Can I take photos of the tram from the outside?
How do I find the courage to do it? Others do it without holding back or worrying about what others will say, like the driver.
In my case, the driver said something that I found unfair. Besides, I need it; I'm using it for something.
I need your help, should I risk it or not?
(1 rating, 1 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
Yes, you can photograph a tram from the outside as long as you are in public space.
It also does not matter whether the driver or passengers on the photo are recognizable or not. As long as the main motif is clearly the tram itself, there may be randomly recognizable persons counting as a sidepiece and may therefore be photographed unquestioned and the photo also published (in German law; in Austria it is differently formulated, but in practice it goes beyond the same).
Of course, you must not impede the tram or passengers, before the tram lay on the tracks for a particularly horny perspective, so logically it does not go.
It is controversial to what extent you can stop at the stop during photography, because this is basically private ground. So in case of doubt, you'd rather get away from the stop and take pictures from the public sidewalk.
You're not allowed to take the train.
Make the picture so you don't see a person!
So for example an empty train at the station
I'm just doing it from behind, and when no passengers are there
Then it will not disturb
What law is that? Always find funny what people suck out of their fingers for stuff.
What?
That's not true. You can photograph the tram even if you can see drivers and passengers. If the motif is clearly the tram itself, the people on the picture are only works.
This applies only to a publication, and it would have to be a lawsuit in which a court would then have to Art freedom + Panorama law against personality law. Photographing in the public space is not criminal anyway. So the questioner should first have a publication or publication plan.
Can you prove this assertion, are there already verdicts? I don't think so.
But that is exactly the case. The people are accessories because the train is the motive. And a train counts as locality.
The right thing about the picture – personality right!
And before you come with your freedom of panoram… here is an excerpt from your link – especially the last sentences (if we assume that one railway is a non-movable building in public space…)
No one will believe the passengers and, above all, the drivers are in the picture
Right to own image
Edit
Section 23 Paragraph 1 No 2 KUG
[Without the consent required under Section 22 may be distributed and displayed:]
Images on which the persons appear only as a supplement next to a landscape or other locality
In the case of the Personal rights is preceded by its copyright counterpart in time and has already been found in the original version of the Art Author Law (KUG) of January 9, 1907. [27] The scheme refers to “images” of persons, which already distinguishes themselves linguistically from the “images” (ie illustrations on which one or more persons are the main thing), which can only be disseminated and publicly displayed with the consent of the image ( Section 22 KUG). [28] If, for example, a person's contribution is on an image and if someone cuts out the representation of persons from the context of the environment, he thus creates an image – in the case of which the participation can no longer be used. [29]
In any case, it is necessary that the landscape or other locality shape the content of the image. The personal image must be subordinate to such an extent that it could also be omitted, without the object and character of the image changing as a result; it must not be the subject of the image itself in this respect. [30] If there is a relationship between the personal image and the actual subject-matter, this is contrary to the classification as a supplement. [31] According to the case-law of the BGH, the association property presupposes that the person concerned is virtually randomly located in an environment which forms the actual object of the image. [32]
Okay, you didn't understand. I asked with which law you make your statement , you should photograph the driver and not people on the train????
So… I… I don't… I don't…
Read it again if you didn't understand.
Yes, you may be without if and even if people are on it including the guide.
What if they say what? It's been insulting me two times before.
They have nothing to say.
Yes, you can.
If people are only minors, so the train is the clear motive, you can even publish the photo.
If people make fools, let them show you the law that you're supposed to be breaking. There is no law that prohibits photography in the public except you would photograph people in a miserable situation. And otherwise you can Panorama freedom to prove.
Panorama Freedom – Wikipedia
So a driving ice movie that drives into a station?
Yeah.
Many people do it, just like trains. This is everyday. I used to do something like that when I was younger, the riders rarely disturbed it. So, go for it.
Yeah, he looks so funny. I don't know what to do… Maybe tell him what 😅
Tell him what you use it for.
Then ask him to stop!!!
OK.
Yeah, sure, that's not forbidden.
I'm a locomotive driver and I've been photographed with my train for 1000 times.
I'm always happy. From time to time I even whistle, they are very happy.
Truly beautiful 😇👍✨