Since this question is not tagged for Spain, and it is tagged for cultural-awareness and local-customs, then be aware that in some countries (including England and Wales) photography in a public place is generally unrestricted, and your principal recourse in such situations is not to go into thos...
Afaik the UK is much more aware of (potential) paedophiles in public spaces including those taking pictures of other people's children, so that may be another way to approach the issue even if photos of strangers are usually permitted.
Check the linked document for information about the Leisurewatch scheme, but note that even where that is in effect (and signs are posted accordingly) members of the public are not empowered to require anything of photographers.
Hang on, there is a gross misunderstanding. It is generally legal to photograph anywhere, true (generally in EU, not just UK), but you are still subject to particular copyrights (for example, you're not allowed to photograph the lit Eiffel Tower or the Elbphilharmonie) and to people's individual rights of their image. You may take a picture of a beach or whatever where people happen to be (i.e. not the object of the photograph). You may not zoom in and take a picture of a person, let alone a child. If it was my child, I'd call police and point a "pedo" finger at the guy with the zoom lens.
@Damon In the U.K., it’s not an infringement of copyright to take photos of buildings, so that’s not relevant. And you certainly may zoom in and take a photo of a person, regardless of their age. You can point all the ‘pedo’ fingers you want, but what they’re doing is perfectly legal. “In U.K. law there is no specific right to privacy in public places. The European Convention on Human Rights gives a ‘right to private and family life’. In U.K. law you do not have a right to privacy in a public place.” I’d love a source for “you may not zoom in and take a picture of a person”.
I'll take the troll bait. In Spain (unlike most EU countries) you have libertad de panorama, which means you may photo places unless forbidden (e.g. you may not take a photo of the police station). However, it is illegal to even attempt to take a photo of a person unless explicit consent is given. Copying and publishing is yet another thing under GDPR (including the copy on your computer). Plus, in several EU countries, photos (even attempted) of people in "private areas" (such as their home, or well, a stroller) or "helpless people" such as a small child gets you 2 years of prison.
@Damon it's not troll bait. I got into hot water with French police after taking photos of everyone (and everything) involved in my sister's car accident in Southern France, because although that is absolutely normal in the UK, it's not lawful in France. Rules are different in different places, hence the benefits of cultural awareness. So please, let's be clear: generally speaking, it is completely lawful in England and Wales to take a photo of any person, in a public place. Publishing is, as you say, another thing - but a thing not mentioned by the OP.
Well, photographing a constable is as illegal in UK as in France... so you are quite lucky only having gotten in hot water, and not in prison :) I believe (not sure) they even have a similar law on photos at accident sites as we do (with really harsh penalties). In any case, Q is about Spain, and it's pretty clear that you may take a photo of a place (most places) but not people. For UK, you may want to read Linda MacPherson's writeup on the subject for some extra surprises, especially the paragraphs about harrassment. No, you cannot just photograph anything or anyone in the UK either.
@Damon okay first, I’m not a troll. And secondly, what!? It’s perfectly legal to take photographs of police officers in the United Kingdom, stop spreading misinformation! Again, in the U.K. its standard to take photos at accidents, and - let me reiterate you do not have a right to privacy in a public place in the U.K. there are very few restrictions on photography. Taking a random person’s photograph is also contrary to GDPR because there’s no identifying information. Finally, it’s not harassment unless you’re repeatedly targeting people. A photo of someone in the U.K. is not harassment.
@Tim with the hardly-unexpected rollout of pre-emptive, automated face recognition on an industrial scale, not even by the police but by photo hosters like Facebook/Instagram, Apple and anyone trying to compete with them... "no identifying information" is already a distinction without a difference. I expect to see GDPR amended to recognize this foregone conclusion.
@Tim GDPR applies to photos as well. If you are EU citizen (and UK is also still in the EU atm), then you actually can demand that no-one takes your picture under GDPR. Sadly i only have german references for that, but the current legal opinion seems to be that GDPR applies in those cases. Here is a source, but I am not sure how well google translate will work for that: filmverband-suedwest.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/…
@Polygnome that’s an interesting one, I’m a little surprised. Does that mean I have to blur the faces of every photo I’ve ever taken, even of I’m not going to publish them? Because I’ve not got the motivation to do that to up to 30,000 photos!
@Polygnome GDPR only applied to companies, not to private persons.
@MadHatter even in France there is an exception for pictures taken for artistic reasons. Anyone can claim they're a street photographer, although they could probably ask you to stop taking any further pictures.
Though "street photographer" in an artistic sense rules out "private person", and it's irrespective of the harrassment aspect once asked to stop (also copying and publishing restrictions apply regardless of being a company, too). Lastly, at the risk of repeating myself (growing tired, really) there is a huge difference between taking a photo of a place where there are accidentially some people around, and taking a photo of a person without or against their explicit consent. One is a criminal offense, the other isn't.
@Damon if you're getting tired of repeating it, consider stopping, because what you're saying simply isn't true everywhere. Taking a photo that is specifically of a person, in a public place, without their consent, is generally lawful in England and Wales - even if you don't like it.
@JonathanReez NO. GDPR applies to everyone, it does does not discriminate between business or private person. Thats one of the big points of GDPR, actually. GDPR has exceptions for strictly personal use, though, but that has very strict rules. For example, if you have taken an image of another person without consent, you can never publish it anywhere, not FB, Flickr, Instagram, Twitter (or what have you), you can not even show it at your local gardeners club meeting.
@MadHatter Not if the person is an EU citizen or the photgrapher an EU citizen, then GDPR applies. Yes, GDPR is new and many people not (yet) aware of it, but it still applies.
@Tim Your 30k photos are safe, if and only if the GDPR exception for personal use applies. So, if you never publish them or distribute them to someone else, you are likely fine.
@Polygnome The statement you are linking to is an analysis of the impact of the GDPR on photographs which are not made during the exercise of private or familiar activities (nicht ... zur Ausübung ausschließlich persönlicher oder familiärer Tätigkeiten). It has no relevance for photos taken on a holiday to have for later memories. In paragraph II it is repeated again, that photos made for private purposes are not covered by the GDPR. What's the purpose of linking to a source in German, which most people here can't read, when it contradicts everything you are claiming?
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo It doesn't contradict anything. GDPR very strictly defines what personal activities are. As soon as those photos are released on FB, twitter, Instagram or else its no longer personal. And in todays society where everyone posts everything, chances are that they will be. Point is, the GDPR still applies, even when you can make use of the personal use exception.
@Polygnome If you believe to know that better than the Data Protection Office of the State of Hamburg, which has published the statement you are linking to and which clearly, with repeated emphasis, contradicts what you are writing here, you can probably link to an appropriate source. I have already quoted the first contradiction and referred to the second contradiction (first sentence in paragraph II). The analysis does not agree with you, just because you refuse to accept the there is a condradiction.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Where does it contradict anything? It clearly states that pictures can be considered personal information. It also states that if its strictly personal, you can make use of that exception (it doesn't go into detail what "purely personal" is, you have to read other sources for that, or the law itself - which is quite clear). For example, if you upload the pictures into a Dropbox or any Cloud service, you can no longer make use of that exception, because you are giving the data to a 3rd party (and e.g. Dropbox does not offer the proper ADV).
@Polygnome Where does it condradict anything? I can very well repeat myself if you don't bother to read what I wrote in my previous comments. I have already quoted the first contradiction and referred to the second contradiction (first sentence in paragraph II). The analysis does not agree with you, just because you refuse to accept that there is a condradiction.
@Polygnome "Einleitend ist festzuhalten, dass Aufnahmen, die zu rein privaten Zwecken gemacht werden, nicht dem Anwendungsbereich der DSGVO unterfallen" ("We note, to begin with, that photos that are exclusively made for private purposes do not fall into the scope of the GDPR")
@Polygnome Good luck stopping someone from photographing on those grounds
@sgf As soon as the photes are uploaded to a cloud, Dropbox or any public social media profile GDPR applies again. I'm not saying it applies to every photo, but the blanket statement that in the UK; you can make those pictures, is false. UK law may allow it, but there may be other laws that still apply.
@Polygnome The blanket statement that in the UK, you can take those pictures is still very valid. Noone disputes, and it has already been pointed out in earlier comments, that there are restrictions to what you can do with the pictures later, but that is completely irrelevant for this question. That distinction is not even new in the GDPR, but a distinction present and regulated in privacy laws in most European countries before GDPR.
@EdmundReed: Not so if that someone does something that isn't "healthy". I was recently shown videos from an orgy (erm, party) of drunk 15-16 year old girls doing... typical drunk teenage girl stuff. The video was on a friend's 15 year old daughter's phone. On her phone, that counts as "fun", whereas on my phone, it would count as "you fucking pedo". There's just things you can do and things you can't do as an adult. Do sick stuff, and you rightfully get in trouble. I mean, seriously, being asked to stop, what else does it take for a normally developed adult to understand?
@Damon I do agree with you, but even then, you shouldn't throw the word pedo around willy-nilly as it diminishes the severity of the word. Also, to be frank, pedophilia is pedophilia regardless of context (something can't be pedophilia on one person's phone, but "fun" on someone else's - that isn't how it works) and 15/16 year olds do absolutely not constitute as pedophilia, so again, throwing the word around to describe this scenario only takes away from the actual severity of pedophilia.
@Polygnome If the law was really interpreted in the manner you propose, this would mean we could sue every single European broadcaster of the World Cup (quite a lot of people who didn't all give their permission I'm sure in all those pictures). So I'd say there must be a snatch somewhere.
Discussion on answer by MadHatter: Ho…
Discussion on answer by MadHatter: Ho…