ᐅ Setting Up a Time-Lapse Camera for House Construction

splitti schrieb:
In this respect, I am grateful for the input from Bauexperte and DaLinux...

I fully agree with what Bauexperte has written.
The post by DaLinux should be approached with caution. Personally, I do not agree with any of the statements made there.

As soon as I receive feedback regarding time-lapse photography, I will inform you as well...

Don't get me wrong, isn’t it generally a problem according to building experts to even take a single photo of a house as soon as a neighbor is visible at a window or in the garden? It becomes even more difficult when I use a camcorder in the summer to film my children playing... For those who say that’s different: neighbors could still appear in the background, for example, topless, at a window, etc. And for me, the video is purely private... And time-lapse photography is, after all, something different from filming or photographing.

A huge problem with the above-mentioned legal example concerning webcams is that 99% of them are capable of streaming live to the internet by default. In this case, the publication of the footage must first be prevented (I have one of these devices myself).

I haven’t lost hope, but at the moment I see more problems than solutions!

Who exactly is the mentioned Yvonne and what can she contribute here?

Regarding the lawyer: we need one who is specifically familiar with media law. I wouldn’t necessarily trust the diagnosis of my orthopedist, for example, if I had an eye problem.

In Germany, there is still the right to photograph panoramas, although it is under significant pressure.
When I take a picture of a house, any people in the image are just incidental and completely irrelevant. As long as I do not publish the photos, I am allowed to photograph almost anything (except specially protected areas).

Based on what I’m reading here, I wish once again that Google had taken a legal battle over Street View instead of backing down...

I have now read through §§22, 23, 24, and 33 of the KunstUrhG (Art Copyright Act).
These sections always deal with the distribution or public display of recordings. Neither of these points applies in my case, which I tried to clarify with the term "PRIVATE purposes." If this was not clear enough, I apologize.

Nevertheless, I maintain the position that I am allowed to film the construction of my house for private purposes.

Please do not take the following sentence too personally, even if my wording might suggest otherwise.
However, I find it frustrating that people repeatedly interfere in the lives or actions of others, simply because they are influenced by reality TV funded through welfare programs, whistleblowers, or sensationalist tabloids. The recent discussion about "evil neighbor drones," sparked by a corresponding magazine, fits exactly into this pattern. I recently had the unpleasant experience of discussing this with a very unfriendly person. Fortunately, the police put an end to it and wished me a good day and successful recordings.

As I said, no hard feelings. I am simply annoyed by the one-sided nature of media reporting, and as you can see from the posts in this forum, this has already had its effect.

I hope you still have a pleasant evening!

DaLinux schrieb:
There are very strict limits on what kind of recordings you are allowed to make. For example, I am not allowed to photograph anyone who is on a private part of their property that is protected from view (naked), or film them in their bathroom.
There was recently news coverage about a similar issue (Justice Minister Maas weakens the draft law on nude images)

Let’s leave nude images out of this discussion — the topic of image rights is already complex enough!

DaLinux schrieb:
If I take pictures from my own property for PRIVATE purposes, image rights no longer apply.

Of course not — image rights are personal rights and imply the distribution of material... So you can photograph all your little plants in the garden.

DaLinux schrieb:
For example, I would be allowed to fly a model aircraft over my neighbor’s property and film the normally visible areas if I do it purely for private purposes.

Flying a model aircraft is allowed, but attaching a camera on such a drone would be considered secret filming and would violate personal rights.

DaLinux schrieb:
What moral concerns might arise from private photos of a house construction, I’d rather leave to others. I do not see a ban or a permission requirement here.

What does morality have to do with this? Let’s leave that aside for now.

Bauexperte schrieb:
Good day,

I don’t know where you get your facts, but that statement is incorrect. If you are an amateur photographer, you should inform yourself before causing trouble. Possibly Yvonne can also provide some input on this.

Good evening, I’m Yvonne. Every day in my work I connect the criminal procedure code with the penal code... I am also a trained photographer (although the laws have changed somewhat over the decades). Still, I photograph for clients and sometimes dare to involve a lawyer when copyright is ignored to my disadvantage.

A video is equivalent to a photo.
There is no straightforward answer whether something is right or wrong in general. There are laws that you should follow. But when it comes to very specific situations, interpretation is often necessary. Factors such as the reason for filming and the method (e.g., secret filming) come into play.

You may film your own property. Public spaces may only be filmed if no personal rights are violated. If faces or persons cannot be identified, personal rights are not infringed. For example, a vacation video—no one would start a debate about that. Or a birthday party where the recordings are not secret.
But if, for example, I am filmed by the media at work (which happens), I must tolerate it (public interest). If a private person stands nearby, I ask* them to stop. If the request* fails, I can take civil action. This also applies to craftsmen who are filmed secretly.

*And here I come back to the topic of decency, which should be more important here than any laws, many of which I don’t have fully at hand because sometimes it just seems ridiculous to rely solely on laws.

If a camera is clearly visible (or you hold it in your hand for individual shots), does the craftsman have a choice? Does he know WHAT is being filmed? WHAT can be seen? Where this material will be distributed? No.
Do you know what else you might do with this great material? No.
Does he have the option to stop work? No, not if he doesn’t want to receive a warning notice.
You put him in a restrictive situation that gives him no option.

Now time-lapse cameras come into play: still relatively new, for some unfamiliar with the technology, new ground.
Here, simple clarification helps: talk to the craftsmen, show them an example result so that they don’t feel exposed. A case of sparkling apple juice in the not easily visible break room as thanks, a barbecue evening...
I no longer believe that you need to get written permission from everyone for such pictures or videos, as long as the people are not recognizable.

If a photo of a craftsman is posted in a blog, forum, or e.g. Facebook, a mediator or judge will weigh after a cease-and-desist request in what situation the craftsman was photographed: in normal work, deletion is sufficient; if it is for display or ridicule, you may face a damages claim. But rarely do such cases go to trial.

Treat others as you want to be treated yourself — here’s a good example.

So, that’s a brief summary. I hope I haven’t rambled on too much.

Regards, Yvonne

nathi schrieb:
In Germany, there is still the right to photograph public spaces and buildings (panorama freedom), even though it is currently under significant scrutiny.

It is not under scrutiny – it is restricted! Wikipedia is not always accurate or up to date.

nathi schrieb:
When I photograph a house, any people in the picture are just incidental and unimportant. As long as I don’t publish the images, I am generally allowed to photograph almost anything (except specially protected areas).

That is also not correct. The panorama freedom applies only to public buildings and structures, as far as I remember...
When I photograph an apartment block, the people are not important as long as I don’t distribute the image. That is true!
However, it would violate an individual’s highly personal privacy if you get so close to an apartment window that the person inside can be seen. Then, Section 201a applies: (1) Whoever unlawfully makes or transmits images of another person who is in a home or a specially protected area against observation and thereby violates their highly personal privacy shall be punished with imprisonment for up to one year or a fine. Source: dejure.org

What do you think: would someone be allowed to photograph or film your mother every day as she goes to the mailbox? Even if the person only uses these recordings for their own purposes and doesn’t share them?
Just because someone is unaware of the material and cannot complain does not automatically mean it is permitted.