«

Cynicor <> wrote:
>Good Man wrote:
>> It is *not* an invasion of privacy legally, though you may feel so
>> morally. If you are standing in a public area and your photo is taken
>> for a non-commercial purpose, you can be photographed.
>>
>> ie: paparazzi
>> ie: closed-circuit police cameras

>Isn't paparazzi a commercial purpose, by definition?

Yes, but in the US at least, public figures forfeit
privacy protections. Thus photographing them for
profit is legal.

Which is only one reason why public figures get
upset about it.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Juarez wrote:
> Most of you think you have the right to take photos of people in public
> without their permission. Well, in the U.S. you may get away with it but do
> that in Canada and you may well get sued for it.
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42334
>
> "In Canada, it seems that taking a photograph of someone in public might
> constitute an invasion of privacy."

If that is true, then Canada needs to reexamine their legal definition
of 'privacy'. In a general sense, to expect privacy in a public place is
irrational.

Juarez wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:05:56 +0000, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect that it depends on what you do with the photos. If
>> they are taken for your noncommercial use only, you are quite
>> in the clear.
>>
>> There is in the US (and I expect in Canada as well) no legal
>> expectation of total privacy when in public. It is what the
>> word "public" means. On the other hand, sticking your camera
>> into somebody's window and photographing them in the confines
>> of a private home is a different matter entirely.
>>
>> The Google situation, as per the URL above, is another matter
>> as the pictures are used commercially.
>>
>
> I don't know. Private or commercial use it is still an invasion of
> privacy. I guess it needs to be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada to
> see what the real deal is.

Consider the practical aspects of this situation. I take a picture of
my wife at Butchart Gardens, and there are several people in the
background. Is it rational, or practical, to expect me to get signed
releases from everyone in the background? Nonsense, and no court is
going to back that theory. Now sticking my camera down some girls
blouse and snapping picture is another case, even if she is walking down
a public street. If laws are practical, and rational, then they aren't
going to be enforced.

Cynicor wrote:
> Good Man wrote:
>> It is *not* an invasion of privacy legally, though you may feel so
>> morally. If you are standing in a public area and your photo is taken
>> for a non-commercial purpose, you can be photographed.
>>
>> ie: paparazzi
>> ie: closed-circuit police cameras
>
> Isn't paparazzi a commercial purpose, by definition?

Yes, but celebrities, and those who photograph them, come under a
different set of rules.

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> Generally true, but not quite. If you wear a dress, for
> example... the parts of your body generally (but not
> specifically) covered from view are private. A camera
> embedded in the sidewalk to look up under dresses is not
> legal, because even on a sidewalk there is an
> expectation that what you hide from general view is
> private.

depends where. in washington state, it is legal.

<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml>

The high court unanimously agreed the state's voyeurism law "does not
apply to actions taken in purely public places."

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
><> wrote:
>
>> Generally true, but not quite. If you wear a dress, for
>> example... the parts of your body generally (but not
>> specifically) covered from view are private. A camera
>> embedded in the sidewalk to look up under dresses is not
>> legal, because even on a sidewalk there is an
>> expectation that what you hide from general view is
>> private.
>
>depends where. in washington state, it is legal.

No, it depends on whether the statue is correctly worded
to begin with. The court ruled "the voyeurism statute,
as written", was not adaquately worded.

Of course Legislation since then has corrected the law.
It is now illegal, under State Law, in Washington State.

><http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml>
>
> The high court unanimously agreed the state's voyeurism law "does not
> apply to actions taken in purely public places."

"In 2002, state lawmakers changed the law to give
legal recourse to people whose privacy was violated
in public. That was well in time to prosecute Jack Le
Vu, the first known cell phone camera voyeur to be
convicted in the U.S.

In July 2003, 20-year-old Vu was seen in a Seattle
area Safeway using a cell phone camera to covertly
snap pictures beneath the skirt of a woman shopping
next to him. Court documents show that Vu, who later
told police he had a panty fetish, managed to get
five shots of the woman's underwear."

<http://pcworld.about.com/news/Jul232004id117035.htm>

Moreover, it is now (since December 2004) a Federal crime
as well, and thus illegal in every state and all other
juristictions under US Law.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 88 > § 1801
§ 1801. Video voyeurism

(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent
to capture an image of a private area of an
individual without their consent, and knowingly
does so under circumstances in which the individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.

(b) In this section --

(1) the term 'capture', with respect to an image,
means to videotape, photograph, film, record by
any means, or broadcast;
(2) the term 'broadcast' means to electronically
transmit a visual image with the intent that it
be viewed by a person or persons;
(3) the term 'a private area of the individual'
means the naked or undergarment clad genitals,
pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that
individual;
(4) the term 'female breast' means any portion of
the female breast below the top of the areola;
and
(5) the term 'under circumstances in which that
individual has a reasonable expectation of
privacy' means --
(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that he or she could disrobe
in privacy, without being concerned that an
image of a private area of the individual
was being captured; or
(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that a private area of the
individual would not be visible to the
public, regardless of whether that person
is in a public or private place.

(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law
enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001801----000-.html>


--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> No, it depends on whether the statue is correctly worded
> to begin with.

correctly as defined by whom? you? or the judge?

> <http://pcworld.about.com/news/Jul232004id117035.htm>
>
> Moreover, it is now (since December 2004) a Federal crime
> as well, and thus illegal in every state and all other
> juristictions under US Law.

it only affects federal land. see:

<http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?d...DocumentID=391
57>

also,

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/08/tech/main672450.shtml>

which concurs that it is only federal land, and also states that just
19 states have voyeurism laws, with half of them banning it only in
private areas. it also describes how someone who was caught was
punished for 'disorderly conduct' and not voyeurism.

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
><> wrote:
>
>> No, it depends on whether the statue is correctly worded
>> to begin with.
>
>correctly as defined by whom? you? or the judge?

In that case, as defined by the judge, obviously.

And just as obviously it was corrected as defined by the
Washington State Legislature and signed into law by the
Governor. And upheld by the judicial branch... though I
don't know if it was the same judge or not.

How could you have missed that????

>> <http://pcworld.about.com/news/Jul232004id117035.htm>
>>
>> Moreover, it is now (since December 2004) a Federal crime
>> as well, and thus illegal in every state and all other
>> juristictions under US Law.
>
>it only affects federal land. see:

Well, that's what Federal laws are for.

><http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=39157>

"Thirty-five states currently have laws that in some
way criminalize video voyeurism. The Video Voyeurism
Prevention Act will serve as a model for states
without such a law, ..."

>also,
>
><http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/08/tech/main672450.shtml>
>
>which concurs that it is only federal land, and also states that just
>19 states have voyeurism laws, with half of them banning it only in
>private areas.

That is a poor description of what is said though. The
actual statement is a bit slippery, "Nineteen states
have laws that specifically punish video voyeurism". Of
course some states may have laws that generally ban it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

nospam wrote:
> In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
> <> wrote:
>
>> Generally true, but not quite. If you wear a dress, for
>> example... the parts of your body generally (but not
>> specifically) covered from view are private. A camera
>> embedded in the sidewalk to look up under dresses is not
>> legal, because even on a sidewalk there is an
>> expectation that what you hide from general view is
>> private.
>
> depends where. in washington state, it is legal.
>
> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml>
>
> The high court unanimously agreed the state's voyeurism law "does not
> apply to actions taken in purely public places."

Wanna bet that gets changed soon. There are a number states where laws
which don't address such issues, yet.

Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Generally true, but not quite. If you wear a dress, for
>>> example... the parts of your body generally (but not
>>> specifically) covered from view are private. A camera
>>> embedded in the sidewalk to look up under dresses is not
>>> legal, because even on a sidewalk there is an
>>> expectation that what you hide from general view is
>>> private.
>> depends where. in washington state, it is legal.
>> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml>
>> The high court unanimously agreed the state's
>> voyeurism law "does not
>> apply to actions taken in purely public places."
>
>Wanna bet that gets changed soon. There are a number

He cited a 2002 ruling, and WN State law was changed soon
after.

>states where laws which don't address such issues, yet.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)