Photography in public vs private places

[I Think]

Is there a special place for selfies?

call it selfie hell.

[Bsuds]

Is there a special place for selfies?

call it selfie hell.

The bathroom seems to be popular for some reason.

[Ken7]

Drip,
The thing with photos, is if there is no expectation of privacy you are fair game. Not sure what you are suggesting about argued in court??

Reality is if your female partner / daughter is in your back yard laying by the pool, there is no expectation of privacy as your back yard may well be seen by the neighbour or from the front yard. However, in the privacy of your home that is a no-no.

I was videotaping my neighbours back yard, for court as he was a asshead, his dog was disturbing my family. He reported me to the RCMP. Why not sure they had the visit to my home. I explained what I had done, why and the law. I then explained it might be brought to buddy's attention him photographing my camera in my bedroom is breaking the law.

The officer left without any further discussion, I was not laying a complaint about his actions but thought buddy should be informed not to play unless you know the rules!

[Captain Awesome]

Who here has heard about people with DSLR cameras not being allowed into events with their camera without a press pass?

Because those are private events and organizers can do whatever they want. It's not a public space.

[Captain Awesome]

In some places,photographs of certain buildings (exterior as well as interior) are prohibited due to copyright laws. In Paris, it is illegal to take photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night, but not during daylight hours.

It's not illegal. It's illegal to use the image of Eiffel tower at night for financial gains such as printing and selling it on postcards, putting it on your website, etc. During daylight it's kind of a public domain, so you can do those things. Don't confuse it for "it's illegal to take a picture of it".

Some countries prohibit taking pictures of certain infrastructure. For example, a cop might show up and tell you not to take pictures/delete the ones you have of an airport, army base, military installation, or Obama's procession. In some countries it's much stricter than you'd think, I was asked not to photograph an American embassy in Middle East once.

[Donald G]

by kgcayenne » Jan 15th, 2016, 3:44 pm

The update:
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#156294
Vancouver police have identified and spoken to three men seen in security footage at Pacific Centre Mall.

The appearance of the men, taking pictures in the mall, prompted a call to the VPD.

But police are not happy that information about that call was released to the media.

“Information, including photographs of the three men, was obtained and released by a Vancouver news outlet via an unknown source, and was not intended or authorized to be shared with the general public,” said a police statement. “The information was part of an internal police bulletin circulated amongst police officers throughout the province of B.C.”

All three men cooperated with investigators and had a logical explanation regarding their behaviour, said Const. Brian Montague, VPD spokesperson.

The investigation has conclusively determined that their actions were completely innocent, Montague stated, adding Vancouver remains a safe city and the public should have no concerns about shopping at the mall or elsewhere.


So, what motive would someone have to release 'not for public' information to a news outlet?

There are instances where the police can and do release "not for public information" to the public, including the news media. One of the reasons they do so is to try to quickly identify people due to exigent circumstances, although in this instance there are other ways that the media could have obtained the video information.

I do not believe the accusation that the police gave false information in saying they did not release the video to the media when in real life they have the right to so do if they thought the situation warranted so doing. The hundreds of such "not for public viewing" photographs and video clips released in connection with the 2011 Hockey Riot in Vancouver is a classic example of such photographs and videos being released to the public and video in order to identify POSSIBLE offenders.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

I do not believe the accusation that the police gave false information in saying they did not release the video to the media when in real life they have the right to so do if they thought the situation warranted so doing.

Of course the police/ RCMP can release a video to the public if a situation is warranted but in this instance they said they didn't. An individual in the police force saw fit to release it to the media on their own accord without the police knowledge. And some of us were wondering why. We were questioning the individual's motive not the police force.
All is good with this story. No harm done in the end.

[Donald G]

by SmokeOnTheWater » 55 minutes ago

Of course the police/ RCMP can release a video to the public if a situation is warranted but in this instance they said they didn't. An individual in the police force saw fit to release it to the media on their own accord without the police knowledge

I assume that the above statement was made without any grounds for making the accusation ?? Why would a person make such an accusation without identifying their grounds for believing such an allegation when there are many other sources for the media to have obtained the pictures and video ??

[SmokeOnTheWater]

I assume that the above statement was made without any grounds for making the accusation ?? Why would a person make such an accusation without identifying their grounds for believing such an allegation when there are many other sources for the media to have obtained the pictures and video ??

Because that's what the police officer said on the news.
Watch the news and you will find out for yourself.

[Donald G]

by SmokeOnTheWater » 36 minutes ago

Because that's what the police officer said on the news.

If that is true then I stand corrected. There were grounds for your comment. My sincere apologies.

[Dizzy1]

It's not illegal. It's illegal to use the image of Eiffel tower at night for financial gains such as printing and selling it on postcards, putting it on your website, etc. During daylight it's kind of a public domain, so you can do those things. Don't confuse it for "it's illegal to take a picture of it".

I explained that on the other page - but it's good to mention it again

And just to be extra picky, it's not the tower itself that is protected by copyright laws - it's the nightly light show that is - which is why the law pertains specifically to night time images.

[Drip_Torch]

The thing with photos, is if there is no expectation of privacy you are fair game. Not sure what you are suggesting about argued in court??

Merely suggesting, if the neighbour (with the circumcision scar below his ears) decides to pursue his perceived breach of privacy as a civil tort, then you may end up in court explaining yourself. No big deal and I do believe your assessment is bang on, but still, a boring way to spend a few days.

Times they are a changing and I live in a neighbourhood that has more cameras than the Kardashian's house. Whatever, can't say it bothers me, in fact, I suspect it's a bit of a burden... but, I know that when I'm shooting in public I always try to be mindful of other peoples privacy.

Do I have an expectation of privacy when I'm changing in the public pool change room? Do my children have an expectation of privacy when they are enjoying the local playground? Do I have the right to use and enjoy my property, as I see fit, or should I have to live under the constant scrutiny of a neighbour, that has nothing better to do, than try to find a frame of me picking the lint out of my navel, while enjoying my morning cup of joe in the backyard?

I don't think it's really as simple as, "if there is no expectation of privacy you are fair game", but unfortunately it's not a whole lot more complicated than that, either.

... until someone files a civil suit.

[Captain Awesome]

Do I have the right to use and enjoy my property, as I see fit, or should I have to live under the constant scrutiny of a neighbour, that has nothing better to do, than try to find a frame of me picking the lint out of my navel, while enjoying my morning cup of joe in the backyard?

It's actually fairly simple.

If your neighbor can watch you do all of those things from his property - he can also take pictures of you. Camera and human eyes are in this case interchangeable for the sake of privacy argument. If somebody can walk by your house and see you naked eating Cheez-Its while flying a purple kite from the street then can also take a picture of you doing those things.

Now, if they were to break the law and say trespass to get onto your property to see what's otherwise would be hidden - then there's an invasion of privacy.

[Donald G]

Captain Awesome, I agree with you providing your camera and lens is not capable of seeing more than the normal human eye can see from where the picture is taken and you are not going to use it for personal gain (which with a few exceptions I believe takes consent).

[Drip_Torch]

It's actually fairly simple.

If your neighbor can watch you do all of those things from his property - he can also take pictures of you. Camera and human eyes are in this case interchangeable for the sake of privacy argument. If somebody can walk by your house and see you naked eating Cheez-Its while flying a purple kite from the street then can also take a picture of you doing those things.

While I agree it’s fairly simple – I’d like to suggest it’s little more complicated than that. Intentions, and use of the photo do play into it, too.

If it were published under the heading of, “Look at my kinky neighbour” – I suspect the photographer could find himself facing a civil suit under a few torts; privacy, nuisance and defamation being obvious.

If it were published under the heading of, “My neighbour is a freak and should be thrown in jail” - along with a series of photos that appear to surveil the subject. The photographer could find himself facing civil suits, as well as, the criminal complaint of harassment.

If it were published under the heading of, “who fly’s a purple kite these days anyways?” I suspect, that’s entirely fair game – (and a completely valid question.)

If the photographer displayed a bit of a penchant at finding naked, cheez-it eating, purple kite flyers in action, it could call the photog’s intentions into question, again thru the criminal code, in the section dealing with voyeurism.

Does the photog have a bit of a thing for covertly observing naked folks?

American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:
Voyeurism is viewing some form of nudity or sexual activity, accompanied by sexual arousal. To be classified as a sexual disorder, or a paraphilia, voyeurism must be characterized by observing unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked or engaging in sexual activity, for the purpose of seeking sexual excitement.

While it may be legal to snap the picture, publishing it, is a different matter. The Charter acknowledges the right to privacy (between us mortals and the state) through sections 7 and 8. ()R. v. Dyment - "privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state.") Between individuals, privacy rights are protected, in British Columbia, through the legislation that I linked to in the earlier post.

Sad fact of the matter is the justice system is inaccessible to most, and completely abused by others. Scribble some non-sense on a notice of claim, submit the $200, and until the matter actually gets adjudicated the other party is being sued. That’s a hassle that I can avoid by simply not being a creep – works for me.

Privacy is a tort, and if you breach someone’s right to privacy your behaviour can be called into question. Just because it doesn’t happen all that often, doesn’t make it legal, - ethical, or moral. I know when I’m shooting in public I’m always mindful of the background, especially, on footage that I might wish to commercialize one day. If I don’t have a release, for that person’s image, that company’s logo, or other intellectual property rights – publishing it could prove to be more trouble than it’s worth.

Of course, if the cheez-it eating, purple kite flyer has an orange appendage – that would be an entirely different situation, and I’d suggest the appropriate response would be to forward that photo to the police.