4 ms·

I'm a little confused, what about privacy laws? Yes, you are at a conference, but that doesn't give anybody the right to take your picture and post it on twitte

by jagermo 14y ago

I'm a little confused, what about privacy laws? Yes, you are at a conference, but that doesn't give anybody the right to take your picture and post it on twitter, without asking your permission, right? (Sorry, German here, so if the laws in the US are completly different, please ignore).

0x44 14y ago
With very constrained exceptions, in most jurisdictions of the United States, it's entirely legal to take a photograph of an individual in a public place and post it to the Internet without their permission.
- objclxt 14y ago
  Bear in mind they were not in a public place, but a conference venue - which would almost certainly be private property. It is totally legal to prohibit photography in such cases. However, normally this has to be made explicit (through signs, or the like) - it's assumed it is allowed unless otherwise stated. I wonder if going forward conferences will consider banning photography in future, for better or for worse.
  - jagermo 14y ago
    Thank you for the explanation, that clears a lot of things up around this topic
  - shardling 14y ago
    I'd be a little surprised. The photograph doesn't seem to really be the issue, just an obvious thing that Adria did "wrong" for people to seize upon. It seems like the exact same situation could occur if she had simply reported them through their names rather than through photography.
freejoe76 14y ago
The operative phrase here is "reasonable expectation of privacy," as in, you're fair game to have your photo taken unless you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- jagermo 14y ago
  Ah, ok, thank you. I'm probably spoiled by Defcon, where there is a strict "No Pictures if you don't ask" policy.
shardling 14y ago
IANAL, but I believe it does. In the US, what matters is whether you have the expectation of privacy, and sitting in a conference room you obviously don't. (There's other stuff that comes into play when you try to profit off such photographs, so the situation can get more complicated than that.)
orclev 14y ago
The conference would most likely be considered a semi-public place and therefore have limited expectations of privacy. In general your right to privacy is dictated by the reasonable expectation of such, E.G. when at home you've got a reasonable expectation of privacy, but when out in a public location such as a mall or restaurant it isn't really reasonable to expect privacy.
potatolicious 14y ago
> "Yes, you are at a conference, but that doesn't give anybody the right to take your picture and post it on twitter, without asking your permission, right?" Even in Germany this is legal. The right to photograph someone is usually delineated by the principle of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Note that this is a legal term that has been defined both through legislation and via decades of case law in many countries - so personal definitions of it don't apply here. Common places where courts have upheld the reasonable expectation of privacy include restrooms (including public ones), a home, a hotel room, etc. A conference talk is not one of these places. Which is to say, people are free to photograph at will. Note that should the property be private, the owners (or agents thereof) are entitled to disallow photography. Note also, importantly, that the right to disallow photography does not include the right to confiscate any photographs already taken. The most the property owner can do is remove the individual from their premises or have them arrested for trespassing. Note also that while photographing someone in a public place is not a violation of any criminal law in most Western countries, it does not shield you from civil liabilities - you can still be pursued for damages, libel, or defamation (which seem like it may be relevant in this situation). There are some countries and territories with substantially stricter laws regarding the likeness of people. Japan and Quebec for example are places where the right to photograph someone in public is not protected by default.
- arrrg 14y ago
  You are wrong about the law in Germany. As you correctly stated, taking photographs is very unregulated (and wasn’t regulated at all until a few years ago) in Germany. It’s only illegal to take photos in the places you listed. (Actually it’s not so much about specific places. The photos have to invade a private area of life, though that usually means places like the home, hotel rooms or restrooms are off limits.) This barrier is actually relatively high, not everything is immediately an invasion of a private area of life, even if it might seem so. A normal shot of you hanging out in a conference room with hundreds other people? Not an invasion of a private area of life. This also means that privately owned but public spaces are not included there, like, say, conference halls or train stations or shopping malls and similar such places. As you also correctly stated, the owner can disallow photographs, though by default (i.e. if the owner doesn’t have any rules) taking photographs is perfectly ok. The issue is publishing photographs. There the barriers are much, much higher in Germany. If there are people in it, the default is that you are not allowed to publish them unless every person in the photograph agrees. Now, as always with the law, there are (of course) exceptions (e.g. if people are only incidental to the photograph and not the main subject, say if you take a photo of a building and there happen to be a few people in front of it), though none of them apply in this case. Publishing this photo wouldn’t be legal in Germany (taking it would), though it is important to note that in Germany those depicted in the photo would have to come forward and press charges. Otherwise the police is not allowed to investigate or charge people. (You could say that the default assumption of the law is that everyone in published photographs agreed to it and if you don’t it’s on you to come forward.) However, that is not the case in the US where both taking and publishing this photo is perfectly legal. So I do not really see the relevance of this discussion.

by jagermo 14y ago

0x44 14y ago

With very constrained exceptions, in most jurisdictions of the United States, it's entirely legal to take a photograph of an individual in a public place and post it to the Internet without their permission.

objclxt 14y ago
Bear in mind they were not in a public place, but a conference venue - which would almost certainly be private property. It is totally legal to prohibit photography in such cases. However, normally this has to be made explicit (through signs, or the like) - it's assumed it is allowed unless otherwise stated. I wonder if going forward conferences will consider banning photography in future, for better or for worse.
- jagermo 14y ago
  Thank you for the explanation, that clears a lot of things up around this topic
- shardling 14y ago
  I'd be a little surprised. The photograph doesn't seem to really be the issue, just an obvious thing that Adria did "wrong" for people to seize upon. It seems like the exact same situation could occur if she had simply reported them through their names rather than through photography.

freejoe76 14y ago

The operative phrase here is "reasonable expectation of privacy," as in, you're fair game to have your photo taken unless you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

jagermo 14y ago
Ah, ok, thank you. I'm probably spoiled by Defcon, where there is a strict "No Pictures if you don't ask" policy.

shardling 14y ago

IANAL, but I believe it does. In the US, what matters is whether you have the expectation of privacy, and sitting in a conference room you obviously don't. (There's other stuff that comes into play when you try to profit off such photographs, so the situation can get more complicated than that.)

orclev 14y ago

The conference would most likely be considered a semi-public place and therefore have limited expectations of privacy. In general your right to privacy is dictated by the reasonable expectation of such, E.G. when at home you've got a reasonable expectation of privacy, but when out in a public location such as a mall or restaurant it isn't really reasonable to expect privacy.

potatolicious 14y ago

> "Yes, you are at a conference, but that doesn't give anybody the right to take your picture and post it on twitter, without asking your permission, right?" Even in Germany this is legal. The right to photograph someone is usually delineated by the principle of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Note that this is a legal term that has been defined both through legislation and via decades of case law in many countries - so personal definitions of it don't apply here. Common places where courts have upheld the reasonable expectation of privacy include restrooms (including public ones), a home, a hotel room, etc. A conference talk is not one of these places. Which is to say, people are free to photograph at will. Note that should the property be private, the owners (or agents thereof) are entitled to disallow photography. Note also, importantly, that the right to disallow photography does not include the right to confiscate any photographs already taken. The most the property owner can do is remove the individual from their premises or have them arrested for trespassing. Note also that while photographing someone in a public place is not a violation of any criminal law in most Western countries, it does not shield you from civil liabilities - you can still be pursued for damages, libel, or defamation (which seem like it may be relevant in this situation). There are some countries and territories with substantially stricter laws regarding the likeness of people. Japan and Quebec for example are places where the right to photograph someone in public is not protected by default.

arrrg 14y ago
You are wrong about the law in Germany. As you correctly stated, taking photographs is very unregulated (and wasn’t regulated at all until a few years ago) in Germany. It’s only illegal to take photos in the places you listed. (Actually it’s not so much about specific places. The photos have to invade a private area of life, though that usually means places like the home, hotel rooms or restrooms are off limits.) This barrier is actually relatively high, not everything is immediately an invasion of a private area of life, even if it might seem so. A normal shot of you hanging out in a conference room with hundreds other people? Not an invasion of a private area of life. This also means that privately owned but public spaces are not included there, like, say, conference halls or train stations or shopping malls and similar such places. As you also correctly stated, the owner can disallow photographs, though by default (i.e. if the owner doesn’t have any rules) taking photographs is perfectly ok. The issue is publishing photographs. There the barriers are much, much higher in Germany. If there are people in it, the default is that you are not allowed to publish them unless every person in the photograph agrees. Now, as always with the law, there are (of course) exceptions (e.g. if people are only incidental to the photograph and not the main subject, say if you take a photo of a building and there happen to be a few people in front of it), though none of them apply in this case. Publishing this photo wouldn’t be legal in Germany (taking it would), though it is important to note that in Germany those depicted in the photo would have to come forward and press charges. Otherwise the police is not allowed to investigate or charge people. (You could say that the default assumption of the law is that everyone in published photographs agreed to it and if you don’t it’s on you to come forward.) However, that is not the case in the US where both taking and publishing this photo is perfectly legal. So I do not really see the relevance of this discussion.