> In the USA at least, there is no legal expectation of privacy on a public street. Depends on the state. In Massachusetts, for example, expectation of privacy

> In the USA at least, there is no legal expectation of privacy on a public street. Depends on the state. In Massachusetts, for example, expectation of privacy doesn't matter. What matters is whether the recording was secret or not. Note that "secret" doesn't mean "the subject knew", it means "the subject could have known." If you're walking around with a zoom lens and a camera taking pictures of someone a block away who has no idea? Not secret. If you're in front of me with a camera hidden in your tie pin? Secret. Security camera on the side of the building? Not secret. Security camera hidden on the side of the building made to look like a bird's nest? Secret. > So, for news reporting purposes, you can publish photos of a crowd in public. There's generally much wider latitude for use of a person's image in relation to press coverage of a newsworthy event. > However, as soon as you step onto private property, this changes. Not in Massachusetts, where secretly recording someone is illegal, period. > it is not kosher for photographers to take photos of customers in these settings and publish them without getting a signed model release form the subject of the photo Publishing is not a very relevant term. People have a right to control "commercial use" of their image.