Lab Equipment Blog

By law (in the USA) anything you do in public is subject to public view and that includes photography as long as the photography is performed from public land or if performed from private land it must be with permission.

A photographer may take a picture of you in your car or even in your house if he is on public land or private property with permission.

Now, the real question is what you do with that picture. If the picture is for private use there really isn't a restriction on its use.

However, if that photograph is to be used for commercial purposes, then a release from the party or parties should be obtained. Notice I stated it as should, not must.

If someone photographs you and uses your image as part of a commercial purpose, then you do have legal rights as to how that image is used.

I am not clear about your rights if your image is in the background or is not readily recognizable as you. I think your rights are questionable and I would bet that anything challenged in the court would be subject to a battery of conditions.

So, the privacy issue from a legal standpoint is pretty cut and dry. In some cases you may not like it and there may not exist a legal leg to stand on. I think in Google's case it would have to be challenged by the person photograph and they would have the burden of proof to show that Google violated their rights.

From Google's perspective they may figure that the actual number of cases brought against them will be low enough as to not significantly impact their bottom line financially.

All of those go to the issue of informed or implicit consent. This generally means that a camera shooting a public scene cannot be concealed...to that a photographed person may consent or withhold consent (even if by concealing face, turning away,... The fact that google would obliterate faces after the fact to make them unrecognizable lends credence to the consent aspect.

I once took an impromptu snap of two cute young things walking along an apartment by my apartment. Nothing un towards or lascivious, and the shot was from 3/4 rear - no face recognisability. It was a nice little, well framed shot, with foreground bushes and just a little of the inside drapery in the frame for perspective and composition. When the film was submitted for development, the negative were all there, but the "prize" print was obliterated/overexposed. The problem for the developer was that, because of the foreground draperies indicating their unawareness of a camera's presense, the subjects must not have given consent. Therefore the developer was legally bound not to print their image, recognizable or not. (The jurisdiction was Texas.)

I can't follow your setting you described with enough clarity, but how would the person developing the film know if you were taking pictures of strangers, family, with consent, or without consent?

How can any 3rd party developer make that call? The answer appears to be dealing specifically with a law in Texas that makes it a felony if:

Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means visually records another:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(2) knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording described by Subdivision (1).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

I don't know of any law that mandates that a film developer must alter any photo that they deem is unacceptable.

In the specific case of this Texas law the intent is to go after sexual predators. It sounds like there is a lot of latitude with this statute and I can see this will not always be an easy one for judges, but some cases are obvious, such as Gordon Rae, 42, of Boddam, where he had 200 photos in in his camera phone of womens legs while they were were shopping.

Thank you, Anonymous Hero. Your citation from Vernon's is with reference to Texas Penal code; and the section appears to pertain, at least in part, to pornography.

While some of the perceivable "horse sense" elements might pertain to that statute, the issue I described falls within the realm of civil law; in particular, privacy and consent...and any liability risk that a retail merchant developer doing business, in common, with the public might perceive itself to incur, either as a matter of company policy or as a matter of statute or precedent. I believe the "turn-off" for the film processor in the case I described was the appearance of the draperies and darkened foreground in the photo frame, which led to a judgment that (1) the camera was concealed from the girls and (2) the girls had no reasonable means to know that their image was being recorded, or to consent or withhold consent. The image would also lead to a conclusion, rightly so, that the subject were unknown to the photographer, and vice versa. There was probably also the element of suspicion, of the photographer's knowing intent to take an "un-consented-to photo," as reasonably evidenced by the picture. So the motivation in censoring was probably, first and foremost, to avert any chance of liability (the merchant's having relatively deeper pockets) for whatever might be done with the printed image. (As came to my recall after submitting the post, I believe it was a mail order film processor; so it might not have been Texas law that applied...but it could have been owing to the fact that the processor "does business" by mail in that state; and because the point of sale is always in the location of the purchaser at the time of the sale order.)

Such "censorship" by a merchant film developers is not, actually, unusual or to be unexpected. One would think twice, for example, before sending exposed film of, say, a naked person (especially if the scene depicted [even though unbenownst to the photographer] somehow indicated surreptitious filming), knowing that both print and negative could be lost...even if no unlawful intent or act had been involved. Since most everyone has seen reports of film processors reporting images of partially or unclad children to authorities, one would be cautious even of submitting film of one's own child in a state of partial undress. No doubt, developers in some, if not most, states are probably required to report, for police evaluation, certain kinds of photos--where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal violation.

As to the notion of civil wrong (privacy violation real or only perceived) in photographing with an (albeit innocently) concealed camera, the conspicuous placement of video cameras in businesses (say, restaurants) and public venues attests to the non-permissibility of concealed recording. Some might also recall, from several decades past, controversies surrounding two-way mirrors attempting to be used, without and/or in conjunction with cameras, in public rest rooms to curtail...illicit activities. To my recollection, those cases were ultimately adjudicated in Federal Court, which prohibited the practice (both viewing and filming), once and forever, finding the practice to be an affront to the Constitution. Finally, many have seen press accounts of vocational bank robbers who elude capture by being able to avoid full-face surveillance...because the robbers knew where the cameras were; and because they knew that concealed camera recordings, if taken, would not be permitted in evidence.

One exception to the "no concealed camera" doctrine might be ATMs. But, even if an ATM internal camera is not clearly detectable, even there we have the doctrine of implied consent in play. Because a photograph is deemed legally to be a document, and because we explicitly consent to the recording of a transaction by using a card and PIN, we are deemed not to have withheld permission for the full-documentation recording of the transaction, which includes the ATM user's photograph.

I hope this has sufficiently addressed your questions.

Thanks, by any chance to you know the specific statutes that govern the situation you encountered?

I would be curious to know because I am thinking that the real driver would be more toward sexual predators versus candid street photography. I mean, you can't expect tourists to get written consent from every would-be person that happens to be in the frame of their shot of some historical building. There must be some governing principle behind it all.

"Big Brother is Watching You!" The slippery slope is that something could be seen that appeared to be a crime, yet there is no evidence of it other than the photos. Even the existence of the photos could trigger an investigation which could damage someones reputation.

Say someone was seen throwing dirt on two apparent bodies in his field. There is no other evidence, nothing that would cause the police to investigate except the photo. At this point anything done by the police, based on the photo, becomes illegal and the photo cannot be used in court. Does anyone really think the police will ignore it or do you think the police will attempt to search the field?

When all they find are two old mannequins after obtaining warrants and going through all the publicity who is then the injured party?

There are many situations which can look different in a snapshot photo than they really are. This is something that is so new that the law protecting our rights has not caught up with it. Just because we can see people unaware, does not mean we should keep or use those images.

LOL...Wasn't that one (no, not Big Brother) from an episode of Frazier?

You mean we don't have the same rights as Dick "SHOTGUN" Cheny?

One comment on:

"A photographer may take a picture of you in your car or even in your house if he is on public land or private property with permission."

This was discussed on one of the photography forums I belong to a few years ago. If I remember correctly, as long as you were using a "normal" lens. If you were using a telephoto or zoom lens, it was a no-no to photograph people inside a house/home/business.

This would mean, with a "normal" lens and you standing in the street, someone 50 feet away in a window wouldn't be very big in the photo. With a 300mm they would appear to only be about 8 feet away and the law thinks when you do that you are intruding on them, about the same view as if you were to walk up to their window and press your lens against it before taking the photo.

And then there are numerous cases of having to be careful when taking shots of such things as power plants, dams and such "critical" subjects as those. (security worried about terrorism, terrorists taking info shots)

So, yes, Google must have had this brought to their attention.

Me? I would sure wonder why someone was taking a photo of my house. But with Google, it is taking a photo of everybody's house, and hopefully that won't bother most of us for the usable info it makes available. I like Google Earth for showing people where my shop is, for giving directions to places. But one thing I have found, some people have a very hard time relating to looking down on the roads and streets, the birds eye view just doesn't seem to "click" in their head.

Sometimes I wonder, are we (most, if not all of us) getting too paranoid?

Ken

Ken - considering what politicians of any party are willing to do to gain more power to meddle in our lives, there is no such thing as "too paranoid". I don't mean the insane type of paranoia, but the healthy suspicion that there are people out there who really are out to get you and guarding against it. Perhaps Google should simply not show people at all, since their aim is supposed to be mapping and people should not show on maps.

Yeah, I hear you loud and clear on that. One of my friends (I have 2, lots of acquaintances though) doesn't understand me and the way I live. The drapes are all pulled at night, or when I am gone from the house. The doors are locked, the alarm is set. The pickup is parked in the garage. Why? Because I don't need people looking at things I own or to see how I live my life. Am I paranoid? I don't think I am, I think I am just realistic about how the world is today. Realistic about all the trash (drugies, con artists, ex-cons, thieves, etc) people out there just waiting for an easy way to make money.

She's not (to my thinking anyway) realistic at all, leaves her drapes open all the time, house and pickup unlocked. At night, you pull up to her house and there she stands or sits doing something, all brightly lit up. She can't see you outside, all she sees is her reflection in the glass. To me, that is stupid. Those are the kinds of houses thieves enjoy, can see right into without being seen. Sure makes it easy to take photos from the street into her house too. Maybe people like that are secret exhibitionists? Maybe I am just supposed to look over the steering wheel when driving and not look around me? Then when the home owner leaves they walk in and take what they wish.

Yes, it takes all kinds to make up the world, but if people want to call me paranoid, that's okay by me.

Yes, I think there is probably software available now that will remove people from shots like Google has in Google Earth. And it may someday be SOP to do that (remove people).

Politicians and laws. I never have figured that out. Always making new laws for the criminals... what? How is that supposed to work? Criminals do NOT obey laws, they are criminals. But the idiots keep making more laws. Now THAT is stupid. Yes, don't get me started on politicians.

Ken