Recordings that are not allowed to be made at all are very narrowly defined. For example, I am not allowed to photograph anyone who is in a sight-protected area on their property (naked) or film into their bathroom.
Furthermore, there was some more news recently about similar issues in the press (Justice Minister Maas weakens draft law on nude images)
Let's leave nude pictures out of this discussion - the topic of the right to one's own image is already complex enough!
If I take pictures from my property for PRIVATE purposes, the right to one's own image no longer applies.
Of course not - the right to one's own image is person-related and implies the
distribution of the material... So you can take pictures of all your little plants in the garden.
For example, I am allowed to fly a model aircraft over my neighbor's property and film the normally visible areas, if I do so strictly for private purposes.
Flying a model aircraft is allowed, but a camera on such a drone would be secretive and would violate personality rights.
What moral concerns to consider with private pictures of a house construction I prefer to leave to others. I do not see any prohibition or permission requirement here.
What does morality have to do with this now? Let's leave that aside first.
Good day,
I don't know where you get your "truth" from, because that statement is not correct. If you are a hobby photographer, you should get informed before trouble arises. Possibly Yvonne can also write something about this.
Good evening, I am Yvonne, I link the StPO to the StGB every day in my work... I am also a trained photographer (but the laws have changed somewhat over the decades), nevertheless I photograph for clients and sometimes dare to involve a lawyer if copyright is being ignored to my disadvantage.
A film is equivalent to a photo.
There is no blanket answer whether something is right or wrong. There are laws that should be followed. But when it comes to very specific situations, these are often a matter of interpretation. For example, the reason why someone films or wants to film, then also the how (e.g., secretly).
One is allowed, for example, to film one's own property. Public space only if no personality rights are violated. If faces or persons cannot be identified, no personality right is infringed. For example, a vacation film, no one would start a discussion about that now. Or a birthday party: the recordings are not secret.
But if, for example, I am filmed by the media at work (which happens), I have to tolerate it (public interest) – if a private person stands beside me,
I ask* them to stop. If the request* does not work, I can proceed
civilly. This also applies to craftsmen who are filmed
secretly.
*And here I come to the topic of decency, which should have more effect here than any laws that I cannot all have ready either, because sometimes it is simply ridiculous to rely on laws.
If a camera is openly set up (or one holds the camera in hand for individual shots), does the craftsman have a choice there? Does he know WHAT is being filmed there? WHAT is visible? Where this material is distributed? No.
Do you know what else you want to do with this great material? No.
Does he have a choice to stop his work? No, not if he does not want to get a warning.
You put him in a restrictive situation that gives him no option.
Now comes the time-lapse camera into play: still relatively new, for some who are not interested in technology, uncharted territory.
Here simply helps enlightenment: talk to the craftsmen, show them a sample result so they do not feel put on display. A crate of apple spritzer in the non-visible "break/rest area" as thanks, a barbecue evening...
By now I no longer think that one must obtain
written permission from everyone for such pictures or little films if it is really the case that the persons cannot be recognized.
If a photo of a craftsman is posted in a blog, forum, or e.g. FB, a mediator/judge will weigh after a cease-and-desist claim in which situation the craftsman was photographed: during normal activity deletion suffices, in case of public display one must reckon with a damage claim. But rarely are cases actually prosecuted.
Treat others as you want to be treated yourself – here is a nice example.
So, that in brief. I hope I have not digressed too much.
Regards, Yvonne