Setting up a time-lapse camera for house construction

Wiki is not always correct or up to date

I didn’t even look into that. That’s more my experience as an amateur photographer. What changes were there that restricted it?

The freedom of panorama refers to public buildings and structures, as far as I remember...

Nope. It actually means that you are allowed to photograph (and also publish pictures of) permanent things visible from public spaces. However, aids are forbidden, so you can’t climb on a ladder; also, the mentioned drone is an aid.

If I deliberately photograph a person through a window, then I have simply photographed the person, which obviously is not covered by freedom of panorama.

What do you think: is someone allowed to photograph or film your mother as she goes to the mailbox every day? Even if that person only uses these recordings for their own purposes and does not distribute them?

Assuming the mailbox is mounted outside and visible from the street and the person photographs from public space without aids, then of course that is allowed. Publishing the pictures is not.

If I want to photograph my house on my property, no one can forbid me from doing so anyway, regardless of the rest of the discussion. If any workers walk through the picture, they simply are not the photographic subject. Besides, you’d normally tell them that you want to make a time-lapse recording of the house construction. That should by now be quite common, something a construction worker should know and something that belongs to the job nowadays.

I didn’t even look into that. That’s more my experience as an amateur photographer. What changes were there that restricted them?

No. It actually means that you are allowed to photograph visible, permanent things from public spaces (and also publish the pictures). However, aids are prohibited, so you can’t climb a ladder, and the mentioned drone is also an aid.

You know more than I do It’s not really my genre... just check Google yourself again: there apparently was a procedure, but it was mitigated.

If I specifically photograph a person through a window, then logically I have photographed the person, which does not fall under panorama freedom.

Of course, that has nothing to do with panorama freedom but with personal rights – even if the person was not specifically focused on, but rather the house.

Assuming the mailbox is attached outside and visible from the street, and the person photographs it from public space without aids, then that is of course allowed. However, they are not allowed to publish the pictures.

It depends again on the circumstance: if the photographer then watches the film alone in his room and does improper things, i.e., misuses the letter-collecting person for his fantasies, then personal rights are very much violated – seriously! Even if nobody knows about it!

So you often have to look at the individual case – generalizations are not appropriate.

... If any craftsmen walk through the picture, they are simply not the photographic subject.

But the photographer has to take that into account – egoism and, let’s say, a too relaxed attitude are wrong here.

Especially since you would normally tell them that you want to make a time-lapse recording of the house construction. That should by now be something quite usual that a construction worker should know and what is now part of the job.

Yes, in today’s world of media like FB, smartphones, etc., quite a bit is seen as relaxed and assumed to be “usual.” It is also said that some things have to be tolerated nowadays, yet it is not usual for other groups of people just because it is usual for you.

You should simply imagine situations where you would be on the defensive and do not hold the house rights. Wouldn’t you like to be respectfully informed about procedures then?
You don’t have to photograph or film exactly when the foreman walks through your picture.

By the way, Martina mentioned that the house rights still belong to the construction company... she knows the legal side better again.

Best regards, Yvonne

By the way, Martina mentioned that the house rules are still with the construction company... she knows better legally in that regard.

But that should be in the contract for work, right? At least ours doesn’t say anything about that, I would also find it a bit strange if I no longer had the right to enter my own property. Of course, with the developer, it’s naturally something different.

Good evening,

That should be in the contract for work, right? At least nothing about that is in ours,

That would surprise me a lot, but sure, there are - as always - exceptions.

I would also find it a bit strange if I no longer had the right to enter my own property.

The house right during construction with a general contractor/building contractor/developer does not mean that you may not enter your land. Rather, it means that you, as the client, have no authority to give instructions, and for various reasons, that is also a good thing.

Sure, with the developer it's naturally different.

No.

Rhenish regards

When I pixelate the faces after the recordings, I see no problem at all. It's just some work.

After all, you don't want close-ups of craftsmen's necklines.

Hello,

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

You are allowed to; you either have to ensure that faces of people in the film are made unrecognizable (suggestion by Tox and probably a lot of additional work) or obtain their consent.

Besides, "private" is said so easily... can you generally exclude that you share parts of it with friends/relatives and do you also know how they in turn handle the film material? Maybe send it again to friends on fb, google+, twitter & Co...?

But I find it terrible that people always have to interfere in the lives or actions of others because they are incited by Hartz 4 TV, whistleblowers, or the newspaper with 4 letters, against their nearest and dearest.

I belong to those who also look at this critically, but that does not change the fact that this topic is discussed controversially and emotionally; this is also reflected in different court rulings. And whatever you may think of it, I am glad that Street View and the like have been put to a stop; need for information or not. That unpleasant encounters can also arise from this was to be expected and is rooted in human nature; not everyone has an IQ above 130.

I have been photographing for years; sometimes more, sometimes not for longer periods. Over time, as well as through the establishment of two photo portals (one analog and one digital), a close acquaintance was developed with a fashion photographer and THE authority on the subject of darkroom work. Regarding copyright and personality rights, both react equally sensitively and do nothing, absolutely nothing without the consent of the persons to be depicted (unless they are of public interest; different rules apply there). They do this not because they are bored; it is called learning by doing. Since a film is nothing other than moving images and I am aware of the hysteria caused by self-proclaimed saviors of humanity who often go beyond the mark, I act no differently myself. A wise person once said: "In court, you get a judgment, not justice." I never forget that; neither professionally nor privately. Because I have no desire to find myself in court ... regardless of whether I am right or not.

And if you will allow me - the energy you put in here to argue your "alleged" right, you could have safely invested that into questions or pixels and thus avoided any attack from third parties

Rhenish regards