as I have seen countlesd photos of for example castles where the photos were taken inside the property while taking photos there was not allowed. The problem is that hardly anyone takes the effort to go to a castle's webpage and read the fineprints there, like I always make sure to do.

 I am sure in 99,9% of all cases contributors get away with it, because the chance of the person or the property owner even seeing that photo and then taking the effort to hunt the photographer down and actually sue him is very small. But contributors need to be aware that they are taking a legal risk when they just walk around like madmen taking photos of everyone and everything around them, uploading everything to Shutterstock, without ever actually informing themselves about the legal aspect of the country the photos were taken in.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Without the consent required under �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:

    Portraits from contemporary history
    Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location
    Pictures of meetings and similar events in which the persons depicted have taken part
(...)
There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here.

You are on lawful grounds documenting and photographing someone on public grounds. It does not matter if the subject being photographed likes it or not. It is a right granted to you in most free democracies. Why? Because it helps transparency, freedom of press and because when you are on a public street you are not granted anonymity anymore. Nothing to do with respect or not. It is the way it is the same way as you have the right to not be arrested and maintained in custody by the police without a lawyer even if the police thinks that it detracts to catch the bad guy.
Things work this way in a democracy for a lot of reasons.

And about microstock and freedom of press. It does not matter if you have an official badge from a press organization which I have as I studied and have a degree in journalism in Spain, or if a microstocker or a citizen journalist documents any action on public ground. That freedom protects all.
And the photographer that had problems in Salamanca has all the law on his side and the subject that got angry not, only if the published image is used for "informative" purposes. If that would not be the case then the angry bad educated man might have a case.

People are stating what the actual laws are in their countries, but you are saying they are wrong because its not true in yours.

As far as i recall, In EU you can shoot people in city as long as is for editorial purposes. Same in all countries of EU agreement. I study this matter 10 years ago but things could change a bit. Anyway I did not see a single link in the site going directly to the Spanish law or European Commission site. Being brutally honest....its the minimum.
 
Anyway we don't need consent to do it but ethics is something that feels right, right?

In Spain don't forget to ask permission to take a quick photo of the thief that is robbing your car. 

I'm interested in why Venezuela is so restrictive as you mentioned? They don't allow street photography? I didn't know that...

I don't think he can prove his allegation.

Not in Germany. 
[/quote]

Yes you can Firn.   Please read article 23 and 24 of the link you shared.

23. Without the consent required according to �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:
1. Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
2. Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location;
3. Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the persons depicted took part;
4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.

24) For purposes of the administration of justice and public safety, portraits may be reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed by the authorities without the consent of the person entitled or the person depicted or their relatives.

Furthermore you still have some more exceptions for photojournalism and medical/science /education. For example I was in R&D project co-finance by EU where we had to take pictures of woman's cervix cancer to improve Colposcopy for medics (not the pap smear). These all exceptions is what you call something as editorial instead of commercial since the purpose of the photo does not relies in the identity of the person. but i am no expert here. For Germany my suggestion is that maybe you should consult this law firm  https://zellerseyfert.com/en/image-law-photo-law.html

Laws tend not to be black and white....you may have a right to take photographs of people in public places but they also have a right not to be harassed by people coming up to them and poking a lens in their face. The grey area in between is why we have lawyers and courts. If someone doesn't want their photo taken and tells you that  then I think its a matter of common decency to respect that.

I couldn't agree more with you.

However, in the grey area there are countless photos that go to the world press photo and that do not contain the rights signed by the person photographed. This is the case of war scenarios, among others.

I recall that one of the most celebrated photographs of the last 100 years is Robert Capa's The Falling Soldier during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Or even Napalm girl, the South Vietnamese-born Canadian woman best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph. Not to mention The Falling Man of World trade Center taken by Richard Drew.

The photos had no consent. This paddles to the terms of what is "common decency". You will see that have a lot of grey areas too.

... Or even Napalm girl, the South Vietnamese-born Canadian woman best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph.

Thank you for reminding me of that powerful image.
It made me find this, which is very interesting reading - information I didn't know before, for example that the photographer took the girl and the other children to a hospital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTzlZGY2Mc

Yes you can Firn.   Please read article 23 and 24 of the link you shared.

23. Without the consent required according to �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:
1. Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
2. Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location;
3. Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the persons depicted took part;
4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.

24) For purposes of the administration of justice and public safety, portraits may be reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed by the authorities without the consent of the person entitled or the person depicted or their relatives.

Furthermore you still have some more exceptions for photojournalism and medical/science /education. For example I was in R&D project co-finance by EU where we had to take pictures of woman's cervix cancer to improve Colposcopy for medics (not the pap smear). These all exceptions is what you call something as editorial instead of commercial since the purpose of the photo does not relies in the identity of the person. but i am no expert here. For Germany my suggestion is that maybe you should consult this law firm  https://zellerseyfert.com/en/image-law-photo-law.html

No, you can't. Please read what I wrote above, or what you just wrote yourself.

Your original statement was

In EU you can shoot people in city as long as is for editorial purposes.

And  that's simply not true. You yourself quoted the few and very specific exceptions that allow you to take photos of people and they are clearly not "shoot people in city as long as it is for editorial purposes". At least one of the photos that even started this conversation, where the street painter is not just someone who happens to be in a shot that Alex wanted to take of a building or street, but where he is clearly the main focus of the photo, would, for example, not be allowed here in Germany.
There are only a few conditions that allow you to take photos of people in a  city and "as long as it is for editorial purpose" is not the condition.

Quote from: everest on May 08, 2021, 06:58

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way.

Nope. You cannot generalize this as a rule, because each country has its own laws. I don't know about every country in the world, so I can't make generalized statements for them, but I live and photograph in Germany, so I made sure I read up all paragraphs regarding photography here and I can assure you that, even for editorial usage photos, you are not allowed to photograph and publish (even for editorial usage) people in public space when they are the main subject of the photo.

 You are allowed take and sell photos of people taking part in events of public interest like a demonstration and you are also allowed to take photos of streets, buildings, nature, etc. even when there are people in these photos. But taking a close-up portrait shot of some stranger walking in the street and sell it as editorial on Shuttesrtock is not allowed in Germany. Sadly almost no one cares about these rules, neither the contributors nor the stock agencies. I have seen countless editorial close up shots taken in Germany on Shutterstock, just as I have seen countlesd photos of for example castles where the photos were taken inside the property while taking photos there was not allowed. The problem is that hardly anyone takes the effort to go to a castle's webpage and read the fineprints there, like I always make sure to do.

 I am sure in 99,9% of all cases contributors get away with it, because the chance of the person or the property owner even seeing that photo and then taking the effort to hunt the photographer down and actually sue him is very small. But contributors need to be aware that they are taking a legal risk when they just walk around like madmen taking photos of everyone and everything around them, uploading everything to Shutterstock, without ever actually informing themselves about the legal aspect of the country the photos were taken in.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Quote

Without the consent required under �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:

    Portraits from contemporary history
    Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location
    Pictures of meetings and similar events in which the persons depicted have taken part
(...)
There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here.