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

[bcla]

There's a difference between taking photos where the public happens to be in them and specifically taking a photo of someone from the public.

The reason the woman reacted the way she did was the latter being her immediate thought and concern. While I would not necessarily agree with her reaction what you're trying to talk about is expectation of privacy out in the public with respects to someone being just in the background and that is just the only thing out there.

It used to be a bit more okay to say you have no expectation of privacy (and you really don't when out in public) but as time went on and the reasons, usages, and instances of people being specifically photographed increased so much that I understand even if I don't always agree with people's reactions. You can see how sometimes people get called out for taking photos of people for the purposes of shaming, ridiculing them, etc.

It also depends on what's going on. We're living in a moment in time where bad behavior has been captured. Before, it didn't just happen unless it was the right circumstances, like how someone captured the beating of Rodney King using a camcorder. These days, nearly everyone has the equipment to capture better quality video than that.

But yeah if it's someone who clearly doesn't want to be recorded, that's something else. I'm not sure if anyone is obligated to deleted recordings/photos taken in a public setting, but in other ways people have to know what they have and what's appropriate for public distribution.

I do remember one time I handed my kid my iPad at an event where we were seated, and when I looked at it later I found random images/video of someone in front who clearly noticed what was going on and noticeably was avoiding it. We had a nice talk about it later and about a reasonable expectation of privacy - at least not where one focuses on a specific person who hadn't given permission or isn't part of a public event. And that was very much a public event with speakers and even politicians. It wasn't inherently a political event though. There was no expectation by the speakers that they wouldn't be recorded. Especially with all the professional photographers.

 

[bcla]

Wait, what? You referenced a discussion earlier in the thread. But your talking about your memory about something?

But you don't know how much footage they have. I've put a couple cruise videos together myself, not as reviews, but just so the family can watch them for memories. EVERY time I've walked off the ship, I've thought "I have plenty of footage for everything I need." When I go to edit... "man, I wish I had another shot to use here".

So it is ok for you to turn down a request to delete a photo/video? And the photographer gets to make that decision, based on anything they want, right?

There's certainly a distinction between what's legally required and what would be the kind thing to do. In my case I did capture the back of someone's head incidentally when I was taking a candid shot of my child. It wasn't going to be distributed publicly. It was just a memory for my personal archive. So it frankly wasn't her decision on whether or not I got to keep it just because she happened to be there incidentally. But I'm hesitant to post anything publicly of my family. I don't think I've ever done that before.

I've rarely posted videos to YouTube, but what I have has included people (who I can't identify or track down) in a public setting. If there were people acting as if they didn't want to be recorded, I probably wouldn't have posted that content even if I didn't have anything similar to replace it. But these videos I've posted aren't about the people. They're just incidental.

 

[disneyseniors]

Taking photos in public, such as at disney, can be a concern in some cases.
For instance, we stayed at POFQ for the first time, and I wanted pictures of their unique pool area at dusk. So I took the camera and started taking pictures (mostly of the dragon), but there were kids in the pool and I felt awkward even taking non kid pictures. So I just quit taking pictures. It felt like I might accidentally take pictures of the kids not on pupose. That's the only time I've ever felt like that while taking pool pictures of the family.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It also depends on what's going on. We're living in a moment in time where bad behavior has been captured. Before, it didn't just happen unless it was the right circumstances, like how someone captured the beating of Rodney King using a camcorder. These days, nearly everyone has the equipment to capture better quality video than that.

But yeah if it's someone who clearly doesn't want to be recorded, that's something else. I'm not sure if anyone is obligated to deleted recordings/photos taken in a public setting, but in other ways people have to know what they have and what's appropriate for public distribution.

I do remember one time I handed my kid my iPad at an event where we were seated, and when I looked at it later I found random images/video of someone in front who clearly noticed what was going on and noticeably was avoiding it. We had a nice talk about it later and about a reasonable expectation of privacy - at least not where one focuses on a specific person who hadn't given permission or isn't part of a public event. And that was very much a public event with speakers and even politicians. It wasn't inherently a political event though. There was no expectation by the speakers that they wouldn't be recorded. Especially with all the professional photographers.

your comments remind me of this recent thread: https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...se-of-blues-restaurant.3917060/#post-64764636 also has links to other such situations.

Not really trying to connect your story about the woman in the restaurant but it follows the whole taking photos in public vs taking photos of a person

 

[tvguy]

Have you tried it? I just did. Worked well for an object that was by itself. An object that was directly behind my subject? Not so much. I'll upload what I'm talking about from my phone...

Original:
View attachment 761038

"Erased":View attachment 761039

Personally, I'm happy with how the guy in blue was removed... the one in yellow further away, ok, not great. The closer one in yellow? um, yea, that really isn't good.

BTW, this phone is a Galaxy 23 Ultra, purchased a couple weeks ago, and has the latest editing software. No, I'm not going to count on a "magic eraser" to not foul up the pic.

Not perfect, but an option.

 

[HopperFan]

I think it someone is obviously taking photos for what look like nefarious purposes then perhaps one should speak up, call for security, get photos of them in the act etc. BUT if you go out in public you are at risk of beig in someone's photos.

Our phone cameras have changed the world, and I get not everyone is comfortable with that but that is life now. If you don't want your photo taken for whatever reasons; shyness, bad hair day, protected witness, fugitive, rich & famous .... then don't go out in public. Cameras are everywhere, not just in people's hands.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not perfect, but an option.

Not an option if it's going to ruin the picture IMO. If you're ok with the distortion, you might as well delete the photo.

Now, if you want to try it to see if it mollifies the complainer, go for it, but it's not ideal.

 

[LilyWDW]

Not perfect, but an option.

Not really. It did a horrible job and ruined the subject of the photo itself.

Honestly, if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy. This includes restaurants, theme parks, cruise ships, a baseball game, a store... anywhere where the public is "allowed". A good definition of a "public place" is: generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not.

So your room on a cruise? Not public. The pool deck? Public.

As a side note, the owner of the property (or their representative), even if it is considered to be public property (such as a store, restaurant, theme park), can request that you refrain from taking pictures while on said property. If you refuse to do so, then you can be trespassed. I wanted to include this note because I know someone would point it out.

If you are taking photos or video in public and someone random asks you to stop or delete them? There is no legal requirement to do so. How you wish to handle it is up to you.

Also, I am fine with this. In fact, I am glad for people being able to record in public because it has caught a lot of horrible people doing horrible things. People can no longer hide when they toss around raciest slurs, beat other up, or scream and yell at store workers. Now they are being caught on camera and being identified.

 

[tvguy]

Not really. It did a horrible job and ruined the subject of the photo itself.

Honestly, if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy. This includes restaurants, theme parks, cruise ships, a baseball game, a store... anywhere where the public is "allowed". A good definition of a "public place" is: generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not.

So your room on a cruise? Not public. The pool deck? Public.

As a side note, the owner of the property (or their representative), even if it is considered to be public property (such as a store, restaurant, theme park), can request that you refrain from taking pictures while on said property. If you refuse to do so, then you can be trespassed. I wanted to include this note because I know someone would point it out.

If you are taking photos or video in public and someone random asks you to stop or delete them? There is no legal requirement to do so. How you wish to handle it is up to you.

Also, I am fine with this. In fact, I am glad for people being able to record in public because it has caught a lot of horrible people doing horrible things. People can no longer hide when they toss around raciest slurs, beat other up, or scream and yell at store workers. Now they are being caught on camera and being identified.

I think defining "public" versus "private" space is the key. I'm sure someone around the pool on a cruise ship knows they may be in someone's personal photos. But I am NOT sure they would agree that their picture being on a commercial for profit site, or Live Streamed on a commercial site for profit site is the same thing.

When I was working we ran into an issue with one of the hospitals claiming that THEY owned the sidewalk along the street and we could not take photographs from there. It was a little unclear because the city had closed the street to through traffic, but it still was a city street.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think defining "public" versus "private" space is the key. I'm sure someone around the pool on a cruise ship knows they may be in someone's personal photos. But I am NOT sure they would agree that their picture being on a commercial for profit site, or Live Streamed on a commercial site for profit site is the same thing.

I wonder if anyone has gone to court regarding their image being on YT, particularly a channel that earns $$. While I have a channel (actually a couple) on YT, *I* don't earn any money on the videos. Does YT, if they play commercials before/after/during? How does that factor in? I think @LilyWDW did a great job defining "public space".

When I was working we ran into an issue with one of the hospitals claiming that THEY owned the sidewalk along the street and we could not take photographs from there. It was a little unclear because the city had closed the street to through traffic, but it still was a city street.

When I was in college I was a member of the campus news team. We happened to hear (don't even remember how, don't think we had scanners) about a body found in a car in one of the parking lots. So I grabbed a camera and went. Campus police forced me to the sidewalk across the street, but then let the general public where they had booted me out from. If I would have known better, I would have fought that. What does this have to do with the OP? About as much as your hospital story.

 

[bcla]

I think defining "public" versus "private" space is the key. I'm sure someone around the pool on a cruise ship knows they may be in someone's personal photos. But I am NOT sure they would agree that their picture being on a commercial for profit site, or Live Streamed on a commercial site for profit site is the same thing.

When I was working we ran into an issue with one of the hospitals claiming that THEY owned the sidewalk along the street and we could not take photographs from there. It was a little unclear because the city had closed the street to through traffic, but it still was a city street.

I've been interested in the idea of easements. If I look at some maps, the property line actually goes to about center of the street in front, but legally a public easement has been established for the street and the sidewalk. But in my neighborhood the property lines seems to end before the sidewalk begins. Which is really odd because some homes in my neighborhood don't have sidewalks and there might be a lawn or hedges that go all the way to the street that the owners are maintaining. As well as maintaining the sidewalks and curbs (I always wondered about the legality of painting numbers on the curbs if it's technically public property.

But even if they did own the sidewalk, there's bound to be a public easement that would allow people to be there without the permission of the owner.

 

[Lilsia]

Not really. It did a horrible job and ruined the subject of the photo itself.

Honestly, if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy. This includes restaurants, theme parks, cruise ships, a baseball game, a store... anywhere where the public is "allowed". A good definition of a "public place" is: generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not.

So your room on a cruise? Not public. The pool deck? Public.

As a side note, the owner of the property (or their representative), even if it is considered to be public property (such as a store, restaurant, theme park), can request that you refrain from taking pictures while on said property. If you refuse to do so, then you can be trespassed. I wanted to include this note because I know someone would point it out.

If you are taking photos or video in public and someone random asks you to stop or delete them? There is no legal requirement to do so. How you wish to handle it is up to you.

Also, I am fine with this. In fact, I am glad for people being able to record in public because it has caught a lot of horrible people doing horrible things. People can no longer hide when they toss around raciest slurs, beat other up, or scream and yell at store workers. Now they are being caught on camera and being identified.

What is your opinion on the trend of taking unflattering pictures or videos for the sole purpose of making fun of someone online? This can really put someone over the edge if they are already struggling. Wouldn't you consider that a form of harassment? The issue I see is that the laws have not kept up with the technology. At some point they need to make laws protecting people from this sort of thing.

 

[sam_gordon]

What is your opinion on the trend of taking unflattering pictures or videos for the sole purpose of making fun of someone online? This can really put someone over the edge if they are already struggling. Wouldn't you consider that a form of harassment? The issue I see is that the laws have not kept up with the technology. At some point they need to make laws protecting people from this sort of thing.

That's a slippery slope IMO. I understand what you're saying, but assuming someone is out in public, I think they're fair game. Harassment has a definition, and I don't know that this fits.

As @LilyWDW mentioned, think about the things that have brought to light BECAUSE people could take photos/videos in public (and post them).

 

[tvguy]

I've been interested in the idea of easements. If I look at some maps, the property line actually goes to about center of the street in front, but legally a public easement has been established for the street and the sidewalk. But in my neighborhood the property lines seems to end before the sidewalk begins. Which is really odd because some homes in my neighborhood don't have sidewalks and there might be a lawn or hedges that go all the way to the street that the owners are maintaining. As well as maintaining the sidewalks and curbs (I always wondered about the legality of painting numbers on the curbs if it's technically public property.

But even if they did own the sidewalk, there's bound to be a public easement that would allow people to be there without the permission of the owner.

Oh Lord, easements. One of the hot button topics on NextDoor and my Community Facebook page. People just don't understand that the electric company, gas company, phone company, cable company, water district, sewer district can come on your property to get to their equipment. In an emergency, it can be without notice, but they normally give notice.
My house was built in 1979 with all the utilities buried in the 5 feet between the sidewalk and the house. The utility companies can dig it up anytime they want. The gas company dug up my lawn. The electric company took out half my driveway to fix a buried cable, the phone company has dug up my neighbors garden twice to fix MY phone line.
BUT, because the development we back up to was built in 1956, the power, cable and phone lines are all along the back of my property. So I have a 5 foot utility easement across the back of my property. I just got notice that in the next 8 weeks a contractor for the electric company will be out to trim my neighbor's tree that is intertwined in the power lines. All the branches they need to cut hang over my yard, so they need to access it from my yard. Just part of a civilized life.

 

[tvguy]

When I was in college I was a member of the campus news team. We happened to hear (don't even remember how, don't think we had scanners) about a body found in a car in one of the parking lots. So I grabbed a camera and went. Campus police forced me to the sidewalk across the street, but then let the general public where they had booted me out from. If I would have known better, I would have fought that. What does this have to do with the OP? About as much as your hospital story.

Has everything to do with the OP as the law in most states puts the news media in a different class as to access. Here in California it is section 409.5 PC. Youtubers and private citizens figure if the TV News photographer can get access, they can. NOPE.

 

[sam_gordon]

Has everything to do with the OP as the law in most states puts the news media in a different class as to access. Here in California it is section 409.5 PC. Youtubers and private citizens figure if the TV News photographer can get access, they can. NOPE.

There are LOTS of areas media can access that the public can't. But the reverse is NOT true. If the public is allowed, the media is allowed. A business open to the public can limit whether the media is allowed to record, but couldn't keep the media (general, not individual) "out".

 

[bcla]

Oh Lord, easements. One of the hot button topics on NextDoor and my Community Facebook page. People just don't understand that the electric company, gas company, phone company, cable company, water district, sewer district can come on your property to get to their equipment. In an emergency, it can be without notice, but they normally give notice.
My house was built in 1979 with all the utilities buried in the 5 feet between the sidewalk and the house. The utility companies can dig it up anytime they want. The gas company dug up my lawn. The electric company took out half my driveway to fix a buried cable, the phone company has dug up my neighbors garden twice to fix MY phone line.
BUT, because the development we back up to was built in 1956, the power, cable and phone lines are all along the back of my property. So I have a 5 foot utility easement across the back of my property. I just got notice that in the next 8 weeks a contractor for the electric company will be out to trim my neighbor's tree that is intertwined in the power lines. All the branches they need to cut hang over my yard, so they need to access it from my yard. Just part of a civilized life.

Easements can be fun.

I live in an older neighborhood with utility poles. I've gotten door notices from PG&E that they were going to work on shoring up the utility pole across the street. It was noticeably leaning and really needed the base to be reinforced and the pole made more vertical. Along with notices when they were planning on trimming the trees surrounding that pole. They legally had an easement for that pole, which is technically on my neighbor's property and the right to trim the tree on his property without permission.

I have had a PG&E employee come right to my door without previous notice asking if I was OK with getting my gas meter inspected and possibly replaced. But I know it's legally their equipment and they have an easement to access any of their equipment on private property. They could have replaced it without telling me, but I suppose they inform the property owner as a courtesy and because of the possibility of something dangerous happening if the resident uses gas equipment. He said that my water heater at steady state wouldn't be a problem, but using a gas range, furnace, or dryer could be dangerous for him. There was controversy years ago when PG&E was installing digital electric meters - aka "smart meters". Some were really hesitant, including some who were hoping the old electromechanical meters stayed because they apparently had slightly reduced power consumption reporting for those who barely used any electricity. I was OK with it and a new one was installed by PG&E's contractor in less than 10 minutes. I didn't have power for that time though.

I don't think there was any resolution that would still allow for electromechanical meters, but apparently some were able to get their digital meters radios turned off where meter readers would come and read them monthly.

 

[tvguy]

There are LOTS of areas media can access that the public can't. But the reverse is NOT true. If the public is allowed, the media is allowed. A business open to the public can limit whether the media is allowed to record, but couldn't keep the media (general, not individual) "out".

The issue for the media varies depending on how wide an area they tape off. For most of my career I had a scanner in my car. and there was an Officer Involved Shooting along my route home. I got there before the tape went up and snapped a few cell phone photos to send into the office. One, which we could not use showed the suspect dead in the street. But how they taped off the scene, and a dip in the road, the crews that got there after the fact could not see the body, and the officers on the scene denied to our reporter that the suspect was dead. I sent the photo to the reporter and said "this guy disagrees".

 

[sam_gordon]

The issue for the media varies depending on how wide an area they tape off. For most of my career I had a scanner in my car. and there was an Officer Involved Shooting along my route home. I got there before the tape went up and snapped a few cell phone photos to send into the office. One, which we could not use showed the suspect dead in the street. But how they taped off the scene, and a dip in the road, the crews that got there after the fact could not see the body, and the officers on the scene denied to our reporter that the suspect was dead. I sent the photo to the reporter and said "this guy disagrees".

But that doesn't change or disagree with what I said. If police tape off an area, the public is not allowed in. If the public is allowed somewhere, the media is allowed too. That's all I said.

 

[kdonnel]

I guess sometimes it’s worth being trespassed to not be in another’s picture or to ensure someone is not in your picture.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local...-between-2-families-at-disneys-magic-kingdom/