Legally:
For the eleventy-billionth time, sure, if in public, she has the right to prefer not to be photographed, and the right to state that preferece. However, those rights mean squat, as the photographer also has the right to click the shutter regardless of her protestations and “preferences.”
Legally.
I agree with Diogenes.
(Insert usual references to hell cooling/world ending/prophesies in revered books coming true.)
He’s right on the law, and I don’t believe he denied that etiquette might say otherwise. Unless the photographer’s activites meet some statutory definition of stalking, he can take your picture if you are in a public place.
Zabali, please check your facts before ranting next time.
For commercial purposes without a model release it is illegal to use someone’s picture.
For editorial purposes, one does not require permission in most public places.
Also note that that’s “use” and not “take.”
Slander is verbal defamation. I’m guessing you mean libel which is published defamation which cause a person to be damaged. Libel is basically a civil court (although I think some antiquated criminal libel laws might still be on the books in some states, I think it’s rarely, if ever prosecuted). It’s also really hard to prove. You have to prove that the statement was knowingly false , as well as malicious.
He stated
which is what I took issue with. Random, please make sure you understand what I am taking issue next time.
Wow, this is an active thread. I hadn’t seen most of the recent replies when I submitted that, and see that Zabali appears to have conceded on the “not illegal” issue. Accordingly, I apolgize for my blunt tone.
Yes, that’s correct. You can legally take anyone’s photo in a public place for personal or editorial use. Something like “Girls Gone Wild” would certainly require a model release (and proof of age documents, I would imagine).
Poor phrasing. I just meant that the demand is not legally binding on the photographer, not that there isn’t a literal right to make the request.
I also meant to say that libel is a legal tort, not a Legal court."
I mean civil tort. Gah.
Again, to be sure I’m getting my point across. Just because it’s not illegal for a person to do, does not mean that it is illegal for you to ask that it not be done, even to protest vociferously, so long as you don’t physically assault the person or steal their property. And as I posted before, it’s possible that you can “legally” make the person stop if they are following you around, taking your picture and the police officer agrees that what they are doing to you constitutes harassment. If the person takes just one photograph, probably there is nothing the law can do in your favor, depending on what use the photograph is put to. (Again, that doesn’t make the shutter bug the most moral person for taking the picture over the subject’s objections.)
I don’t disagree with any of this.
Well, maybe my post was needed, after all.
Zabali, the language you highlight is fairly read, both from the words used and the context of this thread, as stating that a person in a public place has no legally meaningful way of preventing his picture from being taken.
Yes, the subject of the picture can “demand” otherwise, and the demand is not an illegal act, but the demand is legally meaningless.
I think you’re doing some backtracking here. Your earlier replies clearly communicated that you thought a person in a public place had some sort of legal right to prevent a photographer from taking his picture. As I was reading this thread, I decided to contradict your misstatement of the applicable law, before I saw Dio had already done so.
(I do withdraw one thing: the reply that first caused me to form the intent to post here to correct a misstatement of the law was not Zabali’s.)
I’m not backtracking at all. The photographer has the right to take pictures, I have the right to say “No” and cover my face, or leave the room. (Nowhere did I mention that I’d “break the camera” or assault the person, but in my literal mind covering the face is “physically preventing” the photo of my face from being taken, see?) If the photographer follows me after I’ve left the room and takes a picture anyway, ESPECIALLY if they gloat about it, then I’m going to report them to the nearby authorities (bouncer, security gaurd, policeman etc.) and try to bring the force of law into play. That being, my right to be free of harassment. (Please note, I’d only do this if the person were a complete stranger, and gave me very bad vibes, and I felt harassed by how they went about things.)
I mentioned the law regarding use of a person’s image (i.e. photograph): I wasn’t clear. My bad 
I aplogize for wording imprecisely and clarify (it’s been a long day - sorry).
While there are no criminal statues that I am aware of regarding whether or not one can take a photograph of another person, there are several civil statues (and case law) regarding this topic. In general (as I must be, not knowing the jurisdiction in which Seige lives or was photographed), while the aggravating Shutterbug may take all the pictures she likes with or without consent, she may not use those pictures basent permission of the person photographed in any fashion unless she is a doing so as either a reporter reporting news or a public safety/law enforcement personage. No displaying them to other people, no putting them on your wall, no selling them, no releasing them in a public form (such as a website) without permission.
Many states (although not all) recognize via statute or case law a privacy right that may be infringed by unauthorized photography. This will be particularly the case (as in CJ’s situation) when permission to photograph has been sought and then refused by the proposed subject. In those jurisdictions, exceptions are commonly made for the above-referenced categories of journalists in pursuit of news and public safety/law enforcement personnel in pursuit of their duties. Additionally, if Seige feels distress or embarassment regarding the photographs which were taken in direct opposition to her stated refusal of consent, there are a couple of civil remedies available to her (I’m not suggesting she should do so, I am merely indicating that the possibility may well exist).
For a basic rundown of general law regarding photographing people please see:
http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html
Please be aware that the information in that particular site is aimed towards people seeking to sell their work - professional photographers.
Additionally, there are a number of cases dealing with pictures of people in public taken in crowds - i.e. pictures taken at a concert, or at DisneyWorld, or the Boston Marathon, or Shakespere in the Park or what have you. As those are pictures taken of groups of people, rather than pictures taken of individual people, nobody needs permission. The courts have drawn a distinction between shots of large groups of people in public and shots of individual people who just happen to be in public at the time. For example: taking a picture of a subway train at rush hour that just happens to contain me would not implicate my rights, but following me around taking pictures of me that just happen to be in the subway likely does.
There is also an exception for public figures - which I do not believe Seige is.
There are exceptions - instances in which use of a photograph of another person obtained without their permission may be “used”, but they are exceptions, not the rule.
So, while there is no criminal liability, there may well be civil liability in several different fashions. Hence, my use of the word illegal in an imprecise fashion.
Now, if Shutterbug just wants to take pictures of random people and have them at home for purposes I’m not sure I want to speculate about - not show them to others atall, then that just weirds me out. Unless of course Shutterbug is doing so in a fashion that causes Seige distress and/or violates Seige’s privacy (which right, is, in fact, recognized by a number of states and the federal government in varying forms depending on one’s jurisdiction), in which case Shutterbug is again likely liable civilly to Seige, as well as being a jackass.
Well, Siege, if it makes you feel better, I had embarassing photos taken of me-
I had been performing in a play, and the costume I wore (I was a guard in “The Bacchae”) had this loincloth thing which would have been about miniskirt-length on a woman. They gave me some special underwear (worn over my underwear) that was flesh colored, so that when I was walking around you wouldn’t catch a glimpse of some blinding white BVD’s under my costume. However, when worn properly, these special underwear made it look like I was wearing nothing under that loincloth. A few times through the show people snapped pictures, and I’m certain they were all the times the loincloth was flipped aside from turning/walking up steps/kneeling/etc 
:smack:
And I forgot!
I was most emphatically not advocating personal violence, DtC. I was implying that someone who behaves like the Shutterbug depicted is probably inevitably going to run into someone less restrained in their disapproval than Seige. Prophecy, if you will.
And that’s, I think, the fair and logical reading of what you said.
It’s no secret that I disagree with much of what you say on the SDMB but, even so, it never crossed my mind that you intended to say that it was illegal for a person to speak like this. That would be silly.
Cool. I agree that imprecise wording has made this a bigger dispute than it really should be. You should have stopped here, though, because you follow this statement with claims about the law which are misleading at best.
Okay so far, except that there are criminal statutes in some states that would apply if the photographer’s behavior becomes harassment, but that’s not really the point under discussion. The civil/criminal distinction doesn’t really help us address this issue.
Yep.
No. Your use of the word “use” is far too broad. Commercial use might be prohibited in some or even most circumstances. Noncommercial use (generally) is not. I concede that there are some state’s statutes that might also prevent widespread publication, even if that publication is noncommercial, but that’s not the general rule. (Assuming, always, that the publication does not somehow place the subject of the photo in a false light, and that the photo was taken in a public place. I also am ignoring some recent statutes against “up-skirt” types of photos, because that’s not what we’re discussing.) You’re way off-base in your claim that the photographer may not display the public-place photos of the type under discussion on his wall, or show them to friends.
Cite for the “many” state statutes that make the simple act of taking a photo of a subject in a public place actionable, whether civilly or criminally?
Cite? There is no cause of action for emotional distress in any state that I am familiar with, except under one of a very few narrow circumstances, none of which apply here.
Yes, it is. Which means it says little about the noncommercial photography of the type under discussion. It certainly does not support the misstatements I’ve addressed.
(Usual disclaimer. Although IAAL, I’m not your lawyer and you are not my client. This is general information, and not meant to be reliable legal advice. Laws vary from state to state. If you have a real-world issue in this area, see a lawyer licensed in your state for reliable advice.)