Pictures of a Protest (and etiquette of publishing)

[Almizilero]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today, about 10,000 people protested in Halle against the election campaign launch of the far right German party AfD. After my pictures of a small town one day after a protest were of no interest to anyone, I got right into the fray this time. But this is not without it's problems. I got carried away by the atmosphere and quickly live-posted some pictures. While they were well enough received, a couple of people pointed out that sadly, we live in a time where people use this kind of pictures to identify protesters. So I went back and and started pixelating faces.

We had this discussion with street in general a couple of times, but it seems to me that the problem is on a different level with pictures from protests. I did actually do some research beforehand and the general consensus (and most interpretations of the laws) I found was that you're free to photograph during protests since these are public events, protesters want to be seen and know that the media will be there. But I also get that we are living in difficult times and I surely don't anyone to be harmed because I took a picture of them while we were both protesting for something I believe in.

So, what are your thoughts? Is it like with street portraits just a question between "art" and privacy? Is it journalism? Is a stupid photo worth risking the safety of others?

Here are some pictures, I added two that I pixelated, just to show what that looks like (and because I really like that dino!). I'd say they are basically ruined like this and not worth showing, but as I said, I feel the persons wellbeing is far more important than my photographic ego.

But still, I would be very interested in your thoughts (regading the pictures AND the etiquette).

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[HuntingSand]

I like the Wortspiel in the fourth picture. Re pixelating faces, are you saying that German laws protect the privacy of people protesting in the streets? I don't think so, so I wouldn't worry. Processing is fine IMHO, both color and b/w. As I see it, this is street photography, sub-genre public protests, sub-genre Germany, sub-genre political expression, sub-genre anti-right (with an added sub-genre dinosaurs 🤨). That's how the classification system of the Library of Congress would probably go about it. Anyway, with a complicated semantic tree structure such as this, you should get a couple more comments for sure (as long as things don't drift off into partisan politics). These are interesting times...

 

[Tom B]

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html

 

Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie
§ 23 

(1) Ohne die nach § 22 erforderliche Einwilligung dürfen verbreitet und zur Schau gestellt werden: 

1.

Bildnisse aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte;

2.

Bilder, auf denen die Personen nur als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder sonstigen Örtlichkeit erscheinen;

3.

Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben;

4.

Bildnisse, die nicht auf Bestellung angefertigt sind, sofern die Verbreitung oder Schaustellung einem höheren Interesse der Kunst dient.

(2) Die Befugnis erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten oder, falls dieser verstorben ist, seiner Angehörigen verletzt wird.

 

 

=> ich würde sagen, "in Deutschland darf man das". Wie die Regeln in anderen Rechtsgebieten sind, weiß ich nicht. 

Edited January 26 by Tom B

[Almizilero]

 

vor 11 Stunden schrieb HuntingSand:

Re pixelating faces, are you saying that German laws protect the privacy of people protesting in the streets?

I actually don't think German laws do that, the law @Tom B cited is pretty clear on that (despite watering it down by saying it does not apply if the people shown have legitimate interest in not being seen).

But as stated above, I'd rather talk about the personal/moral side of things. How do we weigh our (hobbyist) photographic interests against the wellbeing of others? I guess this is true for street photography in general (a couple could be cheating, a person might be on the run or whatever ...). For example, I don't photograph random kids, because that could cause trouble (for myself or the family).

But with protests, the possibility of putting people in harms way seems to be much higher, if the “other side” (or maybe even a not so friendly governments) actually track down people by pictures posted by random people on the internet.

I will admit that I never thought about it before it got pointed out to me yesterday. I was only looking at the legal side of things and felt pretty sure of myself. But the other point is much more of a grey area. Do I think that some bad people will find my 50-follower-Mastodon-Account to identify protesters? Not really. Do I want to other people in danger? Definitely no! So I think I'll try to adjust and shoot in a way where people can not be identified. There are lots of other interesting shots that can capture the idea of a protest. Stuff like Pic 1 or 4. Even the Dinosaur (I really like that one!) could have been shot without other peoples faces.

But yeah, that's just me. Still interested in more viewpoints!

[Almizilero]

  

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Tom B:

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html

 

Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie
§ 23 

(1) Ohne die nach § 22 erforderliche Einwilligung dürfen verbreitet und zur Schau gestellt werden: 

1.

Bildnisse aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte;

2.

Bilder, auf denen die Personen nur als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder sonstigen Örtlichkeit erscheinen;

3.

Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben;

4.

Bildnisse, die nicht auf Bestellung angefertigt sind, sofern die Verbreitung oder Schaustellung einem höheren Interesse der Kunst dient.

(2) Die Befugnis erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten oder, falls dieser verstorben ist, seiner Angehörigen verletzt wird.

 

 

=> ich würde sagen, "in Deutschland darf man das". Wie die Regeln in anderen Rechtsgebieten sind, weiß ich nicht. 

 

Aufgrund dieser Lage (hab ja schon wegen Street versucht, mir aus den Gesetzen einen Reim zu machen) hätte ich das auch als rechtlich unproblematisch eingeschätzt. Andererseits steht da natürlich Punkt (2). Es ist im Zweifel schon ein berechtigtes Interesse, nicht wegen irgendwelcher Bilder ins Visier von Nazis zu geraten.

Aber ja, rechtlich fühle ich mich da relativ abgesichert, es geht mir tatsächlich eher um die moralische Verantwortung, als Nicht-Journalist und reiner Hobby-Heini andere Leute potentiell in Gefahr zu bringen.

Das beanstandete Foto (Bild 2 hier) wurde in ganz ähnlicher Form überall in der Berichterstattung gezeigt. Ich denke mal, wer so eine Riesendemo anführt, muss damit einfach rechnen. Trotzdem wäre es ein ziemlicher Brocken, wenn ich irgendwann lese „Aktivisten zusammengeschlagen, Täter fanden sie anhand von Demo-Fotos“.

Ich habe demnächst Gelegenheit, mit einem Journalisten darüber zu sprechen, wie die Presse sowas abwägt. Werde berichten! 

 

Due to this situation (I have already tried to make sense of the laws because of Street Photography), I would have considered this to be legally unproblematic. On the other hand, there is of course point (2). In case of doubt, it is a legitimate interest not to be targeted by Nazis because of some pictures.

But yes, legally I feel relatively safe in this respect, it's really more about the moral responsibility of potentially putting other people in danger as a non-journalist and pure hobbyist.

The objectionable photo (image 2 here) was shown in a very similar form everywhere in the reporting. I think anyone who leads such a huge demonstration simply has to reckon with it. Nevertheless, it would be quite a shock if at some point I'd read ‘activists beaten up, perpetrators found them using demo photos’.

I'll soon have the opportunity to talk to a journalist about how the press weighs up such matters. I'll report back!  

 

[Tom B]

Ja, so ist das leider in der Juristerei. Da ist wenig "in Stein gemeißelt" (das sage ich als Volljurist). Am Ende ist es die berühmte Abwägung der "berechtigten Interessen" - das ist im Ergebnis ein Deutsch Aufsatz. 

Ich könnte mir "vorstellen", dass jemand, der mit einem Schild (mit was auch immer drauf) durch die Gegend rennt und seine Botschaft durch die Lande trägt, zwangsläufig damit rechnet, ja sogar erwartet, dass er/sie/es gesehen wird. Dann macht es nur wenig Unterschied, ob da jemand auch noch ein Foto davon macht. Letztendlich ändert das nämlich nichts an der Sache an sich, nur die Reichweite ändert sich. Mal anders rum argumentiert: genau das ist doch der Zweck von solchen Aktionen. 

Ich würde sagen: das, was man mit den Fotos macht, unterstützt sogar den mit einer Demo verfolgten Zweck. 

... ist aber nicht mein Fachgebiet 🙂 

[NigelG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My reductive answer/question would be : if the pictures were taken by a local photojournalist and then published in a newspaper/ on a website would the faces be pixelated?

[HuntingSand]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Almizilero:

 

So I think I'll try to adjust and shoot in a way where people can not be identified. There are lots of other interesting shots that can capture the idea of a protest. Stuff like Pic 1 or 4. Even the Dinosaur (I really like that one!) could have been shot without other peoples faces.

But yeah, that's just me. Still interested in more viewpoints!

Take a look at https://hahn.zenfolio.com/rallies

That's my approach to protests. Get as close to people as possible w/o neglecting the messages they want to convey. Try and read, frame and then expose the convictions they carry on their sleeves (i.e., in their faces).

One other aspect, if you wish to continue coverage of such events in the future, is the choice of camera and gear. This is the Leica forum, but I don't recommend Leicas for demos and vigils and public mass confrontations. They of course are up to the task, but if things go sideways (for example, the Antifa or Skinhead guys decide to show up and mix things up), then you may have to not only protect yourself, but also your precious gear. In my experience, that's one worry too many.

[Almizilero]

Danke @Tom B ! So bin ich tatsächlich auch an die Sache herangegangen. Ich ging davon aus, die Leute wollen gesehen werden (bzw. die, die es nicht wollen, tragen Maske, davon gab es auch einige). Dass das nicht unbedingt auf irgendwelche Leute mitten im Zug zutrifft, würde ich auch annehmen. Aber gerade die erste Reihe ist so prominent, dass sie in jedem Fall gesehen und auch dokumentiert werden. 

Daher habe ich das Bild auch eher mit dem Gedanken der Unterstützung gepostet. Aber gut, der Hinweis auf die Verpixelung kam auch von anderer Seite, aber (zumindest auf Mastodon) scheint das durchaus gängig zu sein. Ich bin bereit, mich da anzupassen und auch einfach „anders“ zu fotografieren.

[Almizilero]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb NigelG:

My reductive answer/question would be : if the pictures were taken by a local photojournalist and then published in a newspaper/ on a website would the faces be pixelated?

Basically yes and no. I looked at a couple of news outlets. As I wrote above (in German), there is no way the first row of a protest will not be seen/documented. These guys are all over those pages. I would feel different about the people somewhere along the lines. There, it seems like many photographers try to shoot them in an unidentifyable way, e. g. from behind or only part of the face with emphasis on the signs they carry. I wouldn't mind adopting that approach. But yes, other outlet go full on with portraits of single people within the crowd.

 

  

vor 4 Minuten schrieb HuntingSand:

Take a look at https://hahn.zenfolio.com/rallies

That's my approach to protests. Get as close to people as possible w/o neglecting the messages they want to convey. Try and read, frame and then expose the convictions they carry on their sleeves (i.e., in their faces).

One other aspect, if you wish to continue coverage of such events in the future, is the choice of camera and gear. This is the Leica forum, but I don't recommend Leicas for demos and vigils and public mass confrontations. They of course are up to the task, but if things go sideways (for example, the Antifa or Skinhead guys decide to show up and mix things up), then you may have to not only protect yourself, but also your precious gear. In my experience, that's one worry too many.

That's cool, thank you! Good approach (and great photos).
Yes, the thought of gear crossed my mind. The rally I was at was very peaceful, I think. Everybody, including the cops, was very nice and made room for photographers (all non-journalists as far as I could tell). I stayed at the side for a while, but after I saw how other photographers acted and how their behaviour was received, I felt confident enough to join them.

But yes, there can always be people who object to being photographed by hitting at the photographers or their gear. I'll keep it slow, I think. Just like with this event, I'll try to get a feel for the situation before I get out any camera at all. Not 100% safe, I know, because you can't always know how a single person in an otherwise friendly group might act. I'll think about getting some older gear if this becomes a habit of mine.

 

BTW. I followed the coverage of the protest and today there were pictures popping up of groups of ... well ... young people from the other side of the political spectrum ... filming protesters after the rally ended. So it is a real problem.

Edited January 26 by Almizilero