For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
By avtur3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617529
Another GDPR over reaction ... I think (hope!)

I am a member of a car club which produces a monthly mag and has a website. Both often feature photographs taken at 'events'. Some of the these events are in public places such as pub car parks where club members meet up before or after a road run; this is when photographs are often taken. Another 'event' the club might attend is a gathering of several motor clubs where the public are be invited to attend and pay an entrance fee for the privilege, and where also photographs are often taken.

Someone has offered advice to our club that if any none club members appears in the pictures taken at these events their faces have to be 'greyed' out, a la Google street view.

The logic being offered is that our club members are signed up to club policy on data storage and sharing which leads to their consent to be photographed, this is not the case for any passing member of the general public so we either seek consent at the time the picture is taken or we 'grey out' their image before publishing the picture.

As the clubs webmaster I have been tasked with implementing this 'greying out' policy on all photographs I publish on the website in future; oh and I've also been asked to review every photograph already on the website site and grey out all none members.

My gut reaction is that this is not quite what the information commissioner had in mind when setting up GDPR; or perhaps you might tell me otherwise. :wink:
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617537
As FD says the usual gold plating is taking place in the UK.

Taking photos in a public place which happens to include people not directly involved in the subject is not a problem, nor is publishing them unless they happen to be wearing a copyrighted T shirt or doing something they shouldn't, when there's a minimal chance of complaint and if that happens a public interest defence might work.

There's quite a lot of material on the web about rights and responsibilities of photo taking and publishing.
avtur3 liked this
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617544
AIUI, there was a huge debacle when privacy laws first became an issue,when photographing "the scene" in a public place. IIRC, some heavy-handed London Plod decided they could prevent tourists taking pictures of Buck House, Parliament and various other high-profile places (It's the anti-terrorism laws, guv. Gis yer film.
The Courts quickly disabused them of this "power".

Where it's not expressly prohibited, you are free to take photographs of public scenes. I'm sure the Google business was all about their intrusive levels of surveillance-type photography, which could be used for close scrutiny of private property, layout, security arrangements etc.
It's not beyond the average special interest club to erect a simple easel-type stand displaying a large board stating that attendance at the event would be deemed as acceptance of the possibility of appearing in the wider public domain

Televised football, horse, motorsport , "music" and other events have often focussed on individuals' faces, indeed, there have been cases of infidelity, malingering ,benefit-fraud, to name a few, that have been exposed by such records.

I am not a lawyer nor a public-rights advocate. The above represents a personal understanding and should be taken as worth what you paid for it. :twisted:
edit: beaten by a more succinct post!
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617545
@avtur3 Pre GDPR.... :
Generally if you are in a public place you don't need permission to take pictures of people.
However, the rules regarding how you can use those photos are a bit complex - simplistically there is personal, editorial and commercial usage.
You don't need to have the permission of the subjects for personal or editorial use, but you should have permission for commercial use.
Simplistically editorial use means that it's illustrating an article, whereas commercial use is where it is selling something or promoting an event/organisation.
Depending how the photos were being used, it could be that you should have had permission anyway (noting that few people really bother).

How does GDPR fit with this? Yes photos are personal data if they allow someone to be identified (specifically facial images are classed as biometric data in the DPA2018). However, remember that contrary to common misunderstanding GDPR doesn't require consent. Consent is one of several lawful basis for processing/sharing personal data. In this scenario you could probably use legitimate interest as the lawful basis:
‘’Legitimate Interests is likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact, or where there is a compelling justification for the processing.’’
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617549
cockney steve wrote: Where it's not expressly prohibited, you are free to take photographs of public scenes. I'm sure the Google business was all about their intrusive levels of surveillance-type photography, which could be used for close scrutiny of private property, layout, security arrangements etc.
It's not beyond the average special interest club to erect a simple easel-type stand displaying a large board stating that attendance at the event would be deemed as acceptance of the possibility of appearing in the wider public domain

Televised football, horse, motorsport , "music" and other events have often focussed on individuals' faces, indeed, there have been cases of infidelity, malingering ,benefit-fraud, to name a few, that have been exposed by such records.

!

Sort of - but generally a lot more complex.
e.g. what is a public place? e.g. The National Trust have decided they own the image rights in the buildings and landscapes that they own, and prohibit commercial use of photographs of them - even though many of us may consider that hillside to be a public place/public scene.
Attractions/event organisers often put contractual restrictions on the use of photography as part of their terms of admission, so whilst it might not be illegal to take photos inside an attraction or event, you may be in breach of contract in taking such photos.
Where GDPR gets a bit interesting, is that historically a lot of events/attractions contained clauses in their terms of admission that you consented to being filmed/photographed/etc and those photos being used commercially by the attraction/event organiser. I'm doubt those consents (or the easel board that you suggested) would be valid under GDPR, as consents have to be freely and unconditionally given.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617793
Is anybody else seeing US based websites being blocked "because of GDPR"?

I'm definitely seeing this from US based newspaper articles particularly, where I click on a link to look at a piece of science or whatever, and then just get a message saying that because my IP address is in a country with data policies they don't wish to comply with, I'm not allowed to read it. I've tried using an "incognito window", but that doesn't seem to work. VPN is presumably going to be part of the future.

For example...

Image

This, I suspect, is going to get worse before it gets better.

G
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617794
there have been a big group of newspapers doing that in the states. They decided that they couldn't risk people saying "no" to the new cookies (etc) and didn't want to do the minor bit of web development required. Can likely get the article via the waybackmachine on archive.org.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617811
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Is anybody else seeing US based websites being blocked "because of GDPR"?
For example...

Image


Yes, happened a couple of times now and its irritating... :roll:

Regards, SD..
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617849
It's an issue for US sites who have lawyers who a) don't understand GDPR and b) will simply switch off rather than do the homework. It's a wider issue on personal data going to the US or stored there as well.
User avatar
By Flintstone
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1617972
skydriller wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Is anybody else seeing US based websites being blocked "because of GDPR"?
For example...

Image


Yes, happened a couple of times now and its irritating... :roll:

Regards, SD..



Yup, me too.

But the the US is the centre of the universe so, fair do's.
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1618732
stevelup wrote:I'm finding it highly inconvenient not being able to browse the local news websites for Backofbeyondville. It's ruining my life!


in that case are you sure you have a life?
cockney steve liked this
User avatar
By Flintstone
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1618760
stevelup wrote:I'm finding it highly inconvenient not being able to browse the local news websites for Backofbeyondville. It's ruining my life!


Let me put you out of your misery.

The wedding between Cleetus and MaryLou (his sister) went off well. Apart from minor gunfire when nobody could agree which side of the church was the bride's family and which the groom's.

Both of the guests escaped without injury.
skydriller liked this