Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Previous threads have raised the issue regarding the actual rights of clubs / bouncers / dancers to control picturetaking by club customers. Give this recent case new story a read ...



    (snip)"[an attractive young lady named] Lebel was having dinner in Little Italy when someone used a camera phone to take pictures down her shirt. Two weeks later, out at a club, Lebel was approached by a man she did not recognize.

    He showed her his cell phone and told her, "This is my favorite picture of you."

    Lebel was shocked to see a photo that looked into her shirt, "all the way down to my belly button," she said. "You think where's this going to end up? ... What's this pervert going to do with my picture?"

    "You don't have to be wearing anything skimpy for that to happen," Lebel said. "You could be getting out of a cab and you put your leg out — that's a shot right there. It could happen to anybody."

    But right now, as the law stands, this type of behavior is not illegal. Lebel had no legal rights to prosecute the man who took her picture. Prosecutors like Anne Leitess in Anne Arundel County are forced to charge these high-tech Peeping Toms with other crimes, such as disorderly conduct.

    Leitess said she used disorderly conduct laws to prosecute Ralph G. Bernier, a 46-year-old man who she said adapted a briefcase with a camera and then placed it under the skirts of teenage girls in an Annapolis mall. The girls' boyfriends chased him down and caught him. The ensuing disturbance led to the suspect's conviction on disorderly conduct charges, Leitess said. He was sentenced to probation and community service.

    "But for that, I don't think I would have been successful in prosecuting him," Leitess said. "There would have been no crime because there is no crime currently on the books to protect women in public places."

    Currently, the law prohibits taking photos of a person without his or her consent in a private place - bedroom, dressing room, tanning booth, bathroom — with prurient intent but gives no protection for public places and does not yet address the Internet.(snip)"

    I would remind everyone that, like the Little Italy restaurant or the Annapolis shopping mall, strip clubs are legally considered to be 'public places'.

  2. #2
    242_fair
    Guest

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    In Toronto there is a bilaw where it is illigal for members of the public to photograph entertainers in our clubs.

    But in reality if someone takes your photo what are you going to do about it?

  3. #3
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    That fox news article blows. How is it possible to take a picture down a woman's top clear enough to see her belly button and be able to recognize her....and see all this on a cell phone screen in a club? Nevermind....it's fox news.

    More to the point, this is one of those areas of the law that remains vague enough that it is highly dependant on the quality of lawyering you can afford. Case in point, Barbara Streisand sued for invasion of privacy for a website taking a picture of her house. Her unanticipated problem was she sued a coulple of dot-com gazillianares that got better lawyers and kicked her ass.

    Ever see a great cook whip up a fantastic meal from a bunch of scraps in the kitchen cupboard? That sort of talent doesn't come cheap.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member logan820's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canyon, Texas
    Posts
    573
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Nothing is sacred anymore. people used to take camera phones into the gym I used to work out at, and the owner had to put up a sign "no camera phones in the locker room" this has been happening and continues to happen.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Even more disturbing is that a number of truly hopeless losers have developed some sort of sport where they compete to photograph people, generally girls of course, in public in the most compromising way. Women that frown at or otherwise show disdain for these bed-wetters, get revenge hoisted upon them by having their pictures posted the most on the internet accompanied by captions like "this bitch frowned at me, hahaha, frowning bitch!". I see no way to stop this aside from just taking them out one by one at any cost. It's precisely similar to downloading mp3's. Make enough people get spanked harshly enough and the casual offenders will back off.

  6. #6
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Well, in Canada (well specifically Quebec, which has a civil code) you are not allowed to publish pictures of someone without their consent unless they are a public persona. It doesn't seem like extending that to the internet is that difficult.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  7. #7
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny
    It doesn't seem like extending that to the internet is that difficult.
    Steal a CD from BestBuy vs. download a CD with Kazaa

    "It's illegal. This won't possibly be a problem." Quote from former RIAA advisor, found dismembered in dumpster.

  8. #8
    Featured Member Lilith's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,309
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Well, this was pointless. No effort to find the cases where right to privacy prevailed, and a woman's right to have someone NOT LOOK DOWN HER SHIRT OR UP HER SKIRT (because, by gawd, public place or no it isn't as if she left the house nekkid) just a quick post of one case to say, "Ha, I told you so, I win." Let alone the complete and deliberate refusal to acknowledge that entertainment law applies to dancers performing at their (public, even) venue.

    It's caveat emptor with information as well. Carry on with the agenda.
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

  9. #9
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by Lilith
    Well, this was pointless. No effort to find the cases where right to privacy prevailed, and a woman's right to have someone NOT LOOK DOWN HER SHIRT OR UP HER SKIRT (because, by gawd, public place or no it isn't as if she left the house nekkid) just a quick post of one case to say, "Ha, I told you so, I win." Let alone the complete and deliberate refusal to acknowledge that entertainment law applies to dancers performing at their (public, even) venue.

    It's caveat emptor with information as well. Carry on with the agenda.
    Whoa. Is this directed at me? I know of a number of such cases (not adjudicated or published), most of which ended quickly and quietly with the help of expensive counsel. For example, a girl discovered (from a friends tip) that her image was being spliced into a rather depraved "reality" video segment on a gonzo porn site. She hired lawyers. Lawyers threatened site with a variety of legal claims and would seek remedies including a sweeping preliminary injunction against the company. Videos removed same day. Case over. Girl decided not to pursue lawsuit due to very high cost, questionable recovery prospect from cheezy defendant, and damages now cut off by removal of video. Don't think this sort of result happens with a little hand waving. It costs money. I'm not saying you can't do anything. I'm saying it costs money and often a lot.

    Ohh I see your point. The fox article doesnt even present a case and in my opinion the "facts" it presents are of VERY questionable veracity.

    The main problem in dealing with "upskirt" images is that the person depicted is not identifiable. The fox article didnt even mention this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member The Snark's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny
    Well, in Canada (well specifically Quebec, which has a civil code) you are not allowed to publish pictures of someone without their consent unless they are a public persona.
    It's not Quebec's civil code per se that forbids the appropriation of personality without consent; it's a privacy law that was introduced within the civil code in the early 1990s.

    Not that anyone pays much attention. The other day I saw a group of people taking digital pictures in a club and the bouncer didn't do anything to stop them.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Let alone the complete and deliberate refusal to acknowledge that entertainment law applies to dancers performing at their (public, even) venue.
    I assume that Lilith's ire was directed at me, based on a previous thread. Lilith, I will agree with you that 'entertainment' law would indeed protect 'performers' in regard to non-authorized images being photographed and published. However the legally sticky part is what the law considers to be a 'performer' in the context of a club.

    The argument can definitely be made that XXX porn girls, big tit model girls etc. fall under the ambit of 'professional' performers who would be protected by entertainment law when performing in clubs - with the basic legal premise revolving around the damages that unauthorized images could cause to other aspects of their business i.e. magazines, videos, pay websites etc . However, the argument resembles swiss cheese in regard to house dancers seeking the same legal protection on the same basis - absent appearances in magazines, videos, pay websites etc. there is no argument for damages. Having their photograph taken is not likely to cause a decrease in lap dance sales !

  12. #12
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Just for anyone who's interested:

    Cult of Personality: Celebrity Photography and the "Right of Publicity"
    http://www.wrlawfirm.com/Articles/wr...publicity.html

    Publication of Photographs: Is a release required?
    http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

    This page looks at 'Rights of Publicity' (aka 'Rights of Celebrity' or of 'Personality').
    http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide24.htm

  13. #13
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    However, the argument resembles swiss cheese in regard to house dancers seeking the same legal protection on the same basis - absent appearances in magazines, videos, pay websites etc. there is no argument for damages. Having their photograph taken is not likely to cause a decrease in lap dance sales !
    You're probably correct that the argument wouldn't be as strong, but I think you could pursue the concept that unauthorized photography decreases the need for customers to come to the club to see you in a state of undress. And even more importantly, it reduces your potential financial value in selling your image commercially, for instance, on your own website. I suspect if you had the right lawyer and lots of money (and there's the rub) to pursue the claim, it could be made viable.

    There was a case filed against the G-String Divas people in Pennsylvania by a dancer who claims she didn't give consent to being filmed, but I can't find any resolution. All I could find was a ruling denying Comcast's request that it be dismissed from the case.
    http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/01D0263P.pdf

    Important, again, to note that the law varies from state to state.

    -Ev

  14. #14
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by evan_essence
    There was a case filed against the G-String Divas people in Pennsylvania by a dancer who claims she didn't give consent to being filmed, but I can't find any resolution. All I could find was a ruling denying Comcast's request that it be dismissed from the case.
    http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/01D0263P.pdf

    Important, again, to note that the law varies from state to state.

    -Ev
    Superb catch EE. This is a chickenshit ruling, however. The judge knows its a sticky case and figured out a way to throw this hot potato to state court. He could easily have taken in. HBO wanted this case in Federal and lost, but the judge did say that her claims had a good chance of making it past a 12b6. Of course this is an unpublished district court case, so its not controlling authority, but still usefull. A key quote from the decision is that "Plaintiff has presented a colorable claim against Comcast". This is what Lilith wanted to hear. Even if HBO/Comcast kicks her ass in the end this time, or gets them to settle on the cheap, it shows an opportunity for a thick slice of meat with the same facts for someone else with better lawyering.

    By the way, this Court's decision is based on US law and 3rd district authority. Now that its kicked back to the state, your last sentence appplies. Another judge may have ruled the other way on this one and kept in in fed. These jurisdictional decisions are far more random than youd hope they would be.

    I see what was going on here. Penn must have some good privacy law and authority, and the 3rd circuit is probably stuffed with a bunch of strictly constricted republican judges. HBO wanted the fed boys theyve been paying handsomely for.
    Last edited by stant; 11-13-2005 at 05:34 PM.

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    ... and I suppose that there is no legal difference under 'entertainment law' between one unnamed club customer taking clandestine photos of one particular dancer in a non-descript club for a non-profit purpose, versus a HBO production crew creating a series around a particular club, featuring (choice of words not necessarily coincidental) individual dancers on screen by name, and obviously profiting by selling the images to millions of paid HBO subscribers ?

    A key issue in the Diva's case is an underlying assumption that the production itself 'bestowed' a measure of celebrity/professional performer status on all of the club dancers appearing in the series who were exhibited to HBO subscribers, such that the girl in question could have had a credible claim to 'right of personality'. Another key issue in the Diva's case is an underlying assumption that a great deal of profit was gleaned by HBO through the use of the Diva dancers' images, such that the girl in question was in a credible position to state a claim for damages. It is arguable that neither of these issues applies to a house dancer in an unnamed club whose picture is clandestinely taken by a club customer for non-profit purposes.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-13-2005 at 06:16 PM.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Of course, Mel there's a huge difference. I remember Lilith's beef about this topic and it matches the HBO case much better. The random perv shots are more along the lines of my high-priced enforcement argument. Look at the article Ev posted about this. They agree with me that this is a vague area of the law. Your-lawyering-mileage-may-vary.

    When Lilith first brought this up after the last superbowl, I think I said that a key for the hypothetical plaintiff position would be to demonstrate that that filming was thinly veiled entertainment programming presented as news. I'll stand by that. A sports network airing stripper footage? It could work. Damages remain a problem in that case. the HBO case has huge damage potential. Unfortunately it looks like the dancer settled before the case could be heard. Impatience in this arena is always tragic.
    Last edited by stant; 11-13-2005 at 06:04 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    I also agree with your metaphor "Ever see a great cook whip up a fantastic meal from a bunch of scraps in the kitchen cupboard? That sort of talent doesn't come cheap". In the real world, this sort of talent might take such a case on a percentage basis based on the possibility of tapping into HBO's billion dollar deep pockets - or in the earlier example ESPN's deep pockets. An entirely different 'retainer' situation would apply when the prospective defendant is a club customer who may or may not actually have a positive net worth !

    I still stand by my point that a house dancer in a non-descript club is going to have a great deal of difficulty attempting to state a claim for actual damages, and is also going to have a great deal of difficulty in asserting celebrity standing for 'right of publicity' control over her images (especially when no for-profit public use of said images by the clandestine photographer can be proved).

  18. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Yes I remember the earlier superbowl/ESPN thread as well because I was one of the few voices along with Stant that said I did not think ESPN would just roll over and pay out big bucks and that I did not think the girl had a case due to lack of ability to show any real damages and stated the reasons why under the various grounds for sueing IE invasion of privacy ETC, that she would not prevail.

    I don't remember hearing/reading that ESPN made any big payouts to anyone, so I guess what I said was not that far off the mark, but it sure fell into the "we don't want to hear that" category at the time.

  19. #19
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Okay, let's sort this out a bit because we're blending a number of different issues. I didn't bring up any particular case as being a direct match to the case of an average Joe snapping a photograph, just as an example of some of the concepts involved. Each case has its own unique set of facts, and although we're all intelligent enough to make valid points from them, it's all speculation, even by those with some legal background. Regardless, I don't think it's practical for an average dancer to run to court under most circumstances.

    Here's what I wish would happen at clubs around the country. I wish that management would educate itself on this issue, with formal legal advice, in order to come up with mechanisms to help prevent it from happening, and when it does happen, have a plan of action that will make the customer think twice about failing to cooperate. He doesn't want to deal with court and lawyers either. What do we need for that? To hire Wolfram and Hart?

    -Ev

  20. #20
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by phone
    Yes I remember the earlier superbowl/ESPN thread as well because I was one of the few voices along with Stant that said I did not think ESPN would just roll over and pay out big bucks and that I did not think the girl had a case due to lack of ability to show any real damages and stated the reasons why under the various grounds for sueing IE invasion of privacy ETC, that she would not prevail.
    this is not exactly what I said. http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/sho...2&postcount=30

    Monetary compensation is not the only thing you can sue for in this case. Limited damages does not bar someone from sueing, it just makes it unprofitable. For example, she could sue for declaratory relief and injuctive relief. The Court could order that she owns the photograph, and order an injuction against the photographer from broadcasting the footage.
    I don't remember hearing/reading that ESPN made any big payouts to anyone, so I guess what I said was not that far off the mark, but it sure fell into the "we don't want to hear that" category at the time.
    Even if you were somehow capable tracking every lawsuit to know this, the settlement is almost always confidential.


    Quote Originally Posted by evan_essence
    Okay, let's sort this out a bit because we're blending a number of different issues. I didn't bring up any particular case as being a direct match to the case of an average Joe snapping a photograph, just as an example of some of the concepts involved. Each case has its own unique set of facts, and although we're all intelligent enough to make valid points from them, it's all speculation, even by those with some legal background. Regardless, I don't think it's practical for an average dancer to run to court under most circumstances.
    Grrrr. Legal authority is based on published rulings from particular cases. Reading and understanding those decisions and applying them appropriately to substantive similar fact patterns in a dispute is not speculation. Its fees.

  21. #21
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    Grrrr. Legal authority is based on published rulings from particular cases. Reading and understanding those decisions and applying them appropriately to substantive similar fact patterns in a dispute is not speculation. Its fees.
    Exactly. And I bet you don't even give extras for those fees either.

  22. #22
    Member Gentlephotographer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    28
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    There ARE two topics here. The first is about "upskirt" type pictures. The answer to that one is to ask your local legislator because some states have personal privacy laws and some do not. In that case, don't sue, call the cops. If they don't have such a law, demand to know why not. It wouldn't hurt to has how they would feel about that type of picture of themself or significant other.

    The other issue is about images take of you in costume or performance. The rule photographers are taught is that if the person in the image is recongizable, we need a release form. Which means if you are standing there totally naked and put your hand in front of your face, I can do anything I want with the picture. If I can see your face because you hold them over your breasts and pussy, I need a signed release form to do anything with the image. If some yahoo snaps your picture and posts it on myspace? You can send them a cease and desist email, but other than that, doing anything about it is like throwing money to the wind and trying to catch it. On the other hand, didn't someone in Hollywood say ANY publicity is good publicity?

  23. #23
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: recent legal case ... 'privacy rights' vs pictures taken in a public place

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Leitess said she used disorderly conduct laws to prosecute Ralph G. Bernier, a 46-year-old man who she said adapted a briefcase with a camera and then placed it under the skirts of teenage girls in an Annapolis mall. The girls' boyfriends chased him down and caught him. The ensuing disturbance led to the suspect's conviction on disorderly conduct charges, Leitess said. He was sentenced to probation and community service.
    Wouldn't that actually fall under child pornography if it is teenage girls upskirt shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Currently, the law prohibits taking photos of a person without his or her consent in a private place - bedroom, dressing room, tanning booth, bathroom — with prurient intent but gives no protection for public places and does not yet address the Internet.(snip)"

    I would remind everyone that, like the Little Italy restaurant or the Annapolis shopping mall, strip clubs are legally considered to be 'public places'.
    The way I understand it, if a club has a sign that prohibits cameras, then photographing a performer is not justified. But, if you are in a place that does not have the sign displayed, then a person can photograph whomever they want.


    Taylor

Similar Threads

  1. Our Legal Rights....???
    By ExoticEngineer in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-29-2011, 11:57 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-28-2010, 04:54 PM
  3. Patients Rights Versus Public Safety
    By madmaxine in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 07:32 PM
  4. Dancer legal rights & regulations
    By Mynx in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2005, 04:04 PM
  5. Legal Rights of Strippers!
    By Chrysalid4 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-14-2004, 10:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •