Back to the discussion on taking people's photos in public

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."

 

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.

 

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

etc etc


Either way, the Privacy Commissioner can be 'concerned', but she can't
do much about it.

 

Isn't paparazzi a commercial purpose, by definition?

 

This is true, so there you go, i presume the usage is probably irrelevant.

 

There is no such thing as privacy in a public setting. If you want privacy
go home and lock your doors and pull the curtains. In a park someone's fat
ass is fair game.

Somebody!

 

The same is true in the US, though theres a lot of Devil
in the Details for both Canada and the US. It is not
"absolute" that being in what appears to be a public
place removes all rights to privacy.

Specifically, the above referenced a commercial business
divulging information collected about individuals (in
this case, their identifiable photographs on google
maps).

This is close, but not quite the same as if a business
set a camera across the street and took pictures of
people passing by and looking at their display window.
Use of those photographs in any way connected with that
business would be a violation of the rights of the
people pictured if any part of them is uniquely
identifiable.

 

That's "news", as opposed to "commercial purposes".

 

That is a significant difference. The invasion of
privacy is one thing, the use of someone's person or
property for commercial purposes is separate issue. As
you note in the Google case, it's commercial use is at
question.

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.

Up a dress is obvious, but what about someone with a
scar on their forehead who tries to hide it with the
bill of a hat. Can you sneak up on them with a
telephoto lense and a flash, get a closeup shot of their
forehead... and give it to an insurance company?

I don't know. It looks the same to me though...

Much the same as being in a public place and sticking your
camera under their clothes.

Or maybe not...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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."

 

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.

"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>

 

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

it only affects federal land. see:

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

 

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????

Well, that's what Federal laws are for.

"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, ..."

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.

 

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

 

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