Legality of recording by civilians
 |
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
The laws regarding the recording of other persons and property by means of still photography, videography, and audio recording vary by location. In many places, it is common for the recording of public property, persons within the public domain, and of private property visible or audible from the public domain to be legal. But laws have been passed in many places restricting such activity in order to protect the privacy of others. To make matters even more complicated, in many places and in many situations, the laws governing still photography may be vastly different that the laws governing any type of motion picture photography.
In the United States, anti-photography laws have been passed in many places following the September 11 attacks and the increased popularity of camera phones. There might be local laws and policies governing the specific landmark or property on which one seeks to photograph. Laws on private property differ. Owners of private property in most places must authorize recording on their own property.
Contents |
Exceptions [edit]
High-profile locations [edit]
In the United States, the filming of many high-profile locations that are feared to be targets of possible terrorist attacks is restricted[citation needed]. For example, signs posted around many bridges, including the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, state that filming the structure is prohibited.
In August 2004, an Annandale, Virginia, man was arrested and detained when his wife was observed by a police officer filming the Chesapeake Bay Bridge as he drove across.[1] He was held as a material witness after he was found to have ties to Hamas.[2] He was later released on bail without being charged.
Voyeurism [edit]
Many places have passed or considered legislation that prohibits voyeurism with phones and other similar devices, commonly referred to as "upskirting" or "downblousing."[3][4][5] Such behaviors have become common since camera phones have become popular, thereby raising such concerns.
Public display [edit]
Laws in Europe prohibiting the photography of citizens for public display have delayed the release of Google Street View in some countries.[6]
Voice recording [edit]
Laws differ in the United States on how many parties must give their consent before a conversation may be recorded. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, conversations may be recorded if the person is party to the conversation, or if at least one of the people who are party to the conversation have given a third party consent to record the conversation. In California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington State, the consent of all parties must be obtained in order to record a conversation.[7]
See also [edit]
- Worldwide Photographer's Rights : Free ebook on privacy laws in many countries in regard to street photography.
- Photography and the law
- Street photography
- Sousveillance (inverse surveillance)
References [edit]
- ^ Markon, Jerry; Rich, Eric (2004-08-26). "Va. Family Defends Video of Bay Bridge". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-07.
- ^ Rich, Eric; Markon, Jerry (2004-08-25). "Va. Man Tied to Hamas Held as Witness". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-07.
- ^ "Md. Delegate Wants 'Upskirt' Photos Banned - WTOP.com". Wtopnews.com. 2010-05-25. Retrieved 2013-03-14.
- ^ "'Upskirt' Photo Ban Sought". Fox News. 2005-11-14.
- ^ "Upskirting to become a crime". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2006-07-28.
- ^ "Google's Street View could be unlawful in Europe". Out-law.com. Retrieved 2013-03-14.
- ^ "Summary of Consent Requirements for Taping Telephone Conversations". Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Retrieved 13 February 2010.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
