I wouldn’t suggest it’s a weird notion, I’d suggest it’s something that probably should be the case in some situations as that’s clearly the community expectation.
A number of years ago I was in Paris, and there was a mix-race family. A German man was photographing them, like they were the first mixed-race family he’d ever seen. He was making them very uncomfortable, and they were emphatically asking him to stop. He wouldn’t. I finally intervened on their behalf, and he eventually left.
I suspect the primer for this belief is that it’s well-known that if you’re being filmed for commercial purposes they need to get a release. Like if you’ll be eating in a restaurant and incidentally be in the background of a commercial being filmed there.
e.g. I recently walked in on our local PBS equivalent of Diners, Dives, and Drive-ins being filmed in a place so small the only person not in the field of view was the camera operator. You couldn’t not participate in the show unless you stayed in the parking lot. Even then the place was all windows so still you’d be seen. In fact they had a large sign out in the parking lot warning of filming inside & outside.
Truth is probably more like a release isn’t required by any particular identifiable tidbit of code law, but media types want to forestall the possibility of opportunistic lawsuits later if some clip later makes serious coin and some rando in the background decides they want “their share” of the bonanza.
For sure recording for commercial purposes is in a separate category for private use. But in an era when everybody with a social media account can have a following and receive a share of the ad revenue their followers’ pageviews create, what exactly is “commercial?”.
At the limit in a fully gig-ified world, everybody is a business and everything is commercial. There is no society; there’s only an economy. I hope I never get to live there.
Does anyone do public video for benign purposes? ‘People of Walmart’ comes to mind, a site I find abhorrent. And I think of the women who have gone to great lengths to hide from dangerous exes & now have to realize they could be found from a casual video. I’d like to see privacy laws catch up to technology & put some limits on what filming is acceptable & how those videos are used.
For myself, the sight of a camera makes me uncomfortably self-aware – did I just pick my nose, tug on my underwear, conduct an argument with myself? It forces me to remember that I’m likely always on camera in any public place, which, in turn, makes me more likely to order online & avoid public events.
It is not weird in Europe, and I like it that way.
At the start of the industrial revolution people were affected by vast amounts of air pollution and other industrial runoff, and had no laws, or even social expectations, to deal with that.
We are now well into the information revolution, and it’s much the same. There’s a lot of negative fallout. On-line harassment, bullying, stalking… We don’t really have a social framework, let alone laws, to deal with that.
But the US is full of people who still say “ma freedom” about industrial pollution. I don’t think we are going to do well with information pollution. Not in my lifetime, anyway.
Methinks the asshole doth protest too much.
I guess we can add “watching and besetting” as well as loitering.
Years ago I was in a bar at lunchtime. For some reason a bunch of my friends were there and we were having a blast. I took a selfie of me and my mates and posted it on Facebook.
A friend’s phone rang and caller ID said it was his wife. He ran outside and answered, telling her he was at work and couldn’t talk.
Turns out she had just seen him in my Facebook post (he was tagged). That picture led to their eventual divorce. He says he doesn’t blame me, but I avoid him.
I’d have thought the teacher would have spoken to the couple before filming them to say what the class was doing. If she/he had done that, the couple might have been fine with the filming. Lots of people are proud of their houses, but if they were treated like objects, as this couple seem to have been, I can understand them being upset.
Crowd shots for video content, incidental content (eg where the camera operator is filming someone talking and there’s people in the background doing stuff), someone filming a public event like a parade or speech - there are examples, but I agree with the broad idea that just turning a camera on in public and filming individual people without their consent is not an ideal state of affairs.
As a career photojournalist I am too steeped in the legal right to video anyone and anything in public places (in the US with some odd exceptions) to get all crazy angry if someone recorded me in public.
That doesn’t mean I might not be perturbed by it in some situations and might ask someone to stop. But I know anyone has that right so instead of arguing with someone videoing me I would focus on leaving the situation if I did not want be recorded.
(Too late for edit)
There are public places and then there are what we call “public-private” places.
A city sidewalk or state park is a public place. A Wal-Mart is public-private. Public-private means, among other things, that a citizen has no expectation of privacy in a Wal-Mart but if I want to openly video customers while I am on their property (doesn’t matter where the subject of the video is) I need permission from the owner or their authorized representative.
If I choose to record without permission I can be asked to stop and/or be evicted from the premises.
Cite? Who is this “we”? The references that I can find do not recognize this hybrid category.
Yeah. I looked for it also before I posted it and couldn’t find anything. I wondered about it. I guess it’s just a term somebody thought up to describe the concept. By ‘we’ I meant the news staff and management.
I’m not a lawyer. I only profess to know the minimum required in order to do my job without getting my employers in legal trouble. No doubt the legal fine print is more detailed.
This was my thought, and I’m not sure how posting a video of someone on YouTube so you could make money off of ads would not be considered “commercial.”
There is an exception for “news and commentary” and I haven’t delved into the case law. It clearly applies to a local TV station reporting on a fire and there you and I are standing on the sidewalk gawking at it. They wouldn’t need our consent.
But news or commentary surely must mean something more than, “I am reporting on how people don’t understand my right to film in public” or even “Gee, look at how fat this dude is!” If it doesn’t mean more than that, it seems to be the exception that swallowed the rule.
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy--appropriation.html
Nope. Well, unless I’m doing something illegal or something. But um, that’s all I’m going to say about that. 
Thinking about this: it depends.
At a planning board meeting? (I’m on the board) Sure, record away; it’s a public meeting. Years ago, when the issue was more likely to be sound, we had a member of the public announce in a confrontational manner at a hearing ‘I’m recording this!’ We shrugged and said ‘Go ahead; so are we.’
At farmers’ market (I’m a vendor), conspicuously, last week, with what looked like professional equipment? Sure, no problem. – Photographer turned out to be from local newspaper. Thanks!
As a random crowd member at some event, or as part of the background if, say, I’m walking down the street and somebody’s taking pictures of the architecture? Again, no problem.
If some random stranger were following me in particular around a public place, taking pictures specifically of me? Very creepy. Legal or not, would certainly put my hackles up.
If any of the first three wound up on the news, for ordinary news reasons? That’s legitimate.
If any of them wound up disseminated online for the purpose of pointing out how ugly the poster thought I (or for that matter somebody else in the picture) looked? Might be legal, but not OK.
If any of them wound up being used for advertising some unrelated product or position, not so good. If it were one I objected to, very much not good.