RSS
Legal Ramifications Of Camera Phones
from the so-many-things-to-deal-with dept
People left and right have been over reacting to camera phones, but it does raise some legal issues - specifically about the rights of those who are being photographed. Where I'm confused, though, is how come existing law doesn't already cover this? If you're in a public place and have no expectation of privacy, I'm not sure how there's an issue. If you're in a private place, it's a different story - but is still covered by existing law. The article also mentions a law saying that if you're in a federal areas (government buildings, national parks) and someone takes a photo of you in "sensitive or compromising states", they can't disseminate those photos. I'm curious why that is. If you're on such federal property, why are you going to be in "sensitive or compromising states?" Anyway, as someone else in the article points out, this is mostly just people over reacting to new technology that they don't understand. After it percolates a bit, people will reach social norms and expectations. There were digital cameras before this, and once people realize that most phones have cameras as well, they'll be more conscious about what's happening around them.
4 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Justice Department Wants $5 Million To Bolster Its Efforts As Hollywood's Private Police Force
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
"Sensitive or compromising states"
Though why it would extend to national parks...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
If you're a photographer (or even if you're not), I recommend checking out http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm - a printable flier to keep in your camera bag. There is a lot of misconception about photography. "You can't photograph that soccer game, my kid is playing in it."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There's that phrase again ...
Anytime I see the phrase "where I'm confused" when reading Techdirt ... it's obvious to me that there has been no real thinking done.
You're confused because you think existing law "doesn't already cover this," when, in fact, it does! When a person is in a publicplace, they have no legal expectation of privacy, and your photograph can be taken by anyone, so long as that person doesn't then use your photograph in a commercial way, or attempt to defame you with it (or violate some OTHER law with it).
Here's an example: Say you are 300 pounds, and you're walking up the street. ABCNews cannot take video of your fat butt walking up the street mowing down a banana split and have voice over describing how obese Americans have become. That would be defamatory ... and that's why whenever you see news stories about obeseity, you see a lot of fat butts ... but no faces.
There are MANY examples of people having their photograph taken while in public places. Every time you make an ATM withdrawl your photo is taken; or drive through a "Speed Pass" fast lane toll booth; or stroll down some public beaches, or go through some airport security.
Camera phones add a new dimension, and increase the odds that you will be "snapped," but the law is pretty clear: When you're in a public place, you don't have the right not to have your photo taken.
Unconfused now?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's that phrase again ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment