Slashdot Mirror
Hungarian Law Says Photogs Must Ask Permission To Take Pictures
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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
Still think it's stupid?
Mostly random stuff.
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.
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
Do security/surveillance cameras have exception?
Do surveillance cams count?
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/... 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.
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.
"implicit consent is still a consent". Yeah, right. So why HSCIC is delaying uploading of the UK population's medical records to care.data?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Standing in front of national monuments / points of interest and not allowing photos unless you pay a fee...
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...
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.
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.
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...
0x or or snor perron?!
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.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Sounds like the better way to solve the "problem."
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
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...
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.
Oh, and sorry to self-reply, but Google turned this up:
http://www.world-newspapers.co...
Except by the government, I assume?
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
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.
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.
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
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...)
0x or or snor perron?!
Must be a great place if you're a thief.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why?
Facebooks policy != the law.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
flickr may go along with it, but that is not the law at all.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
18 USC 2257 doesn't apply to pictures you don't publish.
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.
Kudos to the Hungarian lawmakers... wish other countries would follow suit. As for google maps, they should get an exception from the govt. and later remove people from photos using software. It may cost extra time and money, but it's possible and worth it.
Because that's the law for photography and I know because I'm a serious amateur photographer.
If you don't believe me, google would confirm this for you (or do you just enjoy disagreeing with people for no reason online)?
http://asmp.org/tutorials/freq...
Now they can arrest people photographing anything the authorities don't want photographed. Welcome to the 21st century Fascist movement.
Right...kudos for writing such a horrendous broad stroke law to pester google that now tourists can't take snapshots. Yard.
Do you mean that in most countries, if you take a picture of a crowded beach, you'd need six thousand model releases to be legal?
'Cause that doesn't sound sane. Not that most regulations are.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why does a newspaper get protections that I don't? And don't quote "freedom of the press" since that means everyone has the freedom to publish, not that there is some institution called "the press" that gets special freedom.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This seems to be what the population of Europe is clamoring for, and Hungary delivers. Populism at its best. Hungary is simply less constrained by a tradition of democracy and liberty than other European nations. But don't worry, France, Germany, and the UK will catch up.
Rubbish. You have no rights to your image.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note that the German term "Recht am eigenen Bild" translates literally to "right to your own image"
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
No, there are usually exceptions for that type of photography. Also there are typically exceptions for people of special interest (that is, if you photograph a politician, he cannot forbid you you to publish it, at least not on the ground of that law) and for certain other common cases.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Not unless you use a hidden camera. If you use a visible camera and no one objects, you can assume their implicit permission. Hidden camera though, yes, that would be illegal, so would google glass on most European beaches.
Given that the German law contains an explicit exemption for pictures of contemporary history, that statement is not true.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Must be a great place if you're a thief.
No, because in Germany, while you're forbidden to publish the picture without consent of the person, you're not forbidden to take it, nor to show it to the police.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Not unless you use a hidden camera. If you use a visible camera and no one objects, you can assume their implicit permission
But if you're standing on a pier photographing a beach, aren't you 'hidden' in that most subjects do not see your camera? 16MP sensors are amazing things when coupled with a good lens.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Of course there is, the expectation is just different than at home. The problem with photos is that they can be used to track your movements after the fact, and as technology improves this is slowly but surely becoming utterly trivial. There is no expectation that you are not seen by other pedestrians but there is the expectation that the NSA can't get a list of all persons who's gaze lingered longer than average on the news stories about the missing Malaysian flight and who's path has taken them near a mosque more often than 3/4 of the population in the past year.
Situations change, and one of the changes computers are bringing is that it's actually technologically possible to stalk everyone 24/7, and process the resulting data. And unless other social and economic factors also undergo a massive shift, the only way to stop Western states from becoming nightmarish parodies of East Germany is to ban it from being used.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's just the new 'style' of laws we are enacting around the world. It's another "we don't generally enforce it, but we will when we want to".
Cop decides you are a troublemaker, and it becomes "lets take a look at your camera, you have permission from all these people in your shot? No?"
And good luck getting permission to photograph a cop beating a suspect...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
As a photographer, I feel this is stifling creativity. In the US, it is my right to photograph to my heart's content as long as I am not trespassing, peeping through windows or committing a crime while doing so. That image is copyrighted, and it is up to me to determine how I use it. If I choose to publish and make a profit other than editorial use, I should have a model release (but in artistic works I do not necessarily need it.) The bizarre fear of cameras should be over with by now. There is so much imagery pumped out every second of the day, there is little point worrying about "who will see it" since for the most part nobody gives a poop anyway. I do not want to have to worry about someone that won't get out of the way of a shot and I intend to photoshop out of the image later. The fact that it is law means it can be used against me, in ways that are solely up to the people who may have a bad day, may want me jailed. No photography in Hungary for me (and I guess I've got plenty of other places I'd go first.)
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.
You could also just not take any pictures while you're visiting, but of course I understand that to you and many other people this seems like a totally crazy if not impossible idea.
Don't forget to use a good neutral density filter (or 2+ as needed) to really open the shutter.
Not just tourists, but pretty much anyone. I take my kids to the playground and go to take a photo of them. I line it up just right with nobody else but then a kid runs into the shot. Do I a) Delete the photo? b) Approach the kids' mother to ask permission to keep the photo? or c) Don't care because the kid is in the background? (Hint: My answer would be c.)
What if I get home before realizing that the kid was in the shot? What if the kid was too blurry to be recognizable? Is it only the kids' face that counts? What if there's part of his arm or the back of his head? What if someone photobombs every picture I take and then refuses to give permission?
This law sounds horrible.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
This issue has been discussed numerous times on Slashdot, have you been asleep? There are many situations where people are technically in public but nevertheless have an expectation of privacy.
Suppose, for example, you and a group of your friends are walking home at night on a public road, through the woods, with nobody in sight. Will the conversation reflect the technically "public" setting, or will it be more like what one will expect to find in a private setting?
For another example, suppose you are hiking through the woods on public lands, and decide to step off the trail to "use the facilities". You are technically in a public place. There is, nevertheless, an expectation of privacy. A hidden photographer (or perhaps somebody that isn't hidden, but is so far away that you don't know they can see you through their telephoto lens) that takes your picture is violating that privacy.
Public is not the opposite of private.
Once we acknowledge that there can be an expectation of privacy even in public places, it is entirely appropriate to determine what the limits of that privacy are.
It is important to remember that classical concepts of "public" and "private" reflect an era that existed before digital systems allowed recording of people without their knowledge, and with perfect recall of the recordings. The values, beliefs, and rules that societies developed with respect to the older concepts are not necessarily valid today.
It is entirely appropriate to bar recordings of people made without their permission, with some reasonable exceptions. Once a recording is made, it is also appropriate to limit what can be done with it.
For example, it should be possible to record government officials in the course of their official duties, without their permission. It should also be possible to have security cameras to protect a home or business. This does not mean that one should be able to post pictures of private moments of government officials, outside the scope of their duties, or be able to release arbitrary security camera footage to the press or the public.
If a private individual happens to be captured in a recording of a government official engaged in official duties, and that private official isn't involved in those duties, any publication of the recording should edit out recognizable portions of the image, unless permission can be obtained to include that individual.
This issue has been discussed numerous times on Slashdot, have you been asleep?
I have been involved with those conversations. My point is that just because a person thinks it should be private does not make it legally so.
Once we acknowledge that there can be an expectation of privacy even in public places, it is entirely appropriate to determine what the limits of that privacy are.
That is your opinion. In my opinion there is no expectation of privacy in a public place therefore nothing to acknowledge. If you don't want something recorded in a public place then don't do it in a public place.
It is entirely appropriate to bar recordings of people made without their permission, with some reasonable exceptions.
I see it as the opposite where "It is entirely appropriate to allow recordings of people made without their permission, with some reasonable exceptions". We agree that either extreme, "no limits on filming" and "no filming allowed", are wrong but we draw the line at a different place. I draw it further to the allowing side and you draw it further to the privacy side.
The further differentiation between public and private individuals is irrelevant; everyone deserves the same level of privacy.
If you don't want something recorded in a public place then don't do it in a public place.
It's not physically possible to remain in a public place for long periods of time without having to relieve oneself. For most of society, this period of time will be between 1 and 4 hours while awake. Many public places do not have bathrooms, and even those that do often have limited hours. If one is in rough terrain, or deep in a public wilderness area, it might not even be physically possible to get to a bathroom, even when they exist, are open, are available, and are in working order.
I think you'll find that most people don't want somebody recording them in any way while they are taking care of business. They can, and generally will, step into cover, as a matter of courtesy, but this doesn't prevent recording by hidden cameras, or long distance lenses, or by a concealed photographer. The expectation of privacy is still there, it is held by most of human societies around the world, and it is real.
You can readily observe all this for yourself. Perhaps you should get out more.
It necessarily follows that there is an expectation of privacy even in public places. Public is NOT the opposite of private. It's not just a matter of opinion, but rather a rational conclusion that flows inevitably from observed data.
To counter an argument, you must counter either the assumptions or the logic. Claiming that a point is invalid by calling it "a matter of opinion" is nothing but sophistry.
It's not physically possible to remain in a public place for long periods of time without having to relieve oneself.
This is one of the few exceptions I would consider as a private act.
Public is NOT the opposite of private.
The difference between us is that you see public acts as the exception while I see private acts as the exception.
Claiming that a point is invalid by calling it "a matter of opinion" is nothing but sophistry.
Where the opinion comes in is the classification of private act and public act. In my opinion there are many more public acts that what you seem to think.
Did the quote I replied to contain the word *publish*, or the *word* take?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Is it acceptable if you blur out the faces etc of those who weren't intended to be in the picture?
Hungary is like a rotten tomato amongst European countries. I'm sure the purpose of this law is just another way to take money on tourists who come here. While they making this law you pretty much able to see the whole country on google streetview, including me and my relatives being outside in our garden. When did I gave permission for them to take picture of my house or us? What can I do about it? Nothing. The amount of corruption and hatred is unbelievable in this country. Probably some rich polititian whored out the whole country to Google to fill up his own pockets (someone who was rich already). The gap between poor and rich are just growing and growing. No wonder that everybody is running away from this country, at the end only the rich corrupt elite will stay and rule their dumpster land. I seriously am ashamed to be Hungarian and will change my citizenship to German. Kocsogorszag jobban teljesit!