SPLIT - SE Gathering photography laws and courtesy

[Queen]

I used to FREAK if anyone took my picture, my past as a LEO and mental health clinician made it a safety issue, I worked very hard to stay off the radar in every way possible. With the explosion of cell phones and every single person having a camera with them at all times, especially younger folks who seem to need to record every waking moment of their lives... I gave up. You could record me going poop and post it on youtube and it would barely be a blip for me, I simply no longer care. Same with my internet "privacy" anyone who wants to read my emails about what we might have for dinner when she gets home, or did the truck run okay on the way to work, is welcome to them. The only real privacy we have anymore is inside our own heads.

 

[Cammalu]

.

I was reacting to the announcement that FORCE would be used to remove anyone doing any photography.

I get that but wasn't the one who was advocating force. I'm old, crippled and fat and won't be removing anyone even if I could [emoji15]

 

[Gary68]

hepcats got skills ,bet you cringe at folks like me who cant even get the horizon straight

 

[hepcat]

LOL... thank you Gary. No... I enjoy all kinds of photography and art... even those that are off just a little... sorta like me.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

bet you cringe at folks like me who cant even get the horizon straight

If anyone ever mentions your horizons, just look at them pityingly, and, in the same tone of voice that you would use to explain something obvious to a retarded child, inform them that:  "This is Avant Garde."

 

[iloozyun]

i've never liked my picture taken (could be in my native american blood) but in this age of facebook tagging and facial recognition and government surveilance, i dislike it even more.  it's not just a matter if a random stranger capturing my image, it's that i then have no control over the platform that my image gets distributed on.  i don't do facebook or post my image on google/youtube platfoms, but a stranger can give my image, without my consent or even knowledge, to any of those corporations, who have ownership in whatever you post online to their sites.  this just one of the legs of the system of keeping track of where we are and what we're doing.  i have to disagree that there is no such thing as the right to privacy.  it's called the 4th amendment.  so even if the consensus is that resistance is futile, i'll be the one in a brimmed hat and oversized sunglasses. 

 

[hepcat]

 i have to disagree that there is no such thing as the right to privacy.  it's called the 4th amendment.  

The First Amendment covers the right to free speech... against the government.  Nothing more.  Contrary to some popular opinion,  ALL speech does not enjoy First Amendment protections.  Similarly, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure...  by the government.  It doesn't apply to individuals and their actions, as long as they're not done on behalf of the government.  I can kick your door in and ransack your place as a private citizen.  That's called trespassing, a criminal offense, but it's NOT a 4th Amendment violation because I'm not doing it on behalf of the government. 

The Framers of the Constitution were acutely aware of abuses of power by the King and his government (forcing residents to quarter troops in their homes, for example) and want to ensure that the government they were forming had as little power over individual citizens as possible.  Very little in the Constitution governs behavior BY individuals though.  And the 4th Amendment does NOT give you a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from either government OR individuals outside your own home's walls.  And only then, if you draw your blinds.

 

[firebob]

I'm a professional, teach classes, 3 podcast a week, and I'm paid by businesses to do work for them.
I use my social media for work and do not use it for my personal life, because I do not want them to be connected at any time.
I could see getting long distance shots or if someone walked by being fine, but i think people with cameras need to think about others.

There is a lawsuit that should be going to trail soon where a youtuber is getting sued for slander because he was in a video with out permission and says he was financially hurt. I did not read all the details off the lawsuit, but i'm sure it would be a good read. I'll post the link when I run across it next time.

 

[Cammalu]

Iloozyn we can hide together in our sunglasses and big hats. Hey, even better a clown mask [emoji83]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hepcat]

I'm a professional, teach classes, 3 podcast a week, and I'm paid by businesses to do work for them.
I use my social media for work and do not use it for my personal life, because I do not want them to be connected at any time.
I could see getting long distance shots or if someone walked by being fine, but i think people with cameras need to think about others.

There is a lawsuit that should be going to trail soon where a youtuber is getting sued for slander because he was in a video with out permission and says he was financially hurt.  I did not read all the details off the lawsuit, but i'm sure it would be a good read.  I'll post the link when I run across it next time.

I think that very few of us LIKE to have our photo taken by a stranger.  I certainly don't.  It's just not very pleasant, and in some cases down-right rude.  But not liking it and having a "right" not to have it done are two VERY different things. 

If, in the case you describe, presuming that the person who was filming had a lawful right to film where they were, (unless there are some other significant legal issues involved such as a contract dispute) I doubt that the plaintiff is going to get very far in his lawsuit.  Please keep us posted. 

I didn't go into this in my earlier post, but the question of making photographs in public IS, in fact, a Constitutional issue under the First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."  The Courts have traditionally held that any decision limiting the rights of the free press would have a chilling effect on our ability to limit the scope of government.  And any limits the ability to use photography to express thoughts and ideas, or report what's going on would, indeed, have that chilling effect.  They've ruled that the unbridled free press is more important than the discomfort of any citizen or group of citizens; and I have to agree with that.  Your desire for personal privacy does not outweigh the needs of the people to know what's going on around them.   By extension, then, you can't limit ANY use of cameras because every photo has the possibility of being used for news reportage...  the number of photos taken by by-standers and later used by the press at the Kennedy assassination is a case in point. 

 

[Every Road Leads Home]

Makes me wonder how many photos out there have me standing in the crowd somewhere or how many times i'm walking right past the person who is being photographed.

Don't love having my picture taking but I don't do anything to prevent it from happening either. Everyday people who take their privacy seriously, to the point it affects their actions are doing themselves a disservice. As your privacy is mostly guaranteed because no one gives a crap what you are doing. 318 million people in this country, if the government is watching you, then you must be doing some pretty scary things. If they are watching you and you're not guilty of anything, they'll quickly be moving onto a bigger target.

What happens to most photographs anyways?.....the get taken and then they get forgotten. If people are looking at a video or photograph that you happen to be in the background in, most won't even notice as they are looking at the main subject.

65 years +/- to be on this earth and then everything you did, every photo you're in become mostly irrelevant. You'll mostly be remembered by your own generation & next generation of family and friends, fewer of the 2nd generation will remember you and few will have an emotional bond to your passing and after that you're little more than a name in a record book or on a headstone somewhere.

I have all my grandmother's photo albums, most everyone in there is related to me and I can't recognize more than ten of them. Many of whom probably didn't want their picture taken to begin with. And who are all long gone.

 

[LeeRevell]

During my state IT career, I occasionally appeared in news video as I entered my building, where the local news hounds had the camera setup in the front lobby.
During holiday celebrations, coworkers took photos, and I was in a few.
One pic I posed for, seated with an older female coworker on my knee. Later, I considered it could be taken out of context by those hyped up on "sexual discrimination issues". But three years after retirement, no problem, and that coworker is still a friend. A bunch of us old retirees are meeting for lunch next week, and she'll be there too.
So, if someone ends up including my well-used carcasse in their pic, no problem. Just don't blame me if your lens cracks..... ;-)
I have taken my share of public photos too. But if desiring to photo a particular person or group, I do ask their permission. I find none have ever refused. Most are delighted to be considered "photoworthy".

 

[firebob]

If, in the case you describe, presuming that the person who was filming had a lawful right to film where they were, (unless there are some other significant legal issues involved such as a contract dispute) I doubt that the plaintiff is going to get very far in his lawsuit.  Please keep us posted. 

From what I read so far.  The lawsuit is for defamation. 
The person was in the background, but you could clearly make out who it was (he did not know he was being recorded).  The people in the foreground were doing clearly doing drugs.
He says a few days latter he was sent a link to the video and asked for it to be taken down or blurred out, but nothing was done.  About a week later he was fired.  The company did not want a manager being linked to drug use from the video.

Depending on if it gets to court, how far up the courts it goes, and what the decision is it could be a game changer.

It did not say if the video was monetized or not, but that could have a huge change on how the case get handled (even if it only made a cent).


There are a lot of risks you make any time you publish anything.

 

[hepcat]

From what I read so far.  The lawsuit is for defamation. 

The company did not want a manager being linked to drug use from the video.

Depending on if it gets to court, how far up the courts it goes, and what the decision is it could be a game changer.

There are a lot of risks you make any time you publish anything.

Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, of course, but I'd love to read the pleadings on this one.  Just what you describe raises SO many relevant questions...   for example, was he terminated because he was in a place where drugs were openly being used, or for being filmed there?  Would he have been terminated for being there regardless of whether he was filmed?  What are the labor laws regarding termination in that jurisdiction?  Was he an active participant in the party, interacting with the folks engaging in the illegal activity?   Were the people filming and involved in the illegal activity known to him, or was he merely a bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time? How was he sent a link to review and by whom?  Sounds interesting. 

yes, please re-post to this thread if you find out more that is salient. 

And no, beyond the established law regarding copyright infringement, there really isn't any inferred liability from publishing images taken lawfully in a place you're lawfully entitled to be.   That said, however, I do carry errors and omissions liability insurance for that very reason.

 

[DrJean]

I have not done professional photography for 40 years but... taking a photograph with someone in it who is recognizable (or someone who you publicly identify in the photograph) IS subject to a release.

[Copyrights and rights of privacy for people are different rights. When photographers take photos of people, they must be careful to not invade their privacy. This happens when someone enters a person’s private domain in a manner that would be considered offensive to the average person.] [Some courts have found that a photographer has violated privacy rights even when photographing someone in public. ][ It also is unlawful to view and photograph people inside of residences or other places where privacy is normally expected, even when the photographer is standing in public.]

http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

 

[hepcat]

I have not done professional photography for 40 years but...    taking a photograph with someone in it who is recognizable (or someone who you publicly identify in the photograph) IS subject to a release.  

You're certainly never wrong getting a release, but unless you're doing the photo primarily for commercial advertising, it generally isn't needed.  Generally speaking, those folks who know when they need a release get them before shooting.

 

[iloozyun]

...the 4th Amendment does NOT give you a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from either government OR individuals outside your own home's walls.  And only then, if you draw your blinds.

ahh, a wonderful debate to be had regarding privacy rights in the internet age, love it!  the 4th guarantees the right to be secure in my "person, house, papers, and effects"... and you're right- from the government.  if an individual violates my person, house, papers, or effects, it's usually regarded as a crime, not a rights violation.  

i have to challenge the statement that i have no right to an expectation of privacy from the government outside the physical walls of my own house.

when this right was bestowed, all of these things- your person, your house, your papers, and your effects,- were PHYSICAL things, and, taken together, were EVERYTHING that an individual person had and was.  this is very important to understand, because it bestowed control of our lives (meaning access to it by the government) squarely on each individual- the essential aspect of freedom.

the framers could not have imagined a time when all of these things would become 'virtual' or digitalized, but it makes no sense to assert that just because the world has become digital, everything that we are and everything that we have as individual persons is no longer protected by the constitution.  we, and all that we are, have not become public property by virtue of the virtual, and whenever that claim is made, it rings false.   it implies that the only thing these protections apply to anymore are the trinkets and love letters and such we keep in the nightstand, when the intent was to establish the personal realm, where our business was our own.

while it is true that, in our age, this right has been discounted, dessicated, disregarded, and discarded for the most part, i feel strongly that this is an outright gutting of the original intent, to all of our peril. a line from an old song applies here:  "you don't know what you got till it's gone".

as an aside, if the 4th only exists inside the walls of a house, where does that leave the nomads this forum serves?

(please don't take this post as me being snarky or challenging you or your knowledge...  i just happen to love a good constitutional debate, and you presented one.  obviously, we can agree to disagree!)

 

[hepcat]

iloozyun, you raise valid issues with which I concur wholeheartedly. That aside, the law doesn't concur with our assessment. For example, you have a lesser expectation of privacy in a car than in a house. More in a motorhome than a car, but less than what you'd have in your house. Maybe.

Drones, helicopters and high places have all been ruled lawful incursions of curtilage. High powered scopes, lenses, and binoculars are merely "extensions of what can be seen by the naked eye..." and so forth. A cop standing on your front porch, where he has a lawful right to be, can look in through your un-blocked front windows and anything seen is up for seizure under the "plain view" doctrine.

We're watched by surveillance cameras on the streets, in banks, and retailers. Traffic cams record our driving. News crews set up in malls, and on the street. Your internet surfing history will now be available to the public, which is discussed in another thread here. And you're right, we're allowing our rights to be steadily eroded, one chip at a time. We're like the frog being boiled slowly. We can't recognize it until it's too late.

The bottom line is truthfully the ONLY place you have that is truly private is your own home, with the drapes pulled. I don't like it any better than you do... that's just the way it is.

 

[michaelc]

I don't get it.  What does me not wanting to go to rtr because people aren't respecting what you put out about filming without asking have to do with someone stealing your name?  I haven't stolen anyone's name and frankly Bob, I'm damned happy you do what you do.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am too. I get all sort of great ideas from your site. Filming without my permission in most cases is inconsecquetial. Misusing the material? There are more direct methods (and satisfying) ways of dealing with that.

 

[firebob]

I am too. I get all sort of great ideas from your site. Filming without my permission in most cases is inconsecquetial. Misusing the material? There are more direct methods (and satisfying) ways of dealing with that.

depending on what they are trying to get flipping the bird is a good way for someone to get the point.