Are people really that worried about being photographed in public places?

[sheilafri]

Some cultures consider it very bad form to take someone’s picture, especially without permission. In the US I think you have just as much right to take a picture as someone has to object to being in it. If you come up against that, just delete the photo and move on.

 

[bcla]

If a stranger was focusing directly on me I'd be kind of weirded out. No issues with generally being in the background of someone else's photos.

One time I was just standing while riding a light-rail vehicle and looking at my phone (the incident with the crotchety old man I mentioned earlier). He was accusing me of taking photos of him, but I was just looking something up while waiting to get to my destination. But he was a real piece of work too. He "ordered" me to sit down, claiming that I might be a danger to him if the vehicle suddenly jerked/stopped. I was a good 8 feet from him. He also loudly questioned why I would waste my time staring at an electronic device. I just walked away to another part of the car where he apparently didn't follow me to berate me.

 

[sam_gordon]

Some cultures consider it very bad form to take someone’s picture, especially without permission. In the US I think you have just as much right to take a picture as someone has to object to being in it. If you come up against that, just delete the photo and move on.

Regarding the bolded, it would depend on the photo on whether I'd delete it or not. Yes, someone has the right to ASK that you delete the photo. You also have the right to refuse to do so (assuming you're both in public, no expectation of privacy, etc).

 

[Moliphino]

One time I was just standing while riding a light-rail vehicle and looking at my phone (the incident with the crotchety old man I mentioned earlier). He was accusing me of taking photos of him, but I was just looking something up while waiting to get to my destination. But he was a real piece of work too. He "ordered" me to sit down, claiming that I might be a danger to him if the vehicle suddenly jerked/stopped. I was a good 8 feet from him. He also loudly questioned why I would waste my time staring at an electronic device. I just walked away to another part of the car where he apparently didn't follow me to berate me.

I'm super non-confrontational, so I doubt I would even approach someone who appeared to be taking my picture. I'd just try to move away from them.

 

[tvguy]

Dealt with this issue my entire career in TV news. It's a balance. If you are out in a public place, and can be seen without a telephoto lens with the human eye, you have NO expectation of privacy and you can be photographed. In TV news, if someone asks that you not show their face, certainly that request will be considered, but it is not a request has HAS to be honored. The law is pretty clear on that.
HOWEVER, what I have posted about myself recently that I can see being an issue is with YouTubers who make their living off the videos they post, and photograph people in what I would consider to be a "private" place posting videos and pictures. And they are NOT news media, and to me, photographing a woman in her bathing suit on a cruise ship is NOT a public place. That is a situation where permission would be required and a signed release necessary. I watched one You Tubers video and he was on the pool deck and recorded a woman in her bathing suit getting out of a hot tub, walking towards the camera, seeing the camera, looking distressed and briskly returning to the hot tub so she could not be photographed. That video was posted by a youtuber in a ship's tour video, and I think that is something he should have edited out because he was not in a public place and the person he videotaped clearly was uncomfortable with it.

 

[bcla]

Regarding the bolded, it would depend on the photo on whether I'd delete it or not. Yes, someone has the right to ASK that you delete the photo. You also have the right to refuse to do so (assuming you're both in public, no expectation of privacy, etc).

If someone else is incidentally in my photograph of my child, I'm not going to honor such a request. But I'm not in the habit of posting photographs of my family publicly. They're nearly all for private consumption.

I've certainly been filmed and photographed randomly and expect that. Heck - one I marched in a parade and found myself in a video posted to YouTube. I absolutely couldn't expect any privacy there.

Some cameras to have the ability to wipe out people in the background of photos. I think it's complicated where it actually takes video and then can fill in the background after removing someone. This shows someone just wandering into the background eating a hot dog, only to realize that Giannis Antetokounmpo and Simu Liu are posing for a selfie. He Giannis circles the guy he's trying to remove from the photo and it just magically makes the guy disappear from the photo.

 

[sam_gordon]

Dealt with this issue my entire career in TV news. It's a balance. If you are out in a public place, and can be seen without a telephoto lens with the human eye, you have NO expectation of privacy and you can be photographed. In TV news, if someone asks that you not show their face, certainly that request will be considered, but it is not a request has HAS to be honored. The law is pretty clear on that.
HOWEVER, what I have posted about myself recently that I can see being an issue is with YouTubers who make their living off the videos they post, and photograph people in what I would consider to be a "private" place posting videos and pictures. And they are NOT news media, and to me, photographing a woman in her bathing suit on a cruise ship is NOT a public place. That is a situation where permission would be required and a signed release necessary. I watched one You Tubers video and he was on the pool deck and recorded a woman in her bathing suit getting out of a hot tub, walking towards the camera, seeing the camera, looking distressed and briskly returning to the hot tub so she could not be photographed. That video was posted by a youtuber in a ship's tour video, and I think that is something he should have edited out because he was not in a public place and the person he videotaped clearly was uncomfortable with it.

The media doesn't have any additional rights than any individual. Regarding your video on the cruise ship, did the woman have any expectation of privacy? Walking around a pool, I'm guessing no (since it's not HER pool). Was there a rule against videoing while on the cruise ship? I'm pretty sure that answer is "no". So, IMO, the videographer *IS* allowed to post that video.

Where it gets interesting is one is NOT allowed to make money off the photo. So if I'm at a park and I'm taking pictures to put in a book about parks that I'm going to sell, I better make sure I have signed releases from anyone appearing in pictures I'm going to use. A YT vlogger might make money off their videos. BUT, the news media makes money from their newscasts, so what's the difference?

 

[amcnj]

And of course, if you are taking photos at a wedding and happen to include Don Barzini in one of your shots, then all bets are off!

 

[Kitty 34]

I'm sure if I'm in a photo, people just use that Phone app to erase me.

 

[MIGrandma]

I couldn’t care less if someone is taking photos somewhere and I happen to be in the background. Today, I am on Mackinac Island and staying in a hotel I haven’t stayed in yet so I took a few photos of the lobby area. Several people are in my photos. No one fussed at me.

 

[tvguy]

The media doesn't have any additional rights than any individual. Regarding your video on the cruise ship, did the woman have any expectation of privacy? Walking around a pool, I'm guessing no (since it's not HER pool). Was there a rule against videoing while on the cruise ship? I'm pretty sure that answer is "no". So, IMO, the videographer *IS* allowed to post that video.

Where it gets interesting is one is NOT allowed to make money off the photo. So if I'm at a park and I'm taking pictures to put in a book about parks that I'm going to sell, I better make sure I have signed releases from anyone appearing in pictures I'm going to use. A YT vlogger might make money off their videos. BUT, the news media makes money from their newscasts, so what's the difference?

Yup. They youtubers make their living off the videos they post, and I doubt he had a release.

HUGE difference with the news media. News media makes money from selling commercials that run in the newscast, not from the video.

 

[sam_gordon]

Yup. They youtubers make their living off the videos they post, and I doubt he had a release.

HUGE difference with the news media. News media makes money from selling commercials that run in the newscast, not from the video.

Did the guy have commercials running during the video? Was it just "sponsored by"? Did YT insert their own commercials (I've seen commercial play in the middle of videos before).

And, it's possible (probable?) that part of the cruise contract is you agree you might be photographed/videoed for commercial purposes. Depending on how the contract is written, I'm not sure if a vlogger is covered or not.

As much as YT cracks down on illegalities (I've gotten "dinged" because music playing in the background of a live stream was copyrighted), I'm guessing vloggers are fine.

 

[tvguy]

Did the guy have commercials running during the video? Was it just "sponsored by"? Did YT insert their own commercials (I've seen commercial play in the middle of videos before).

And, it's possible (probable?) that part of the cruise contract is you agree you might be photographed/videoed for commercial purposes. Depending on how the contract is written, I'm not sure if a vlogger is covered or not.

As much as YT cracks down on illegalities (I've gotten "dinged" because music playing in the background of a live stream was copyrighted), I'm guessing vloggers are fine.

He gets paid per views. No ads inserted in the video, none at the beginning middle or end inserted by YT.
Yes, those, very common for the broadcast disclosure in the cruise contract, but that only applies to the cruise line operating the cameras.
Tokyo Disneyland has actually banned vlogging and live streaming, and I wonder if that ban will spread?
https://**************.net/2022/09/fans-thrilled-tokyo-disney-resort-streaming-jc1d23/

 

[sam_gordon]

He gets paid per views. No ads inserted in the video, none at the beginning middle or end inserted by YT.

So does that qualify as profiting off the images? Has there been a court case saying so? Again, the woman (anyone on the pool deck) has no expectation of privacy.

Tokyo Disneyland has actually banned vlogging and live streaming, and I wonder if that ban will spread?
https://**************.net/2022/09/fans-thrilled-tokyo-disney-resort-streaming-jc1d23/

And a business can do so.

 

[tvguy]

So does that qualify as profiting off the images? Has there been a court case saying so? Again, the woman (anyone on the pool deck) has no expectation of privacy.

Is it? A cruise ship at the very least is a semi-private location and I would argue you have SOME expectation of privacy.

Got the language to back that up?

And a business can do so.

We got a disclosure on our Disney cruise when we boarded, if I find it I will post it, but Sam, YOUR have Google, if you care, look it up! LOL

 

[sam_gordon]

Is it? A cruise ship at the very least is a semi-private location and I would argue you have SOME expectation of privacy.

That would be an interesting court decision. IMO, since you can be seen by random people, and should be expected to be seen by others, you DON'T have an expectation of privacy (as you would/should in a bathroom or your cabin).

We got a disclosure on our Disney cruise when we boarded, if I find it I will post it, but Sam, YOUR have Google, if you care, look it up! LOL

Said many people who make claims who can't back them up.

 

[tvguy]

That would be an interesting court decision. IMO, since you can be seen by random people, and should be expected to be seen by others, you DON'T have an expectation of privacy (as you would/should in a bathroom or your cabin).

Said many people who make claims who can't back them up.

It could be an interesting court case. Do you have an expectation of privacy in a public area of a Mental Hospital for example?

There you go Sam, backed up, LOL
https://disneycruise.disney.go.com/faq/prohibited-items/commercial-photo-video/

 

[sam_gordon]

It could be an interesting court case. Do you have an expectation of privacy in a public area of a Mental Hospital for example?

That's a good question.

There you go Sam, backed up, LOL
https://disneycruise.disney.go.com/faq/prohibited-items/commercial-photo-video/

Nicely done. Now, will the cruise line go after the vloggers? They're not going to stop people from videoing.

 

[TippyThomas]

My parents and I are probably in hundreds of vacation photos. You'd be surprised how many people looked at us like zoo animals and took pictures whether we wanted them to or not. Amazing how rude people can be to others.

 

[tvguy]

.

Nicely done. Now, will the cruise line go after the vloggers? They're not going to stop people from videoing.

That is a great question. The cruise lines like the promotion value of the videos, but the number of vloggers out there is getting to be crazy. When are passengers going to start to complain?
I have first had knowledge with Disneyland having worked with them in 1980. Back then TV stations could go in with their own photographer, but you had to have a park employee with you to approve what you were shooting.
Now, no news photographers are allowed in. Reporters are provided with a Disneyland photographer who shoot everything for you..
So when Disneyland reopened after the pandemic, ALL news people were prohibited from entering Disneyland property. Our reporter sat on the public side walk doing live reports. But the reality of cell phone cameras came into play. He have a number of people who had a reservation and had cell phone cameras and asked them to shoot video for him and send it to him. He had more than enough video for his story, probably better video than if he had shot it.