Public domain
Jan 26, 2020 09:01:39 #
AlColter wrote:
she shouted, "No"
What part of the word "NO" is difficult to understand?
What part of the word "NO" is difficult to understand?
It's not her choice.
Jan 26, 2020 09:08:52 #
fetzler
Loc: North West PA
Photographing people in public spaces and from public spaces is quite legal in the US. Indeed it happens to many people several times a day. There a security cameras everywhere. There is a book on the Right of Privacy written by Kathleen Kennedy some years ago. The book states that there is no real right of privacy. One must take great care to keep private matters secret - much like a trade secret. Certainly things that occur in public view are not secret or private. Politeness, however, would require not photographing the woman after her objection. Many years ago I had a device that looked like a lens hood but contained a mirror. It allowed taking photos a right angles.
Jan 26, 2020 09:13:10 #
One issue I don't see addressed anywhere in this discussion is the matter of the danger your photography may pose to people in certain occupations, penetration testing being one. People who do penetration testing hugely prefer not to have their pictures taken. What penetration testers do is attempt to "penetrate" secure environments to demonstrate to the companies that hire them that the companies have weaknesses in their various security mechanisms. I have known a number of people in this occupation and NONE of them have ever wanted their pictures taken, even for such an event as creating a more or less standard security badge. Because I know about how freaky a photograph can make these people, I always ask permission first whether the rest of the world cares or not. Destroying somebody's capability to make a living is not insignificant.
drjuice
drjuice
Jan 26, 2020 09:18:43 #
Jaackil
Loc: Massachusetts
Mike M wrote:
Two weeks ago on a Sunday afternoon, I walked out ... (show quote)
Short answer, Based on just what you described Yes it is perfectly legal to take her picture. She had no right to a reasonable expectation of privacy as she was in a public space. That is the law. The moral and ethical merits can be argued but legally you had the right to take the picture. The subject telling you no has no legal standing in a public area. What you do with that picture is a completely different legal issue seperate and apart from the right to take the picture. Contrary to what anyone else has said here the law is pretty clear.
Jan 26, 2020 09:19:14 #
If your camera has a flippy screen you can hold the camera at waist level or on your lap or on a table and most people will think you are just adjusting it, especially if you use a remote release while not looking directly at the subject. I used to remove the viewfinder from my Pentax LX and compose on the ground glass for that reason. I'll never sell my LX BTW.
If you can't be stealthy, ask for permission.
If you can't be stealthy, ask for permission.
Jan 26, 2020 09:29:31 #
Balboa wrote:
Even if its true doesn't mean people are going to be happy about it or cooperative. I as a practice rarely photograph people...too troublesome.
Agreed, I think of it as 'people pollution', VBG, Bob.
Jan 26, 2020 09:31:31 #
One issue I don't see addressed in this discussion is the matter of penetration testing. Penetration testers (PTs) rightly have a huge preference not to have their photographs taken because their livelihood depends on their remaining anonymous. What they do is to exercise their huge knowledge of how security systems work to demonstrate to the company which contracts with the PTs' employer how that company's nominal security systems may be insecure. Your taking a photograph may deprive such an individual of his/her means of making a living which is not insignificant. I'm just saying. drjuice
Jan 26, 2020 09:34:18 #
dr.juice wrote:
One issue I don't see addressed anywhere in this d... (show quote)
I guess those people must be freaked out all the time, considering they are being photographed by surveillance cameras almost anywhere they go.
Jan 26, 2020 09:36:07 #
Jan 26, 2020 09:40:15 #
There is no expectation of privacy in public...
Surveillance cameras everywhere... red light cameras everywhere...
Surveillance cameras everywhere... red light cameras everywhere...
Jan 26, 2020 09:45:46 #
Hamltnblue
Loc: Springfield PA
Next time take the pic from behind.
She wouldn’t know
She would be unidentifiable, which should negate any other issues
She wouldn’t know
She would be unidentifiable, which should negate any other issues
Jan 26, 2020 09:56:21 #
Jan 26, 2020 09:59:52 #
I respect a person's right to privacy of his/her personhood - for whatever reason and no matter where they are. I, too, hate to have my picture taken! Particularly by strangers. I worry that photographers are more interested in what's legal then they are in what's right and respectful. Common courtesy is the ruling authority for me, not the law. Those who flaunt that are those who have given photographers a bad name!
I will say that I photographed people (but mostly the horses) at the racetrack for decades. These people were participating in a public event and they expected to have their pictures taken. They even posed for them. I think there's a huge difference between doing that and shooting someone who is innocently seated in a public place engaging in a totally private activity.
I will say that I photographed people (but mostly the horses) at the racetrack for decades. These people were participating in a public event and they expected to have their pictures taken. They even posed for them. I think there's a huge difference between doing that and shooting someone who is innocently seated in a public place engaging in a totally private activity.
Jan 26, 2020 09:59:59 #
Every photo I take at a drag race is on private property with people and their property. I have never seen any of the many photographers there ask anyone to sign a release or for any permission. Photos are sold at the event by some, posted on the web and even some published in magazines. If someone asked me not to take their photo specifically I would respect that request. But when I turn my camera on the fans with a 200 to 400mm lens I doubt they could tell whose picture I am taking. I really think this issue gets way overblown by most people here.
The biggest issue that I have seen is tracks or racers using Photographer’s images for promoting their track, event or racing with out permission or any payment. But even that is pretty rare. Maybe we all need to read the media pass agreement more closely... But most don’t. Instead we try to make it a mutually beneficial activity.
The biggest issue that I have seen is tracks or racers using Photographer’s images for promoting their track, event or racing with out permission or any payment. But even that is pretty rare. Maybe we all need to read the media pass agreement more closely... But most don’t. Instead we try to make it a mutually beneficial activity.
Jan 26, 2020 10:03:13 #
Jaackil
Loc: Massachusetts
billnikon wrote:
Yes, pointing a camera at people is an invasion to... (show quote)
You are totally and completely wrong. Judges have upheld that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy in public places over and over. Put these in your pipe and smoke them! Nussenzweig v. diCorcia, Lambert v. Polk County, Glik v. Cunniffe. While you are smoking them pay particular attention to Nussenzweig v. diCorcia as it involves not only no reasonable expectation to privacy in a public place but also gives no religious protection to privacy in a public place. So not sure what law school you went to but it obviously was not a very good one. So while you are certainly entitled to your own opinion you do not have the right to make up your own facts!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.