Quote:
Originally posted by strictguy
Creep shots fall under the category of non-consensual as does any photo taken where the person is not aware they are being photographed. Newspapers have to get a release before posting anyone's photo. I'm sure it's different on the internet, but adding a category of 'non-consensual' could leave this site open to problems.
Well now you're dabbling in my field of work. No Sir, a newspaper is not required in any U.S. State to get a release from a person when publishing any persons photo so long as 1) the article concerning the person is truthful and 2) the photo is obtained by legal means. That would be a First Amendment protected right (Freedom of the Press) and is upheld in Smith V Daily Mail ,1979.
ANYTHING a person can see from public is legal to photograph, including federal buildings, children, people on beaches, airports, etc. so long as the photo is taken from public. The obvious exception is places where there is an expectation of privacy (restrooms, dressing rooms, upskirts, etc.) I can stand on the sidewalk and photograph a person inside a restaurant, for example. Although that person is on private property, if i can see them from public, then I can legally photograph them. A business may prohibit photos on their premises, but cannot prohibit photos take of/in their business from public.
Most site understandably exclude children because although it is legal to photograph any child in public and to sell or publish the photo (Nussenzweig v. diCorcia, 2007), it is illegal (in most states) to photograph a child "for the purpose of sexual stimulation". When a photo of a child appears on a site like WBW, it can be argued that it *may be* for sexual stimulation by the pedos. Most sites choose to protect themselves from legal issues by simply excluding all child photos. And that probably is a good policy.
Neither does using a persons photo without their consent, taken without consent, constitute "commercial use" nor does it require that person’s permission. When a person takes a photo, the copyright belongs to the photographer. "Commercial use" was defined in (Nussenzweig v. diCorcia, 2007) "
selling prints of people does not constitute commercial use and thus does not require that person’s permission. However the images cannot be used to endorse a product. " Commercial use means you are using the persons likeness to endorse a product AND that person is recognizable in the photo (Nussenzweig v. diCorcia, 2007) . For example, if I take a photo f a woman in a bikini on a public beach, and she's wearing a big-brim hat that hides her face, I can legally use that photo in my ad that promotes my product because she is not identifiable in the photo.
There is no expectation of privacy in any public place, even on a public beach, in a bikini, clothed or nude, on public transportation, on the street, in parks, etc. I believe it was 2013 or so most states courts determined photography up a womans skirt, even if she was in public, is included in "expectation of privacy" in response to the creepshot complaints. However, the courts have ruled that creepshots are legal and not "breach of privacy" so long as they are taken from a public place.
I don't care either way about the creepshot issue on WBW, I'm just clarifying the false claims that creepshots are "illegal" or a "breech of privacy". We get photographed about 300 times per day on average where we are unaware. So simply being a photo taken where the subject was unaware does not constitute breech of privacy (at least in the U.S.) Dash cams, street cams, security cameras on businesses, ATM machines, traffic cameras, all photograph people in public and most are unaware unaware.
