Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hungarian Law Says Photogs Must Ask Permission To Take Pictures

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the ok-mom-stop-running-away dept.

Privacy 149

An anonymous reader writes "Those planning a weekend break in Budapest take note. From 15 March anyone taking photographs in Hungary is technically breaking the law if someone wanders into shot, under a new civil code that outlaws taking pictures without the permission of everyone in the photograph. According to the justice ministry, people taking pictures should look out for those 'who are not waving, or who are trying to hide or running out of shot.' Officials say expanding the law on consent to include the taking of photographs, in addition to their publication, merely codifies existing court practice. However, Hungary's photographers call the law vague and obstructive, saying it has left the country of Joseph Pulitzer and photography legend Robert Capa out of step with Europe."

cancel ×

149 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490363)

No more new Google Maps Satellite images for Hungary.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490605)

or street view

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490765)

This will give me cred. Street cred.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490867)

This will give me cred. Street cred.

I don't have a lot of street cred...

Re:Well.. (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 6 months ago | (#46491715)

No these laws are the similar to those of many European countries. Google has had to pay fines over the street maps, and blur all faces and license plates, but it is perfectly possible as it has been done for many countries.

Out of step with reality (0)

mrxak (727974) | about 6 months ago | (#46490371)

Well I guess I won't be visiting Hungary. I'd hate to go to jail for taking a picture of a landmark with a whole lot of people in the frame.

I'm sure plenty of Hungarian photographers are outraged they effectively can't take entire genres of photographs, now. These kinds of laws have social and cultural ramifications.

Re:Out of step with reality (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490383)

We have a very similar law in Germany, the impact is far less dramatic than the article suggests. Just don't take pictures of people who obviously don't want to be in your photo and you're fine - taking a photo of a large crowd where no person stands out in particular isn't forbidden.

Re:Out of step with reality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490405)

Rubbish. You have no rights to your image.

Re:Out of step with reality (4, Informative)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 6 months ago | (#46490429)

Actually, as any professional photographer can tell you, in most countries you're not allowed to use someone's image without a modeling release. In addition, if you take pictures of property that is distinctive (like the London "Ghurkin") you need a property release as well.

The only exception to this rule is if the images are "editorial" usage -- e.g. as in a news story, and in some cases artistic photos may also be exempt.

Snapshots you take as a tourist are sort of a grey area. Technically you need a model release to take someone's picture but from a practical standpoint people won't go through the trouble of suing you.

Re:Out of step with reality (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 months ago | (#46490485)

you are only correct from a *professional* pov.

if you are an amateur and don't intend to publish or make money from the work, you do not need a model release.

its good courtesy but in most countries, you don't need to ask permission if this is your personal collection. in the US, its definitely true that if you are in public, you don't need any release for non-pro image captures.

Re:Out of step with reality (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 6 months ago | (#46490503)

Well it's a grey area. Technically if you take someone's photo you need a model release stating they know what the image is going to be used for. If you take a snapshot of me, and I find it on your Flickr account, I can have it taken down.

However, we get into an area where it's not likely to be enforced. I'm probably in a million different tourist photo albums across the world, and I've never once spotted my image online.

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46490885)

If you take a snapshot of me, and I find it on your Flickr account, I can have it taken down.

Try to do that with a newspaper photo, wise guy. Also, nobody should have this right with Flickr if it's unfeasible with other media. It's the same kind of bullshit as demanding that writers shouldn't be allowed to write a news portrait if you don't want them to. Libel aside, that used to be protected. (But yes, I'm sure politicians would jump on that.)

Re:Out of step with reality (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 6 months ago | (#46491009)

Newspaper photos are "editorial use" and protected speech.

Your facebook / flickr photo galleries are not journalistic expression.

Hell, Facebook even has a button to report images and get them taken down if someone posts an image of you you don't like.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#46491249)

Newspaper photos are "editorial use" and protected speech.
Your facebook / flickr photo galleries are not journalistic expression.

Why?

Facebook even has a button to report images and get them taken down if someone posts an image of you you don't like.

Facebooks policy != the law.

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46491317)

Your facebook / flickr photo galleries are not journalistic expression.

Well, you can delude yourself with that, if you want to. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States has proclaimed that "First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable". In light of that, I'd like to see you arguing to the judge that just because I wrote my article on Google+ and posted source photos on Imgur, that somehow makes my piece of investigative reporting "not journalistic expression".

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 6 months ago | (#46491523)

flickr may go along with it, but that is not the law at all.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

lemur3 (997863) | about 6 months ago | (#46490543)

In the USA you, as a "pro" (whatever that means) can make photographs of strangers on the street and sell them for profit in books or prints.. without permission and without compensation..

in a case settled by the New York Supreme Court, Nussenzweig v. Dicorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] this was exactly what was found.

There is no need for a model release for any photograph in the USA in public.

If one intends to use an image for commercial use which might imply a person in the photograph endorses a product getting a model release is often prudent because having an image done without one might result in tort/civil cases where someone sues over the implication that they endorse a product which they do not endorse. ......theres no legal requirement that a model release is needed for a commerical photograph, its just a cover-yer-behind measure.

Re:Out of step with reality (2, Insightful)

lemur3 (997863) | about 6 months ago | (#46490553)

id add that the local city/state laws might be different on model releases for commercial use, but that they are certainly not universal through the US, just as we see with our "wiretap" laws.. check your local listings, subject to change.. presume that you wont get arrested/sued for wiretapping someone when you video tape them on the street.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 6 months ago | (#46490629)

Sounds like the better way to solve the "problem."

Re:Out of step with reality (2)

en.ABCD (881787) | about 6 months ago | (#46490799)

Just to avoid confusion, the New York Supreme Court is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in the State of New York, unlike the "Supreme Court" in most other states, which is usually the highest court.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 6 months ago | (#46490825)

Not completely true. In the case in question street photography is billed as an editorial type of photography (and therefore a grey area).

That does not mean as a Pro you never have to get a model release. No stock photography site will actually accept your submissions without one.

In addition, other photography laws still apply even if you are not a pro. If for instance, you decide to take naked pictures of your 18 year old girlfriend, anti-child pornography laws require you to have proof that she's over 18 on file, and if you are caught you can be prosecuted. Even if your girlfriend is 30 but looks very young you might still be prosecuted.

The key is for these sorts of situations (like the model release and the porno laws) you would actually need to get caught. Even if the authorities found your vacation photos on Flickr, it's a low probability they're actually interested in pursuing such a case and that's why we have the illusion that these sorts of things are not illegal

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 6 months ago | (#46491761)

18 USC 2257 doesn't apply to pictures you don't publish.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46490869)

Actually, as any professional photographer can tell you, in most countries you're not allowed to use someone's image without a modeling release.

Except that TFA talks about taking photographs. In most countries, you can apparently either ask people later, or edit them out, or simply leave some of the photos unpublished. If I were to go with how I understand what the new Hungarian law means, you're not even allowed to edit stuff out, you have to painstakingly take care that it won't get into material in the first place, or you'll have instacrime if you notice someone in the frame and decide to go with it anyway.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46491647)

New York City requires a license for photography. Tourist shooting is exempt, but the law can trip up people who use "big fancy cameras," tripods, or other impedimenta that looks professional.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490447)

Rubbish. You have no rights to your image.

Not sure what that means, but in Hungary and in Germany you have a right not to be photographed against your will.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about 6 months ago | (#46490901)

Except by the government, I assume?

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491151)

"Without democratic consent," is how we see that in a democratic country.

One more nail in the coffin of democracy here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490459)

I'm Hungarian to start with. Maybe Germany has similar rules, but here the goal of this law is obviously different: To make rampant corruption even more difficult to expose. Democracy became Kleptocracy.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

zmooc (33175) | about 6 months ago | (#46490617)

Your law may not be properly upheld in practice but that does not change the situation of Germany being in the very small club of countries where the art of street photography is effectively illegal or at least very cumbersome.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

rmstar (114746) | about 6 months ago | (#46490739)

Your law may not be properly upheld in practice but that does not change the situation of Germany being in the very small club of countries where the art of street photography is effectively illegal or at least very cumbersome.

Yes, and they keep constantly weeping about all the street photography they miss out. Well, actually, they don't. It seems they like their law like that. For some reason, people assume that street photography, or being able to shoot photos of whoever you want, is a right nobody would object to. Well, I do, especially in times of facebook, and it seems I am not alone.

Things like google glass belong, as far as I am concerned, banned, and its use in public places punishable by jail. In the same vein, cell phones should be forbidden from having a camera.

There is this thing with privacy. For some reason, everybody is for it as long as it is not them who have to respect it.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490781)

You don't hear the weeping because restrictions are not as tight as you'd think. If you considered moving to Germany, away from soul-stealing magic picture boxes - you'll be disappointed.

Taking pictures in public for private use is unrestricted, publishing has enough leeway too, so don't expect to sue the hell out of a photographer after you wander in the frame.

PS: What's the deal with all the people on /. mistaking "privacy" and "I don't want anyone to even look in my direction for too long without my permission"?

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

zmooc (33175) | about 6 months ago | (#46491193)

I agree that street photography is not some kind of unalienable right. However, I do NOT agree there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public space, not even in Germany. With the law as it currently is (though not as it is currently enforced), photo-journalism in public spaces becomes quite a hassle. If we'd all live by the law, our era would effectively become a rather dark one in history; for example just about any photograph depicting the demolishing of the Berlin Wall would have been illegal.

Most Western countries have no restrictions on taking photographs in the public space but they do have laws to protect subjects against negative consequences in case such photographs are published. I think that's the right balance, especially if photogs behave responsible (unlike many paparazzi, which are actually legal in Germany...)

Re:Out of step with reality (2)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46491717)

But in Germany there is no cultural problem with photography. I've done a lot of street shooting there. Any restrictions are legal techicalities not of consequence to the average person.

Now try shooting in a country where there is a cultural aversion to being photographed. As soon as I raised my camera in a beautifully exotic Seoul farmers's market, every person in the area dived for cover. In modern, high-tech parts of the city there was no problem, so this seems to be a back-country phenomenon.

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490797)

So what?
If I dont want to be on a photograph, they *have to* respect that. I dont care about shitty "art"

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#46491233)

Just don't take pictures of people who obviously don't want to be in your photo and you're fine

Must be a great place if you're a thief.

Re:Out of step with reality (5, Informative)

dejanc (1528235) | about 6 months ago | (#46490469)

I don't think you would go to jail for taking a picture of e.g. St. Stephen's Basilica (which would be impossible to take without anyone in the shot) or the Parliament building in Budapest. Firstly, I doubt the punishment would be anything other than a fine. Secondly, I strongly suspect this law has little to do with privacy and tourism and much more to do with e.g. making sure nobody can take pictures of anti-government protests.

TFA is kind of lacking details and I don't follow Hungarian politics that closely, but my first instinct has to do with Viktor Orban's government - he's known for some controversial laws curbing media freedom and changes to their constitution which got the entire EU worried.

The main confusion is that consent can be given in many different ways: implicit consent is still a consent and the article mentions one of their government ministers saying you are fine as long as nobody is explicitly asking you not to take a picture.

Unfortunately, Hungarian is so hard to understand that even with Google Translate I can't follow their newspapers and columns, so we are at the mercy of second-hand journalism and skimpy stuff such as TFA, but indeed this looks like one of the laws enected to be used selectively against well defined targets.

Meanwhile, don't cancel your Hungarian vacation just yet - it's a lovely country with things to see and do, even without taking a camera :)

P.S. Personally, I welcome this law. When traveling through Hungary, I can stop paying Hungarian vignette (road tax) and when I drive under highway cameras, I'll just wave my arms in explicit objection to having my picture taken :)

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 6 months ago | (#46490559)

"implicit consent is still a consent". Yeah, right. So why HSCIC is delaying uploading of the UK population's medical records to care.data?

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

aedan (196243) | about 6 months ago | (#46490585)

Not the UK, only England.

There has never been a UK wide NHS.

The UK tried to stop people photographing the police but the law has been dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490751)

The UK did nothing of the sort. Certain police officers decided to invent a law, and were rightly slapped down.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 6 months ago | (#46490871)

Unfortunately, Hungarian is so hard to understand that even with Google Translate I can't follow their newspapers and columns, so we are at the mercy of second-hand journalism and skimpy stuff such as TFA, but indeed this looks like one of the laws enected to be used selectively against well defined targets.

I can suggest:
http://www.euronews.com/tag/hu... [euronews.com]

Not a huge quantity of Hungary-specific articles, but the journalism is good and generally low-level enough to pick up on things the international English-language services don't.

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 6 months ago | (#46490881)

Oh, and sorry to self-reply, but Google turned this up:
http://www.world-newspapers.co... [world-newspapers.com]

Re:Out of step with reality (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46490615)

They've just codified what ends up happening if you annoy people by taking their photo just about anywhere else. There's plenty of examples in a lot of place where if it was escalated to the Police then people were asked to delete their photos no matter what the law is.
If you are especially masochistic take a camera with a telephoto lens to a beach and see how much force is used to apprehend you.

Re:Out of step with reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490717)

Looks like Europe has some sensible privacy/photo laws, and we in the US should really learn from them. The "Nothing you do in public is provide and you can be recorded by random people or by the government everywhere you go!" nonsense has to go.

It's an invasion! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490375)

The photogs are coming! Arm yourselves!

Re:It's an invasion! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490491)

So it has come to this.

great law (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490393)

i dont care about "photographers rights" or any b.s. damn i do not want to be in a photo taken by a stranger! i hide my face (try to) when i walk past idiotic tourists and goddamn "photographers". the thing i hate the most is people who take photos/video in protests. yes why don't you put that up on facebook and alert my boss or the fascist gov't while you're at it.

i wish i lived in hungary. great law. intrusive photography is rude. improving tech has made people rude and idiotic!

Re: great law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490493)

Or maybe so being such an introvert or hermit. If you do things, assume someone will capture it on film. In the words of Joe Biden "big fucking deal"

Re:great law (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490497)

There's nothing rude about taking pictures. Using those pictures in a suppressant way against the people in them without good reason might be.

Re:great law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490509)

If you are so paranoid about people seeing you, then stay home.

yes why don't you put that up on facebook and alert my boss

Sounds like a man doing things he knows he shouldn't be doing and worried that his boss might see the picture.

Re:great law (2)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 6 months ago | (#46490735)

If you are so paranoid about people seeing you, then stay home.

That sounds sustainable.

Sounds like a man doing things he knows he shouldn't be doing and worried that his boss might see the picture.

Bosses are known to fire/not hire people simply because those people do things they don't like (such as getting drunk at a party). To say that he must be doing something he shouldn't be is to have absolute faith in the rationality of moronic bosses who expect everyone to comply with their arbitrary rules, which is pure idiocy.

Re:great law (1)

theNetImp (190602) | about 6 months ago | (#46490623)

so don't go outside then. With everyone carrying a camera around the chances of you getting in their photos are so great that you should probably spend your life as a hermit.

Re:great law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490909)

the thing i hate the most is people who take photos/video in protests. yes why don't you put that up on facebook and alert my boss or the fascist gov't while you're at it.

You think this law would prevent the government/police from filming and photographing at a protest? If so, might I interest you in some prime Nevada ocean front property?

Re:great law (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46491739)

Protests are innately photogenic, and I've never seen a protest movement that didn't welcome publicity.

Stupid beyond words (0)

xenobyte (446878) | about 6 months ago | (#46490397)

The idea might seem good until you realize that unless you have an army of thousands you cannot possibly manage to ask everyone in a wide shot for permissions and in wide shots it's hard to recognize anyone anyway... And if you take it literary a picture from inside a restaurant might include a window and people outside, including people in cars driving by... Good luck obtaining permission from them.

Re:Stupid beyond words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490463)

How did you determine whether the law is "stupid" or merely more nuanced than you've taken it for? Has your research left any remote chance that taking a wide shot in which it would be hard to recognise anyone anyway would not be a problem under this law?

Re:Stupid beyond words (2)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 6 months ago | (#46490471)

Stupid if you think this is about people. It's about protecting corporations or powerful people that may be upset by photographs and then invoking this law to make embarrassing pictures either go away or become very expensive.

Still think it's stupid?

Re:Stupid beyond words (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490479)

The idea might seem good until you realize that unless you have an army of thousands you cannot possibly manage to ask everyone in a wide shot for permissions and in wide shots it's hard to recognize anyone anyway... And if you take it literary a picture from inside a restaurant might include a window and people outside, including people in cars driving by... Good luck obtaining permission from them.

So it seems we can expect tons of really great landscape photography to come out of Hungary in the foreseeable future as Hungarian photographers become shy loners who avoid contact with other humans whilst doing their work.

Re:Stupid beyond words (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 6 months ago | (#46491275)

So what would work for everyone, for both the people who want to take pictures and for those that don't want their picture taken simply because they were in a public forum? Maybe public "privacy" zones? Seems quite the delimna for me.

It is called a model release (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | about 6 months ago | (#46490433)

If you take pictures that MAY be used in a commercial way, you need a release form from the model. Not people in a crowd, but a specific person. Deal with it.

I hope they get things sorted out before July (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#46490495)

I hope they get things sorted out before the last weekend in July
when the Hungarian Grand Prix is held

The media would have to get release from all the spectators.

Re:I hope they get things sorted out before July (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490705)

I bet the terms and condictions when buying tickets already contain a clause where spectators grant permission to be photographed and those photos to be used any which way the organizers deem jolly.

Re:I hope they get things sorted out before July (1)

blackest_k (761565) | about 6 months ago | (#46490921)

That might be the case, I've seen conditions that say something like by entering the event you are concenting to be filmed ect. This was for a rock concert in the uk at sheffield arena. This was posted at every entrance into the place. I would imagine it would be part of the terms and conditions of tickets for the Hungarian GP.

Incidentally a lot of places require you to have public liability cover of several million as a photographer or you will not get access. which kind of makes sense even if most of the time its never needed. (was a case of a photographer stepping back knocked into an old lady who went over and cracked her skull freak accident but it was worth his premium) Track side photography has even higher insurance requirements.

This new law in Hungary is ripe for abuse, never again can compromising pictures of politicians and celebrities be taken.

On the otherhand you could argue that there are some times it would be better for people involved if there was no picture. On thursday i was on my way home and came upon a car on its roof that had just crashed, I stopped and helped unfortunately one lad died later at the scene. There are photo's of the car on several news websites and it feels quite raw seeing it there just for me and it must be worse for the families of the kids that were in that crash. Feels a lot different when you crawled in through the window and found it impossible to do anything to help the kid trapped inside. does there need to be a picture?

Re:I hope they get things sorted out before July (1)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 6 months ago | (#46491115)

That might be the case, I've seen conditions that say something like by entering the event you are concenting to be filmed ect. This was for a rock concert in the uk at sheffield arena.

The UK has probably the most inconsistent rules for photography of any country.

You can take pictures in public, unless the activity might be deemed private such as holding hands or eating, or might be disrespectful of a famous or powerful person, or is of a child doing something they might want to be kept private. But even then if someone would rather not have it known, such as walking out of a drug rehab center, then even though it would normally be public and newsworthy it isn't exactly public in this case unless the photograph is for an established news corporation by a professionally employed photographer rather than an independent photographer, which would then make it improper. At least this rule from Hungary is self-consistent.

The UK law can best be described as: If someone with money or power dislikes the photo it is unlawful, unless you have more money or power which then makes it lawful agai. Of course, that applies to just about everything in the country, not just photography.

Do security/surveillance cameras have exception? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490515)

Do security/surveillance cameras have exception?

Re:Do security/surveillance cameras have exception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490743)

Of couse.
Would you think, that you have any rights AGAINST the government, police, and government affiliated security companies?

Surveillance. (1)

Ultracrepidarian (576183) | about 6 months ago | (#46490519)

Do surveillance cams count?

Re:Surveillance. (1)

DamonHD (794830) | about 6 months ago | (#46490593)

In binary... Possibly electric sheep too, while they dream.

Rgds

Damon

New scam for gipsies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490583)

Standing in front of national monuments / points of interest and not allowing photos unless you pay a fee...

The country is already out of step with Europe (4, Informative)

Hans Adler (2446464) | about 6 months ago | (#46490591)

Hungary was deprived of an important step in the development of today's Europe: fascism. And they insist on catching up without any shortcuts. Unfortunately I am not joking. As the current government wants Hungary to leave the European Union anyway, they are shamelessly breaking all of its principles. Apparently this is only going to end after the Hungarians have spectacularly lost a war right in the heart of Europe.

Being homeless is now officially a crime. The ruling party quite openly supports pogroms against gypsies. Hungary is quite open about wanting to annex all Hungarian-speaking regions of neighbouring countries. (Ethnic Hungarians in those countries can already obtain Hungarian passports.) The media is censored to such a degree that when the current law came into effect, lots of journalists had to look for a job immediately as they were left with a choice between creeping up the government's posteriors or facing draconian punishment. Even citizens from other European countries cannot by land in Hungary. Austrian farmers who already own land in Hungary are punished when they cross the border in a tractor to cultivate it. When the Swiss Franc rose a lot, causing problems for enormous numbers of Hungarians (and Hungarian institutions) that idiotically had taken Swiss loans because of the low nominal interest rates, Hungary *unilaterally* decided that they only have to pay back these loans to the amount owed theoretically if the exchange rate had been constant. In other words, the Hungarian government unilaterally partially dispossessed the banks of an EFTA country.

The new photography law is just another in a series of rubber laws that criminalise almost everything so that they can be applied selectively to members of the opposition and other likely targets.

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (3, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | about 6 months ago | (#46490601)

Hungary was deprived of an important step in the development of today's Europe: fascism.

Hungary had a fascist-led government [wikipedia.org] around World War II just like many other countries.

The ruling party quite openly supports pogroms against gypsies.

Can you cite this, please? I would be very surprised to hear this from Fidesz, as it sounds like an exclusively Jobbik thing. Many people outside of Hungary with only a cursory understanding of the country's dour political situation tend to confuse Fidesz and Jobbik, but the latter party does not have much power (yet).

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490755)

it sounds like an exclusively Jobbik thing

Can you cite this, please? Nobody supports pogroms against the gypsies except maybe a handful of marginalized extremists. Also there has been only one case that can be deemed a pogrom in the past 60+ years ending with fatalities, also commited by a few extremists.

Jobbik is just a reaction to existing problems swept under the rug by the ruling parties (past/present). BTW I hate their guts as they are quite stupid and alarmingly authoritarian.

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46491003)

How about this protest [stormfront.org] against gypsy crime organized by the Jobbik party Maybe this article [bbc.com] .

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490643)

I wish other countries would do something about the fucking gypsies.
The only reasons Americans feel so sorry for them is because they don't have to deal with the thieving scum.
They use their children to make money. Sometimes they live in houses and just dress up like beggars and cart their kids around just to make money from begging.
From the very bottom of my heart: fuck gypsies.
Also maybe watch some documentaries about gypsies living in fucking mansions paid for by begging before you mod me down to shit.

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (2)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46491805)

In a way, Gypsies have united Europe. I've been warned about them by the people of every single EU country I have visited.

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490943)

As someone who is actually living in Hungary, I deeply disagree with you. Please stop spreading your bullshit propaganda over the interwebz. Thx.

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491505)

First of all, learn a little bit of history that is not that far in the past. Hungary, after WWII, had lost around 40% of its area. So, it's not that unnatural to want to reverse the shrinkage.

Re:The country is already out of step with Europe (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 6 months ago | (#46491749)

This is getting in line with the rest of Europe as it gives the same privacy rights that most European countries have. This is nothing new or spectacular, it is common legal status in many countries and doesn't cause nearly the amount of trouble Anglo-saxon privacy haters think.

The NSA wanted this law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490603)

The NSA looks for all pictures on the Internet and do face recognition to see who is friends with who.
Having random strangers in the photographs makes it more difficult to detect who are each other friends and the NSA has a too high false positive rate.
By creating laws everywhere that you can not make pictures of random strangers will reduce these false positives.

Hope this induces people (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 6 months ago | (#46490619)

Hope this induces people ... to get the hell out of my shot and let me take the picture with the background and just my wife in the foreground. Shush you inconsiderate bunch of fellow tourists. Walk that bit faster and show us snapshot takers you care.

Having said that, the idea is truly bizarre.

Re:Hope this induces people (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46490665)

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie...

Who would the bourgeoisie want to massacre? Are you sure you didn't mean "massacres of the bourgeoisie"?

Re:Hope this induces people (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 6 months ago | (#46490863)

If you are talking about one person walking into your shot, I can understand.

However, in a very busy area, it is unreasonable to expect everyone to stop what they're doing just so you can take a photo.

Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490639)

What about those wearing Google Glass? Guess they don't give a damn about that either.

Re:Google Glass (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 6 months ago | (#46490757)

It is not the act of carrying a camera that is the problem. Taking pictures is the problem. Walk into some place with a (big) camera, without asking anything will get you into trouble. In the US it will not get you into legal trouble, but you might be asked to leave/stop filming anyway.

THe difference is that they made a law about this.

Breaking the law every day (1)

kevingolding2001 (590321) | about 6 months ago | (#46490715)

Maybe this is one of those "You commit at least 3 crimes every day without even realizing it" situations that James Duane proposes.

For most people, most of the time, they will not do anything. But if the authorities decide that you have become inconvenient, then there are numerous instances of you commiting crimes to justify locking you up.

The USA's federal government... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490759)

needs to implement a law like this so it would be legal for police officers to beat the everloving shit out of people that take pictures or make movies of police officers.

I'm a cop, my parents were cops, and their parents were cops. The little people have no idea what we deal with on a daily basis, and it's only fair that we should be able to punish civilians for taking pictures of us. Those fucking plebs think they can do whatever they want just because the law says they can.

Well, I am the fucking law, and I say you can't take pictures of me, or make a movie of anything I do. Unless you want to spend the next couple weeks in a hospital.

Nearly every EU Country has some form of this law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490815)

The impact is far less dramatic than the article suggests - you just cant invade the privacy of random people anymore. IMO a good law to have!

Re:Nearly every EU Country has some form of this l (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46490861)

I see no difference between someone looking at me in public and someone taking a picture of me in public. I have no expectation of privacy in public. Public is the oposite of private. If you don't want to be photographed while in public it is up to you to obscure your identity and not up to me to be sure I don't capture your image.

some background intel (5, Informative)

geptrizor (3419851) | about 6 months ago | (#46490865)

Don't make the mistake of interpreting this law as one aimed to protect the privacy of individuals. If that was the case I would even argue in favor of it.

The ruling party - who will likely win the next elections without trouble due to the state capture level corruption, media control, and rigged election system (an impotent opposition doesn't help) - regard Putin's Russia as an example to follow. They also do everything to kiss his ass despite their actions in Crimea, and despite the long and painful Soviet opression of Hungary and the revolution of 1956 crushed by them. And why? Because they want Russia to expand the power plant in the city of Paks, the biggest infrastructure investment in the history of Hungary ever, without even asking for a quote from other companies or reaching a consensus that it's even needed (green energy will likely be much cheaper by the time the plant is finished). Russia will also kindly provide the loan for the project, making us depend on their good will for decades, because seriously, what could go wrong with that?

Now, what would you think if such a country, with its leader in the pocket of Putin, would enact this law?

According to the law even private individuals can be punished, not just professionals who realize a profit from the pictures. This is dumb at best in the era of smartphones. Obviously, the law won't be enforced to the letter or mean anything for the majority. Nobody will go after tourists, either. But it WILL be used as a possible weapon to prosecute anyone from public servants caught criticising the power to journalists who stick their noses where they shouldn't.

Just a shining example from the recent past. I personally agree that there are things you shouldn't even say in anonymous comments and people should have the right to defend themselves against online abuse. But when a prominent member of the ruling party can sue a commenter for a basically harmless comment and win a huge compensation (even though there is a law in place saying public figures must tolerate more criticism due to their roles), you know something's very wrong. This new law fits in the picture just nicely.

Do come to Hungary as a tourist as it's a lovely place to visit. It's safe too unless you invite girls whom you just met (and who happen to celebrate their birthdays) for drinks. But do come before we silently join the new russian empire. (Sorry for my english, I'm honing my russian instead, it will be very handy soon.)

Re:some background intel (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490891)

Shut the fuck up.

You wouldn't know progress if it bit you on the taint.

Only an American capitalist, republican, and/or liberal would object to Russia's presence. Compared to the USA, Russia is far superior.

Putin is white, and Obama is black. Simple proof that Russia superior in all ways to the USA. The Russians would never let an African run their nation.

Unlike the USA, the Russians don't want their country to end up like the many African countries that are led, run, and "organized" by dark-skinned Africans.

Re:some background intel (1)

geptrizor (3419851) | about 6 months ago | (#46490917)

They have a sense of humour, though. 15th March is our national holiday in celebration of another crushed revolution (1848) for boring things like the freedom of press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Adobe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46490931)

Adobe is the worst company

"Photogs"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491061)

Hungarian Law Says Photogs Must Ask Permission To Take Pictures

Does Slashdot have to pay for bandwidth based on the number of bytes in the headline?

Use long exposures then (2)

Walking The Walk (1003312) | about 6 months ago | (#46491099)

I guess it's back to old school photograhpy then. 100 years ago, photographs of landmarks didn't have people in then unless they were willing to stand perfectly still for 20 minutes or more. So just get a tripod, set up at your chosen landmark, and open the shutter. None of the people moving around will show up in your picture, and if you want to be in your own photo, just walk in front of the camera and strike a pose that you can hold for a half hour or so.

Street photography outlawed in Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491497)

I'm Sofia Koutsouveli, a street photographer in Greece, and I've built my whole 20-year career taking pictures of strangers in the street without permission. This law is not just a Hungarian law but it exists all over Europe because it was pushed by the European Union as part of its privacy law. Let me tell you one thing: here in Europe we look towards America for helping us gain more freedoms. We aren't free here in Europe. Many countries here still have kings and have no constitution (like the UK). Taking photos of strangers without their permission or even against their wish is an important part of fine art photography, social documentary photography, street photography, photojournalism, and historical photography. If someone doesn't want to be included in a street photographer's shoot, they should learn what a public place is and stay in their home. Laws such as this is exactly what makes many social documentary and street photographers to invest in smaller cameras, smartphones and Google Glass rather than big DSLRs, what we shouldn't have to. Society will be deprived of images if taking a picture of someone in public is seen as a privacy issue. Privacy doesn't exist outside one's home.

aww (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491503)

Pierre Woodman will be sad

Brilliant! (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46491529)

Brilliant!

I see two things coming out of this:

(1) Get a bunch of your friends together; stand all around in photogenic places so it's impossible to get a shot without you or one of your friends in it; charge to sign the release

(2) Be about to do something that will end your political career, like going to see one of your 6 baby mamas or going to meet someone to pick up your bribe; have a large security detail; have them arrive first, and stand all around so it's impossible to get a shot without one of them in the picture; have them refuse to sign the release

The first should be a wonderful drag on the tourist industry, while the second should be an effective way to prevent people from taking embarrassing pictures.

How stupid is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491683)

How stupid is this? There are not words in ANY language (or all of them) to express it. It is akin to saying "You can't look at anyone without their permission."... Possible? Get REAL!

Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491721)

"Now future generations will have no pictures of commoners in the street." --Anthony David

Cameras are ubiquitous. (3, Insightful)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 6 months ago | (#46491907)

Billions of photos taken every day. This kind of law just lets the government selectively prosecute somebody they don't like. I also assume it doesn't apply to surveillance cameras.

Photography is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46491923)

Many photogs (photog being the usual abbreviation we photographers use for ourselves) actually want to emigrate to the US and leave Europe, or somehow persuade our European governments to give us the same First Amendment the US Constitution has. I'm a local photographer here, Chrysanthi Lykousi, and I plan to leave Europe and emigrate to America because of laws such as this. We can't do our job anymore. These laws masquerade as privacy laws but in reality they are censorship laws to protect the political and business elite. Street photographers such as Bresson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson would be criminals today if they tried to take pictures in Hungary, France, Greece, or other European countries.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>