By the term street photography, we all mean what the term itself describes, i.e. photographing people, events, situations in public areas. In most cases, of course, the people in the photos are recognizable. What does the Personal Data Protection Act (ZVOP-1) say about this? The opinion of their representative goes something like this:
In the case of street photography, according to the Commissioner, ZVOP-1 is not used. The essence of street photography as a special genre of documentary photography is to use a camera to record individuals in public places in special circumstances, situations, interactions with animate and inanimate nature or with other individuals. In addition to providing aesthetic pleasure, street photography can also serve as a special form of documentation, e.g. social conditions of the time in which it was recorded. It is about the exercise of freedom of expression from Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which in a specific case outweighs the individual's right to the protection of his personal data. Nevertheless, the photographer must be careful not to encroach on the personal rights of an individual, who can sue the photographer if the photographer significantly interferes with his privacy with the photograph.
As can be seen from the above, street photography differs significantly in its purpose from location services, such as e.g. Google Street View. The latter is intended for a virtual walk through e.g. part of the city, checking how many free parking spaces there are, whether there is access for the disabled, etc. The service serves almost exclusively practical purposes. This is the difference between street photography and e.g. location services that build on photos.
At the same time, it must be taken into account that even if the provisions of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia or ZVOP-1 are not applied in the case of a street photo, this does not mean that the regulations do not provide any protection of their personal rights to the individuals who are in the photo. On the contrary, the legal order gives the depicted identifiable individual a series of claims with which he can protect his personality right in his own image. In relation to claims based on Article 35 of ZVOP-1, the Commissioner explains that he does not have real jurisdiction, but the courts do.
So, street photography is not a concept that, in today's times, when we are all so full of privacy rights, represents a genre that the photographer should avoid, in order not to face some kind of lawsuit or process. In fact, precisely this intervention in the happenings is the essence of this genre, because it represents an important document about the society and the activities at the time of recording the recording.
According to the commissioner, the photography itself has no connection with ZVOP-1, but the publication of these photos is a little different (because for some artists in this field, this is the point!). As long as the persons photographed are placed in some context that does not constitute malicious use, there is no obstacle. The right to free expression does not interfere with the right to privacy. In extreme cases, however, the situation towards the photographed person can be given in an offensive way. In this case, the injured party can turn to the competent court, which, based on the decision, can refuse to publish such a photo. However, if it is proven that damage has been caused, the injured party can also claim compensation. All of this is for non-commercial, private or artistic use. In the case of commercial use of a photo in which visible or recognizable persons are visible, written consent must be obtained from each individual.
In general, the summary of all this is that "street photography" is an art-documentary genre, which has its own validity and meaning for society, but which is limited by the individual's right to privacy. So it's a slight collision of two rights. As long as we are not offensive and do not photograph persons in an explicit act that casts a bad light on their image, or place it in an offensive and mocking context, we are fairly on the safe side. Here it is also about our sense of ourselves, when some photography can be controversial.
Tomaž Berčič
