Hello everyone,
What are your thoughts on security cameras? I am considering installing two outside. I have already looked through the websites of the regional data protection authorities and noted the essentials (notice sign, deletion policy, masking public areas, etc.). The main goal is deterrence and to be informed about what happens when I am away.
Do you have cameras on your property or even more, like an alarm system? What are your reasons for or against them?
Thank you and best regards,
Andrea85
What are your thoughts on security cameras? I am considering installing two outside. I have already looked through the websites of the regional data protection authorities and noted the essentials (notice sign, deletion policy, masking public areas, etc.). The main goal is deterrence and to be informed about what happens when I am away.
Do you have cameras on your property or even more, like an alarm system? What are your reasons for or against them?
Thank you and best regards,
Andrea85
On this occasion, I climbed up the ladder and cleaned the lenses and optics on my cameras. This is another drawback. They collect dust and dirt. Even a very thin layer is enough to reduce image quality. Especially with 1080p resolution and higher, every speck of dust becomes visible and is distracting. Oh, and spiders sometimes spin webs in front of them as well. So, you need to clean them regularly.
Joedreck schrieb:
Publishing images without consent falls under the Copyright Act. It also outlines the exceptions.Copyright law is somewhat different. It is less about the right to one's own image (as in video surveillance) and more about copyright, meaning you are not allowed to distribute someone else's property (artist’s rights).
untergasse4321 Dec 2019 14:09ypg schrieb:
Copyright is a bit different now. It has little to do with the right to one's own image (in video surveillance), but rather with copyright law, which prohibits the distribution of someone else's property (artist’s rights) Oh, there is a lot of half-knowledge here again, because the Art Copyright Act is indeed relevant.
Section 22 of the Art Copyright Act:
“Portraits may only be distributed or publicly displayed with the consent of the person depicted. Consent is presumed to have been given if the person depicted received payment for being portrayed. After the death of the person depicted, consent from their relatives is required for up to 10 years. Relatives within the meaning of this law are the surviving spouse or life partner and the children of the person depicted, and if neither a spouse or life partner nor children are present, the parents of the person depicted.”
ypg schrieb:
Copyright law is a bit different here. It has little to do with the right to one's own image (in video surveillance) and more to do with copyright, which means you cannot distribute someone else’s property (artists’ rights). See the next post. And when something is posted publicly on the internet, the image is being distributed—usually without consent.
Simply recording something is initially not punishable under the German Copyright Act (KunstUrhG).
To what extent the GDPR is involved, I prefer not to judge. And I’m not interested in researching it either.
By the way, legal texts are freely available. Anyone can easily look them up online.
If something questionable really comes up, I’m also happy to check sources like Beck Online or juris.
B
boxandroof21 Dec 2019 20:12The GDPR does not apply in the private family context.
Recordings that are freely posted on the Internet are no longer covered by this exception, and the GDPR applies: information obligations, deletion periods, data minimization, and all that comes with it.
Furthermore, there are certainly other laws that prohibit or restrict distribution.
Recordings that are freely posted on the Internet are no longer covered by this exception, and the GDPR applies: information obligations, deletion periods, data minimization, and all that comes with it.
Furthermore, there are certainly other laws that prohibit or restrict distribution.