BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
13

Photography: Public, Private: Wise or Otherwise

yalecohen
2015-07-20 11:46:15
Oh, how I hate the link blocking feature on this website. Here's an edited link to a site discussing whether you're allowed to publish videos of people: www dot newmediarights dot org slash guides slash legal_guide_video_releases_use_publication_audio_and_video_recordings And here's a more detailed discussion of the issue: www dot dmlp dot org slash legal-guide slash risks-associated-publication And here's a link specifically for Pennsylvania: www dot dmlp dot org slash legal-guide slash publication-private-facts-pennsylvania And on publishing surveillance video: blogs dot findlaw dot com slash free_enterprise slash 2014 slash 07 slash is-it-legal-to-post-business-surveillance-video-online dot html (In both cases I replaced the "/" with the word " slash " and the "." with " dot "). Bottom line is, it is illegal to publish videos of identifiable people unless you have their consent, and it's best to get written consent. And, BTW, in PA it is illegal to record audio of a conversation unless you have consent of the person you're recording.
jonawebb
2015-07-20 12:06:26
Here’s an edited link to a site discussing whether you’re allowed to publish videos of people: Yes, and the restrictions they note aren't applicable to this case. "When do I need to obtain a release waiver? You need a release waiver when you are using another person's name, voice, signature, photograph (if readily identifiable), or likeness for exploitative purposes [meaning commercial or for your own personal benefit]." You'd need a waiver from the subject if you wanted to sell your photo, but not to put it on a web site. And here’s a link specifically for Pennsylvania: That one talks about the elements of a "private facts claim": " (1) publicity given to (2) private facts, (3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) is not of legitimate concern to the public." What we're talking about would fail both 3 and 4, so your cite is inapplicable. And on publishing surveillance video: This one just flat-out says you're wrong. "By allowing footage of a theft suspect to go viral, a business may hope to catch the alleged thief and deter future theft on its premises. If you decide to do this, there is likely no need to "blur out" patrons' faces, as the business is not employing any person's image or likeness for commercial benefit." (You can't post videos that put someone in a misleading or false light, or might cause severe emotional distress, but we're not talking about that.)
steven
2015-07-20 14:01:09
"This one just flat-out says you’re wrong. " @Steven, not really. The business surveillance case was about a thief caught in the act. That video can be published. @Stu was talking about randomly walking around a flea market etc., recording video without people's knowledge, and publishing it without their permission. He might get away with that, but it's not legal. "You’d need a waiver from the subject if you wanted to sell your photo, but not to put it on a web site." I guess you're thinking that unless @Stu gets some money from posting the video, it doesn't count as being to his personal benefit? I don't think that's true. Stu could benefit from posting the video in a number of ways other than by receiving money.
jonawebb
2015-07-20 14:02:18
@Stu was talking about randomly walking around a flea market etc., recording video without people’s knowledge, and publishing it without their permission. Your own cite says it's not necessary to blur out the faces of random customers in a surveillance video before posting it online, and you don't need their permission either. Are you claiming it's legal if the video also depicts a crime at some point, but not legal if it doesn't? None of your cites make such a distinction. Stu could benefit from posting the video in a number of ways other than by receiving money. And the store owner could benefit by posting video that helps to catch a thief. Yet your cite tells us this is legal, even if the faces of other customers are visible. So "personal benefit" must mean something more like "other direct compensation that isn't money".
steven
2015-07-20 14:21:38
Jon, I think you are mixing up 3 different areas of law: 1) laws declaring that certain behavior is a crime, e.g, Pennsylvania's criminal invasion of privacy statute; 2) civil tort law providing a private citizen with "cause of action" or "civil claim" under certain circumstances for invasions of the citizen's privacy; and 3) civil laws prohibiting the commercial use of someone's image or likeness for commercial gain (a subset of intellectual property law, if I recall correctly).
jmccrea
2015-07-20 14:51:23
I am chastened -- Jake knows what he's talking about -- but I was thinking of part 2 -- what might happen if @Stu's video identified somebody who didn't want to be identified. If I'm wrong, and @Stu wouldn't get in trouble for posting the video, I'll accept that. But I still think it's not a good idea.
jonawebb
2015-07-20 14:57:24
This is a great discussion... do we have a lawyer willing to pitch in? I did find the following online, which is pretty much my own understanding of these things. But, of course, I did not listen to my college adviser and I did not go to law school. To think: I could have owned a Jaguar before they'd gone out of style... instead I have bikes. As a general rule, you can video record (without audio) any public areas, and areas visible from the public area with the naked eye, as there is no legal expectation of privacy in these areas. You can not record through windows and areas not visible from the public space.
ahlir
2015-07-20 21:48:35
do we have a lawyer willing to pitch in?
If my memory served me correctly, two of them just pitched in...
mikhail
2015-07-20 22:06:00
I guess Jacob is? Not sure who else is. (I'm not a lawyer, but sometimes I play one on the Internet.)
steven
2015-07-20 23:52:26
I want to make it clear that I don't think it's illegal to walk around taking video of people at a flea market, or any other public place. I don't think it's a good idea, but I don't think it's illegal. OTOH I'm not sure it's legal to post the video; I think a zealous prosecutor might be able to get a conviction for publicly posting a video of people taken without their knowledge or consent. And I'm pretty sure that anyone posting the video is exposing themselves to a lawsuit by someone who was shown doing something they didn't want to be.
jonawebb
2015-07-21 07:51:34
I thought the idea was to post video of the bikes and not the people working or shopping at the establishment where they were held. I think there would be a distinction between posting video of inanimate objects an identifiable people.
helen-s
2015-07-21 10:27:28