Peopleofwalmart.com

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What ever happened to privacy in this world? I don't care how you are dressed, it doesn't give somebody the right to snap a picture of you without your permission and post it for all the world to see.

The law:

Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals
You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.

Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).

Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.

Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.

Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases.


***********

Note that it states you "MAY" need permission. It is on a state by state basis and the laws due vary.

It is not a blanket law covering the entire US.

 

[MIGrandma]

I looked at a few of the pictures, didn't really see the humor.

And Wal-Mart did not single handedly kill the small town businesses. There are other dept. stores like K-Mart, Target, Meijers and more that did their share. I just don't understand the hatred for Wal-Mart.

 

[golfgal]

I looked at a few of the pictures, didn't really see the humor.

And Wal-Mart did not single handedly kill the small town businesses. There are other dept. stores like K-Mart, Target, Meijers and more that did their share. I just don't understand the hatred for Wal-Mart.

I don't understand it either. Target, K-Mart and other stores use the same Chinese factories, have the same low wages, etc. Everything people say about Walmart they could say about Target but for some reason Target is better??

I know in our old town the downtown council complained that Walmart was putting them out of business--no, the fact that you only sell $300 sweaters and $200 dress shirts in a VERY casual town is putting you out of business.

 

[monkey68]

I looked at a few of the pictures, didn't really see the humor.

And Wal-Mart did not single handedly kill the small town businesses. There are other dept. stores like K-Mart, Target, Meijers and more that did their share. I just don't understand the hatred for Wal-Mart.

You're right, there are other department stores, but in many places, Wal-Mart is the only one. I know that in the town where our friend's store was, they didn't have any of those other type of department stores. Wal-Mart however is probably in more places than those other stores, which is why they say "Wal-Mart killed small business".

 

[bicker]

The law:

... The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion ...

This is typically the defense against something like what the linked website does: When you're in a public place, you aren't engaging in solitude or seclusion. It is, however, a matter of degree. Taking pictures of people on a subway or a bus, who are ostensibly just trying to keep to themselves, probably violates this precept, because people need to travel -- it is an essential aspect of living in our society -- so the right to privacy would extend to that scenario. By contrast, people vigorously cheering on a sports team at a sporting event are engaging in a non-essential activity, and are essentially making a mild spectacle of themselves -- reading those words literally, alone, justifies the contention that there is no right to privacy in that scenario.

Going shopping at Wal-Mart? Somewhere in-between, of course. I think the determining factor is implied by what I mentioned above with regard to folks vigorously cheering on a sports team at a sporting event: It can be argued that you are voluntarily releasing your right to privacy in proportion to the extent you are making a spectacle of yourself. Some of those photos are unfortunate circumstances of those pictured, and I don't think a strong contention can be made that they're making a spectacle of themselves. Other photos reflect people who made deliberate choices that the law would expect a reasonable person to realize that such choices will attract attention. The act of deliberately attracting attention itself surely constitutes a sacrificing of the right to privacy. It is also not legitimate to try to hide behind claims that you wanted to attract certain attention but not other attention.

The right to publicity is a stronger approach. No one has the right to make money off of your image without your permission.

 

[Geoff_M]

Taking pictures of people on a subway or a bus, who are ostensibly just trying to keep to themselves, probably violates this precept, because people need to travel -- it is an essential aspect of living in our society -- so the right to privacy would extend to that scenario.

However, that's not the standard that the courts apply when it comes to privacy issues. The gold standard for issues of privacy is the "expectation of privacy" that one has in a given situation. It doubtful that such rights would be extended to public transportation or shopping at Walmart. People have an expectation of privacy when doing things like using the phone, being in their own homes, using a changing room at the mall or a tanning salon, being in a fenced in backyard, or their medical and financial records and not when doing things like going to a public park, WDW, or the sporting events you mentioned.

In fact the courts have held that a subject's desire to "keep to themselves" is not a factor of privacy violation. That standard was set by a former child prodigy turned recluse who attempted to sue a newspaper that ran a "What ever happened to...?" story on him. His lawyers attempted to claim that their clients expressed desire to stay out of the public eye trumped the journalist's right to write the story about him. The courts held the likely reader interest in the story trumped the claims of any "right to privacy" because he didn't want to be the subject of a published story.

As for the web site in question, the courts have generally extended the same "editorial use" protections to web sites as they do to other traditional publications like magazines, journals, and newspapers when it comes to not requiring a subject's permission to use their image in their product. As more and more newspapers drop their printed editions and go "web only", this notion will only grow further.

This doesn't mean that all information is "fair game" to the press, but it goes back to an "expectation of privacy". The press may have to show there's a legitimate public interest in disclosing the information if the type of info released arguable might be normally considered as "private" to the general public.

As for the "Walmart People" web site, I don't understand the humor in it. Belittling people ain't my type of laughs.

 

[disneyfav4ever]

Actually Wal-Mart is not a public place, it is private property.

 

[Shutterbug]

Arent people already being videotaped all the time in Walmart or any other store by security cameras?

 

[Geoff_M]

Actually Wal-Mart is not a public place, it is private property.

Correct, but "public" and "private" can have different meanings in different aspects of the law. "Place" and "property" are two different concepts. In terms of legal ownership and trespass, Walmarts are clearly "private property", but in terms of issues of privacy the courts would consider them as "public places". Likewise, in some ways "public property" can also be "private" in some legal aspects. For example, public school grounds are clearly "public property", but laws allow them to be considered "private" in terms of trespass and any authorized administrator can order anyone they wish to leave this "public" place for any cause they deem appropriate... just like a Walmart.

 

[disneyfav4ever]

Arent people already being videotaped all the time in Walmart or any other store by security cameras?

Yes, but there should be a posted somewhere in the store that they are. And that is much different then taking pictures of someone just to make fun of. I don't see how one has anything to do with the other.

Correct, but "public" and "private" can have different meanings in different aspects of the law. "Place" and "property" are two different concepts. In terms of legal ownership and trespass, Walmarts are clearly "private property", but in terms of issues of privacy the courts would consider them as "public places". Likewise, in some ways "public property" can also be "private" in some legal aspects. For example, public school grounds are clearly "public property", but laws allow them to be considered "private" in terms of trespass and any authorized administrator can order anyone they wish to leave this "public" place for any cause they deem appropriate... just like a Walmart.

I get what you're saying, but Walmart also has a rule that no photos are allowed. Anyone who is taking photos is breaking a rule of a privatly owned place. It's just not right that a site exists like this in the first place, let alone that it's against Walmart's rules.

 

[Geoff_M]

I get what you're saying, but Walmart also has a rule that no photos are allowed. Anyone who is taking photos is breaking a rule of a privatly owned place. It's just not right that a site exists like this in the first place, let alone that it's against Walmart's rules.

You are correct that the photo takers are violating Walmart's "no unauthorized photography" rule... but that's only their rule and the only action they can take against violators is to ask them to leave the property. The owners of the site are certainly within their legal rights to make it. Unfortunately for some, the law has no account for "taste". If the people operating the site weren't within their rights, you can be assured that Walmart's legal department would have been all over them and the same goes for their "victims".

 

[JR6ooo4]

Whether it is a public beach, a public store or a public website. Once you leave the confines of your private walls and curtains you are subject to being viewed by the public.

Now if they are selling adds on a site that posts pictures without consent, then one is profiting without license.

Almost every big store in our area has posted "no cameras, video... recordings of any kind, blah blah blah." It is as common as the "bag will suffocate babies" warning.

Mikeeee

 

[MonicaInFlorida]

Because of the prevalence of camera phones, it'd be nearly impossible to ascertain whether someone is taking a picture, texting or playing a game on their cell phone. Unless a manager demands to inspect every customer's cell phone, there's not a whole heck of a lot that can be done about people taking pictures.

 

[bicker]

Actually Wal-Mart is not a public place, it is private property.

All retails stores open to the public are public places, with regard to the law. The technical term is "public accommodation".

 

[bicker]

I get what you're saying, but Walmart also has a rule that no photos are allowed.

Violating Wal-Mart's rules is grounds for ejection from their premises. It is not a violation of the law, nor does Wal-Mart's rules, in any way, affect anyone's right to do anything that they are allowed to do according to the law.

 

[Geoff_M]

All retails stores open to the public are public places, with regard to the law. The technical term is "public accommodation".

Actually, "public accommodation" has a different usage and is a subset of "public places". A "public accommodation" is a legal definition of specific public spaces that actually remove certain rights normally given to property owners and/or subject them to certain legal compliance, such as accessibility laws for disabled persons and/or prohibiting discrimination based on certain factors. Definitions vary from state to state and from the poking around I've done, general retails spaces aren't nomrally considered "public accommodations" but instead such definitions usually center on lodging, resorts, entertainment, restaurants, gas stations, hospitals, establishments that offer personal services, and such.

 

[Geoff_M]

Now if they are selling adds on a site that posts pictures without consent, then one is profiting without license.

Mikeeee

I'm afraid that doesn't work. Newspapers sell ads too, that doesn't negate their classification as an editorial publication... ditto for the web site in question. Short of them defaming someone on their site with their snide comments, I don't see anything actionable against their owners.

 

[bicker]

Definitions vary from state to state and from the poking around I've done, general retails spaces aren't nomrally considered "public accommodations" but instead such definitions usually center on lodging, resorts, entertainment, restaurants, gas stations, hospitals, establishments that offer personal services, and such.

Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as ... retail stores, ...

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html
​

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

However, that's not the standard that the courts apply when it comes to privacy issues. The gold standard for issues of privacy is the "expectation of privacy" that one has in a given situation. It doubtful that such rights would be extended to public transportation or shopping at Walmart.

*****

In fact the courts have held that a subject's desire to "keep to themselves" is not a factor of privacy violation. ....The courts held the likely reader interest in the story trumped the claims of any "right to privacy" because he didn't want to be the subject of a published story.

*****

As for the web site in question, the courts have generally extended the same "editorial use" protections to web sites as they do to other traditional publications like magazines, journals, and newspapers when it comes to not requiring a subject's permission to use their image in their product.

***

The press may have to show there's a legitimate public interest in disclosing the information if the type of info released arguable might be normally considered as "private" to the general public.

As for the "Walmart People" web site, I don't understand the humor in it. Belittling people ain't my type of laughs.

We can argue until the cows come home, but as it stands, each state does have its own separate laws and a private person being subject to ridicule--will not necessarily pass muster.

I saw that the website accepts donations--though I did not click to find out what these donations were for.

A child star having once had celebrity status, is not necessarily in the same category as a woman who overdid it a litle with liquid eyeliner.

In fact, across several photography boards, they mention subjects who are just in the background as opposed to being featured. Being part of the crowd--not an issue. Featured as a focal point in a photograph--it could be an issue.

Note, I say "could"--not that it "is" without question.

Likely if any of these individuals knew they were on this website, they likely could request to have their photo taken down and reasonably expect to be accomodated.

Photos of cars and goats and people with faces concealed--would have a bit more of a challenged. So pink shorts dude, dude with boxers fully exposed and butt crack shots--I'm not so sure they'd have much luck.

It's a bit touchy area of the law--very interesting for certain. But very tough to prove when it comes to being out in public where the right to privacy begins and ends with an individual.

I personally do not find the website a violation of the right to privacy. But that is based on my knowledge from when I graduated from a school of journalism and communications many moons ago. But that was before the internet exploded and took a life of its own. (back when they had no google and searching for information on the internet was cruel and unusual punishment.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Actually Wal-Mart is not a public place, it is private property.

Well it isn't private--it is public.

AND--if you want to get technical, Walmart is a publicly traded company. But that doesn't matter in whether it is a public or private place.


And while I have no inclination to photograph in Walmart, our Walmarts here have no such signs posted that I have ever seen and I have lived her for 12 years.

I remember shopping competitors when I trained with one retail store. We would go to competitors to see how they do things either good or bad. Stores tend to be protective of their way of doing things, so I could see that to be a reason for the "no photos" rule rather than protecting customers who can't pull their pants up or dress in funk-a-delic stylin' clothing.