5 ms·

How in the world? There are very clear laws and precedents that have hit the court room many times that make this situation very clearcut. Boyle has done noth

How in the world? There are very clear laws and precedents that have hit the court room many times that make this situation very clearcut. Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. The use of this imagery is slightly more complex, but in this case there isn't really a case to be made. Non-commercial usage of someone's likeness in a broadcast is very well protected - and it can't be said that Boyle was using this couple's argument for commercial profit. The only place where Boyle could run into trouble is recording on private (aka Burger King's) property. But even then, the laws around that are clear - unless there was clear signage prohibiting recording, or an employee of Burger King instructed him not to record, he's in the clear. Morally? That's a minefield. But legally speaking I just don't see any case.

vannevar 15y ago
Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. I see a world of difference between a fight in a Burger King and a fight broadcast live over the Internet to thousands of people. The 'expectation of privacy' here doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I don't think you have to be in your own living room to have an expectation of privacy.
- jahmed 15y ago
  I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. The rapid leap of technology has outpaced our notions of privacy and ethics. Think about this situation from the point of view of someone born in 2011 and their response might be completely different. Society needs to start thinking about what we need to move forward and stop shackling ourselves with ideas that are hopelessly outdated.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  The expectation of privacy is not "internet" or "not internet", it's "public place" or "not public place".
- vannevar 15y ago
  I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. I don't disagree. Privacy case law has mostly evolved in the context of large corporate or government entities violating the privacy of individuals, because those entities were the ones with access to surveillance and broadcasting or publishing technologies. Now everyone is a broadcaster, and their editorial discretion (and morals) will vary.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  The "expectation of privacy" is a legal concept, not a lay concept. We could argue about whether or not the couple should have had an expectation to privacy till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. So "lawyer up" indeed.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal question. But a civil suit for intentionally disseminating embarrassing information is very different from a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case where someone intentionally broadcast to the Internet a couple's marital issues (otherwise known only to a handful of people in a restaurant) with the apparent intent to ridicule them. You still haven't convinced me Boyle is 'in the clear'.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than most people need to be. So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid information about the laws of the United States. If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness. More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.
      - vannevar 15y ago
        "...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness." I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
maaku 15y ago
That is the way the law is currently structured and interpreted (in the U.S.A.), but it doesn't have to be that way. I have long been of the opinion that people should automatically own (representations of) their own expression, even in public. This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the current situation in the U.S., as you describe. Most jurisdictions in Europe are somewhere in-between. That couple should have the right to sue. I understand that under the current framework they do not, but they should.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  The editorial protections granted to videography and photography come from necessity. If everyone has the right to all recordings of them, even in public, the media would cease to exist overnight, and we'd all be considerably worse off for it. As a contemporary example, take the famous Big Picture blog: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ This is a rich source of powerful images that tell us about the world and the important things that are happening in it. How many of these people do you think have signed model releases? How many of these people do you think could have realistically signed one? Clearly the mother clutching her daughter in the floodwaters of Thailand has a retained lawyer nearby advising of her rights! So what would our media become? Well, even more talking heads than today - since you won't be able to realistically record/broadcast any images of what's actually going on. The only people you can realistically, explicitly get permission from are armchair analysts. We didn't just magically decide "oh yeah, you don't have full rights to your likeness in public" because we hate freedom. This whole issue has been heavily debated (and continues to be). It's foolish to say that we should just toss this whole thing without understanding all the angles. The real issue here is that with the proliferation of recording and broadcast technology, there is now a lot of recording happening in public done by people without training or education in where to draw the line. Not only that, there are of course no professional associations or industry forces keeping people in check and censuring those who behave unethically. In fact, there isn't a code of conduct, written or unwritten, among the mass population about what is and isn't ok to record/broadcast. In other words, we've given everyone the power of reportage, but none of the sensibilities, responsibilities and obligations that have traditionally accompanied it. IMO there really isn't a need for legal reform for this. What we as a society need to do is start setting new expectations for social behavior that account for these new technologies and their pervasiveness.

vannevar 15y ago

Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. I see a world of difference between a fight in a Burger King and a fight broadcast live over the Internet to thousands of people. The 'expectation of privacy' here doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I don't think you have to be in your own living room to have an expectation of privacy.

jahmed 15y ago
I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. The rapid leap of technology has outpaced our notions of privacy and ethics. Think about this situation from the point of view of someone born in 2011 and their response might be completely different. Society needs to start thinking about what we need to move forward and stop shackling ourselves with ideas that are hopelessly outdated.
tedunangst 15y ago
The expectation of privacy is not "internet" or "not internet", it's "public place" or "not public place".
vannevar 15y ago
I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. I don't disagree. Privacy case law has mostly evolved in the context of large corporate or government entities violating the privacy of individuals, because those entities were the ones with access to surveillance and broadcasting or publishing technologies. Now everyone is a broadcaster, and their editorial discretion (and morals) will vary.
potatolicious 15y ago
The "expectation of privacy" is a legal concept, not a lay concept. We could argue about whether or not the couple should have had an expectation to privacy till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. So "lawyer up" indeed.
- vannevar 15y ago
  It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal question. But a civil suit for intentionally disseminating embarrassing information is very different from a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case where someone intentionally broadcast to the Internet a couple's marital issues (otherwise known only to a handful of people in a restaurant) with the apparent intent to ridicule them. You still haven't convinced me Boyle is 'in the clear'.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than most people need to be. So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid information about the laws of the United States. If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness. More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      "...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness." I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.

maaku 15y ago

That is the way the law is currently structured and interpreted (in the U.S.A.), but it doesn't have to be that way. I have long been of the opinion that people should automatically own (representations of) their own expression, even in public. This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the current situation in the U.S., as you describe. Most jurisdictions in Europe are somewhere in-between. That couple should have the right to sue. I understand that under the current framework they do not, but they should.

potatolicious 15y ago
The editorial protections granted to videography and photography come from necessity. If everyone has the right to all recordings of them, even in public, the media would cease to exist overnight, and we'd all be considerably worse off for it. As a contemporary example, take the famous Big Picture blog: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ This is a rich source of powerful images that tell us about the world and the important things that are happening in it. How many of these people do you think have signed model releases? How many of these people do you think could have realistically signed one? Clearly the mother clutching her daughter in the floodwaters of Thailand has a retained lawyer nearby advising of her rights! So what would our media become? Well, even more talking heads than today - since you won't be able to realistically record/broadcast any images of what's actually going on. The only people you can realistically, explicitly get permission from are armchair analysts. We didn't just magically decide "oh yeah, you don't have full rights to your likeness in public" because we hate freedom. This whole issue has been heavily debated (and continues to be). It's foolish to say that we should just toss this whole thing without understanding all the angles. The real issue here is that with the proliferation of recording and broadcast technology, there is now a lot of recording happening in public done by people without training or education in where to draw the line. Not only that, there are of course no professional associations or industry forces keeping people in check and censuring those who behave unethically. In fact, there isn't a code of conduct, written or unwritten, among the mass population about what is and isn't ok to record/broadcast. In other words, we've given everyone the power of reportage, but none of the sensibilities, responsibilities and obligations that have traditionally accompanied it. IMO there really isn't a need for legal reform for this. What we as a society need to do is start setting new expectations for social behavior that account for these new technologies and their pervasiveness.