Just because I'm changing my baby's dirty diaper on an Old Navy clothing counter.
There is some trenchant discussion and a sharing of experiences with publicly-disposed diapers at the trashy subreddit source.
Note from that thread: "...Supreme Court ruling that states; you now have no privacy in public places and can be filmed without consent."
General rule of thumb in the US of A: if you're in a public space taking a photo of something in public view: All Good. There are exceptions that deal with "national security," not to mention irate law enforcement officers because... they say so! There are also very contentious "ag gag" laws in several states that prohibit photography of their facilities- some even from outside their facilities!
ReplyDeleteTechnically, the photographer above would need permission from... Old Navy to photograph on their property.
https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/criminalizing-photography/
I mean... that's rather the definition of the term 'public' as opposed to 'private', isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on what is considered reasonable.
ReplyDeleteIn the Netherlands, you can film in public places, but if you specifically target a person, you need permission because everyone owns the copyright to their own image. So, you can film a crowd without permission, but you can't follow and film a specific person without their permission. To make it more complicated, journalists can film newsworthy people, as long as they're making news.
To push to an extreme. In the US, under the law, it is legal to pick a random person, and film their daily live for as much as it happens in public space. Follow them from home to work, in the mall, to the doctor. After all, they need to move through public space to do so. In the Netherlands, you can't. However, a journalist can approach someone in the news without permission. But they can't follow that person without cause.
i'm willing to give this woman a pass. i don't know her or her circumstances but, i do know that me and my wife walked around in a daze from all the work of a newborn kid. lest not hang someone from the noose of social media. she may just be tiered and making poor decisions and will be okay tomorrow
ReplyDeleteShe gets no pass from me unless she's in a mall with no toilets.
DeleteWe had a case in canada not too long ago that took this argument to some pretty weird places. A teacher used a pen cam to secretly film his female students (face and cleavage). The court decided they couldn't prove intent was voyeurism so he was acquitted. When it was appealed the court of appeals concluded that what he was doing was fine because there should be no expectation of privacy in a public school.
ReplyDeleteThe Netherlands' approach sounds like it would be extremely complicated to enforce and interpret, but canada's approach was just plain absurd.
Thankfully after a second appeal the supreme court sided with the victims. There is some recognition that context matters.
"You soil it you buy it" comes to mind...
ReplyDelete