My Neighbor Was Filming Us Again

[Ischgl99]

If he is filming you on your property without your consent, get a lawyer. In today's world if you are caught videoing private citizens on their private property that citizen has the right to know what you are using their likeness for and can press charges if you do not have permission to video. If you are not a "public" figure and/or you are not involved in a public event, you have the expectation for privacy within your own boarders (yard, garage, house etc...). It is why most companies will have a disclaimer/permission slip included in the hiring package governing the use of any images of you. Perv's and Karen's get nailed all the time for taking pictures and posting them to the net without consent, if it were legal to video without consent then they could post video anywhere.

Most of that simply is not true. You do not have an expectation of privacy in any area viewable from a public area, so if someone photographs or video tapes you in your front yard or open garage, or your garden, the chances of you collecting any damages is slim to none. They can't come on your property and video or photograph you without your permission, but they do not need your permission if they are doing that from their property or a public space. You generally can't use a telephoto lens to get pictures of a location that is not readily viewable, nor can you climb a fence to get pictures. The Karens and pervs you mention most likely took the photos where they were not allowed. If I was at the beach and wanted to take pictures of the girls in bikinis, I have every right to do that, it's creepy, but not illegal. This link helps explain it.

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/can-someone-take-my-photo-without-permission.html#:~:text=It%20is%20generally%20OK%20for%20people%20to%20take,in%20the%20first%20place%2C%20or%20you%27d%20be%20trespassing.

The "disclaimer" your employer uses is actually a model release so they can use that for advertising, marketing, etc. It's used for any recognizable person in photographs or videos, by signing that, you allow them to use the photos in that manner and you can't come back later and try to sue for damages. I have that in all my photography contracts so that I can use any photos I take for advertising, but I don't need a model release to post them on social media or on my website since that is considered my portfolio, and releases are not needed for a portfolio, even if the purpose of my portfolio is to generate business. You do not need a model release for any personal photos or any used in an editorial usage, ie magazines, newspapers, etc. If I have a great photo of you and you refuse to sign a model release, I can't sell that to someone that wants to use it for advertising, but I can sell it to any media outlet that wants to use it in a story they are running.

 

[pontiac428]

The Constitution does not protect privacy, neither does the Bill of Rights, or the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Thousand Points of Light speech, or any other act. There is no right to privacy, entitlement to privacy in public, or anything else.

The reason we hear about lawsuits where privacy is a grievance is because they are brought to court by a private plaintiff against a private defendant. In other words, they are civil cases. The courts exist for civil parties (who can afford it) to duke it out for damages for as far as they are willing to take it.

There are no criminal cases where the government is the plaintiff against an individual defendant who allegedly violated some poor citizen's privacy, because it's not their business to provide, guarantee, or protect privacy. There is a big difference between civil and criminal pursuits in this regard.

Sometimes the reality sucks, but poor schmucks like us can't demand much justice when this happens. If we're lucky, we can get the cops (aka the discretion of the law) to write a ticket for some flavor of municipal nuisance or general citizenship clause, but none of us mortals wield the power of Zeus to throw bolts at all those who spite us. None of us have retained lawyers on speed-dial. None of us have the means to do jack diddly to the sovereign individual across the street until lines are crossed and blows are thrown.

 

[Inferno]

The Constitution does not protect privacy, neither does the Bill of Rights, or the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Thousand Points of Light speech, or any other act. There is no right to privacy, entitlement to privacy in public, or anything else.

The reason we hear about lawsuits where privacy is a grievance is because they are brought to court by a private plaintiff against a private defendant. In other words, they are civil cases. The courts exist for civil parties (who can afford it) to duke it out for damages for as far as they are willing to take it.

There are no criminal cases where the government is the plaintiff against an individual defendant who allegedly violated some poor citizen's privacy, because it's not their business to provide, guarantee, or protect privacy. There is a big difference between civil and criminal pursuits in this regard.

Sometimes the reality sucks, but poor schmucks like us can't demand much justice when this happens. If we're lucky, we can get the cops (aka the discretion of the law) to write a ticket for some flavor of municipal nuisance or general citizenship clause, but none of us mortals wield the power of Zeus to throw bolts at all those who spite us. None of us have retained lawyers on speed-dial. None of us have the means to do jack diddly to the sovereign individual across the street until lines are crossed and blows are thrown.

Voyeurism laws exist. Just sayin'

 

[matthewsx]

I just want to know which one of you is gonna buy the house across the street so you can trade projects and share resources....

John

 

[pontiac428]

Voyeurism laws exist. Just sayin'

It's not voyeurism if he's across the street and the drapes are open, that's called exhibitionism- or in some states a lewd display.

 

[Inferno]

It's not voyeurism if he's across the street and the drapes are open, that's called exhibitionism- or in some states a lewd display.

True but there are privacy laws. No, I don't believe his neighbor broke one.
There's also a possibility of harassment which can be charged by someone other than another civilian.

 

[pontiac428]

I think one example of a privacy law is if I were to post your name and home address on a website without your permission, and you had your lawyer send a cease and desist order, and I refused, and you had enough money to take me to court, then you might just win the case.

But there is no entitlement. That's a civil case, and the state will not prosecute me on your behalf.

There are laws against (for example) fraud. If I commit fraud against you, the state will prosecute me on your behalf. Same with assault, racketeering, larceny, and other violations where it is a crime. Not so with privacy. The #1 threat to our privacy is social media, and people are lined up around the block to volunteer for that. Makes it easy for Google to get away with *profiting* from all their data mining activity when you have no right to privacy. They wouldn't exist if that were a sacred, protected right.

 

[erikmannie]

Good for you! I only wish my nutbar neighbor would go with him!

“Good things come to those who wait.”

 

[erikmannie]

I think one example of a privacy law is if I were to post your name and home address on a website without your permission, and you had your lawyer send a cease and desist order, and I refused, and you had enough money to take me to court, then you might just win the case.

But there is no entitlement. That's a civil case, and the state will not prosecute me on your behalf.

There are laws against (for example) fraud. If I commit fraud against you, the state will prosecute me on your behalf. Same with assault, racketeering, larceny, and other violations where it is a crime. Not so with privacy. The #1 threat to our privacy is social media, and people are lined up around the block to volunteer for that. Makes it easy for Google to get away with *profiting* from all their data mining activity when you have no right to privacy. They wouldn't exist if that were a sacred, protected right.

I have *never* been tempted to go on MySpace (back in the day), Facebook, Instagram for reasons of time management & privacy. I don’t feel like I missed anything.

I have made some YouTube videos, but I stopped pretty soon after somebody commented on how fat I was. I made a video on lacing (or truing) a bicycle wheel & somebody posted the comment “So when is the baby due?” Why would I continue taking my time to make videos if some people are going to be rude? This is an example of one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel.

I have to wonder if it is the best use of someone’s time to spend the limited time that we have on social media. Our ancestors experienced the real (as opposed to digital) world for about 15,000 generations.

 

[C-Bag]

I have to wonder if it is the best use of someone’s time to spend the limited time that we have on social media.

I have never got that either. But I’ve never been “social” in that “popular” way. Social media is a totally weird concept to me and it doesn’t surprise me it is so toxic. I hear from my relatives it’s a way of keeping contact but like your weird neighbor it just seems invasive. I also can’t believe how negative it is. It’s often about conflict and berating. I am grateful there are a few places on the net where people are civil and want to act like it’s not all about feeling superior at the expense of others.