Is building camera surveillance allowed?

basically, you are allowed to film on a piece of land as you like.

That is still not exclusively true. In the meantime, there are many rulings on private video surveillance with differing decisions. One thing all case law in this area has in common so far: it depends and always hinges on the respective circumstances.

Surveillance in a private area does not have to be announced.

Only if indeed only one’s own land is being video surveilled, as I understand the rulings correctly. Or if the installer can prove that in their case the video surveillance is to be valued higher than the personal rights of an individual.

**The BGH established the following principles:

[*]When installing video surveillance systems on private property, it must therefore be ensured that neither the adjacent public area nor neighboring private properties or the common access to these are captured by the cameras, unless an interest of the operator of the system outweighing the personal rights of those affected can be affirmed in the balance.
[*]An interference with the personal rights of third parties exists if they are actually affected by the surveillance. If this can be established and the required balancing shows that the operator’s interest does not outweigh the personal rights of those affected, the claim for injunction is justified.
[*]A claim for injunction may also exist if third parties must objectively seriously fear being monitored by surveillance cameras. However, a claim for injunction is to be denied if the neighbor only fears recordings and the cameras can only be directed onto their property with considerable and outwardly perceptible effort, i.e., not merely by operating a control system.
[*]The fear of being monitored by existing surveillance devices is justified if it appears comprehensible and understandable due to concrete circumstances, for example with regard to an escalating neighbor dispute. If such circumstances exist, the personal rights of the (allegedly) monitored person may already be impaired due to the suspicion situation. However, the mere hypothetical possibility of surveillance by video cameras and similar surveillance devices does not impair the general personal rights of those who could be affected.

Whether a construction contractor can refuse to fulfill a contract because cameras are installed at the construction site… is an interesting question!

That is really interesting – but in my opinion easily solvable. A polite request and place the camera far enough away so that not a single craftsman can be identified ;)

**Sharp or blurry

If the quality of the surveillance camera, for example at food distribution or on the construction site, is so “poor” or blurry that individual persons cannot be recognized, there is nothing against using a webcam. Otherwise, the consent of the employees or construction workers is required.

**Source: WEKA Akademie

Rhineland regards

oops. Right. I had explicitly searched for FAZ, but also found the FR

Morning,

why always these theoretical discussions about it? Just kindly ask the builders if they mind. If the camera is placed so far away that you can get the whole house in the frame, in a time-lapse film (only one picture taken every 30 seconds) there is absolutely no chance to see any people. Maybe as shadows, but nothing more.

Just ask nicely and that’s it...

Best regards,

Andreas

That’s how I would do it too; if the workers find out without any prior warning, you can forget about any trust.

Why even have the camera? If you want to document the rough construction progress, you can just take photos after work hours. Otherwise: in the morning/early afternoon send relatives or good friends who have time to check out the construction. That’s usually enough to put some “pressure” on. Just imagine yourself if your boss filmed you every minute at work to check in the evening whether you made any mistakes.

Hi,

Specifically searched for FAZ, but also found FR

*turns red* *ashamed* I named the wrong Frankfurter. One shouldn’t quickly write something down between coffee and an appointment.

Regarding the topic:
I understood it to mean that I am allowed to conduct video surveillance on my own property, but I have to make others aware that I am doing so, and they have to agree.

Although I don’t want to imply that before entering such an area you first have to handle and sign 50 pages of contract. I can understand the desire to watch your own building grow in time lapse. So: involve the craftsmen and kindly ask if you may do that. If they say no, then it’s no. End of story. Then you should come up with something else.

Just imagine yourself your boss filming you every minute at work to check in the evening if you made any mistakes.

Not only that, imagine that for yourself in purely private settings. You visit someone who has surveillance that you have no clue about. In the hallway, then at just the right moment, tight or ill-fitting clothing is quickly and skillfully adjusted with a swift practiced hand. I wouldn’t want that anonymously seen or even recorded on video by anybody.
(One of our guys was once the target of an “I’ll film an embarrassing situation and post it online” attack, cyberbullying greets you. That makes one much more sensitive.)

That’s exactly how I would do it, if the craftsmen find out without having been warned beforehand, any trust can be forgotten right away.

Now, a construction site is an extremely dangerous place, a crane can swing out, paint can splash or something else can happen… If they get really clever, a camera wouldn’t survive longer than a snowman in the Sahara. :D
Even if it might be legally permitted, one should respect the rights of these persons, even if the aim of such “surveillance” is not really surveillance in the proper sense, but the perfectly understandable wish to simply watch one’s own house grow on video without any malevolent intent.

Hello

if I understand the thread starter correctly, he wants to document the progress of his construction. So quite simply: pictures of how the building slowly grows upwards. I would set up a "wild camera" at a certain distance and program it to take a picture once every hour. To be absolutely sure that no one objects, simply inform the workers and the company and explain it that way.

Steven

simply inform the workers and the company and explain it that way.

And that's exactly what I mean, in case of a dispute, it would not be enough to justify the installation of a camera.

is precisely not surveillance in the true sense, but rather the quite understandable desire to simply watch one's own house grow on video without any ill intent.

The mere desire to watch the house grow, in my opinion, would also not be sufficient to place a camera.

To avoid any trouble that might arise, there would be nothing against taking a camera in hand after working hours to document the current status.