Should you expect privacy from photos in public?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nepperhan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nepperhan

Guest
Maybe or maybe not but the courts seem to think that someone taking flicks of your body parts is not a criminal act.

" He followed women around a Dollar Tree, a Hobby Lobby and a Walmart, each time holding a camera clearly trained on their breasts or buttocks, Tennessee prosecutors said.

At one store, David Eric Lambert also pinched a woman’s buttocks, according to court documents.

He later told detectives he knew his actions were wrong.

“I am very sorry for all of this and want the women I videoed to know I never meant any harm and I apologize for my actions,” Mr. Lambert told the Kingsport, Tenn., police in 2016. Over the next two years he was convicted in Sullivan County of unlawful photography and attempted sexual battery.

But late last month, three separate Tennessee appeals court judges, all men, threw out all three of Mr. Lambert’s convictions for unlawful photography and dismissed the charges. They concluded that even if the evidence were clear that Mr. Lambert had filmed the women, his actions would not have been illegal because the women were in public places. The conviction for attempted battery was affirmed."

 
That has been true for decades. I think Palin lost a case around the issue of public photos
 
Palin is a public figure – there are different rules as to them.
 
Not really. If you are on a public beach and someone takes your picture, oh well. And if they make money from it, oh well.
 
They apply to all.

You are filmed on the store’s security cameras with no expectation of privacy after all. How many of these security cams have we seen make the news when something happens?

Cops fought this for years; they lost at the Supreme Court. The judges were fairly specific in their reasoning that no one has a right to privacy in public spaces and that included public servants. Now a store does present a mixture of public and private space. Public during its open hours, but private in that it’s in a privately owned space that could set its own camera policy; it could be the store doesn’t have to permit cameras on the premises. But they will still have their security cameras.

Where the line is usually drawn is in whether the subject is entitled to compensation from the photographer and that is dependent on the situation.
 
Theo520 said:
You are thinking of slander laws, an area completely different.
Click to expand...
Actually, I wasn’t. If a person makes money from his or her celebrity, that person has less expectation of privacy and freedom from photos in public.
 
Nepperhan said:
Actually, I wasn’t. If a person makes money from his or her celebrity, that person has less expectation of privacy and freedom from photos in public.
Click to expand...
There is no difference as it relates to the above story, neither the famous nor a private citizen have protection from being photographed in public.

However, both would have protection if that image was then used to promote a product. In fact the famous person would have greater protection here (right of publicity).

Neither have protection if a simply unflattering photo is published, but if the photo is doctored to make them look bad, both may claim defamation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top