People taking your picture with their phone

Maybe hes not taking your picture, but rather playing one of those camera input games where you can fly a spaceship around, asteroids style, shooting people in the face.

That would make me smile too, "1,000 points, blapped a grumpy man!"

No idea. Sometimes I take pictures with my phone of people, although random people, very rarely -

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

He has an out of NJ state ID

When did you ask to see his ID? Anyways, short answer, because he can, that's why. Maybe you should start taking pictures of him. Also, how do you know he's taking pictures? Is the flash activating? Do you hear the shutter sound clip, which is different on different models and lines of phones?

Hell, I've turned that sound OFF on my phone.

Well now that was weird. Minutes after reading this post, I went into another room at work, and a friend asked if she could use MY phone to take a few pictures of herself to send to a guy as her iPhone doesn't have a reverse camera... This life does make me wonder sometimes!

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

I'm linking a thread about taking pictures you might find useful.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
I have going to a library to use their computers for some time. There is this guy that takes my picture with his phone and smiles when he sees me see him do it. He has an out of NJ state ID and claims to drive across the country.


Why would someone do that?

Being that you're in a library, which is a public space.. he's technically allowed to take your picture without breaking any laws. He's probably doing it just to annoy you. A friend of mine used to do that until someone nearly punched him for it..

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

There doesn't need to be a reason.

Photography is not a crime, regardless of who is being photographed, or what they are doing.

That's only true if the photographer is in a public space and you're view-able from that public space.. Things get trickier in private spaces.. if you own the private space then you can but they have to be made aware of it and the camera has to be visible.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I'm going to chime in here to back up Defcon's statements about this kind of behavior being likely to be construed as stalking by law enforcement as a former victim of a diagnosed violent sociopath who was stalking me. Most people assume that, in order for someone to be a stalker, then it requires that there be some sort of relationship that had existed between the victim and the perpetrator. That is patently untrue. I never met or spoke with my stalker. In fact, the majority of his stalking went completely unnoticed by me. What prompted the discovery of my stalker was not an accusation of stalking but simply telephonic harassment that was obsessive. It wasn't until they went into my stalker's home with a warrant for his arrest that they discovered the absolute full extent of that obsession in his basement. The key for what is construed as stalking is not simply what they are doing. A kid can have a habit of making a prank call on his elderly reclusive neighbor and it'd probably not be construed as stalking and instead simply as harassment. However, highly repetitive behavior that the target is aware of should raise an alarm bell because that is a possible indicator of obsession, speaking from experience. Obsession is what takes something from being simply normal behavior to being construed as stalking--regardless of how minor what is being done may seem.

To the OP: Because this individual is doing this and making sure that you note that they are doing this, please take the time to report the activity to the police non-emergency hotline so that the initial complaint is lodged. Then, start recording the number of instances by date and time so that you can establish the frequency. If need be, report it again and let them know that you are very concerned that this individual may be stalking you. Hopefully, they take it seriously enough (and they just very well may--when the number of times my stalker was calling me was fully revealed via trap, the police were very disconcerted) to take action. However, that concern may not occur on the first call. Hopefully, this individual is simply being a little jerk who is taking your picture and uploading it to his friends with a little quip because you're on his daily radar (so and so is here again, yadda yadda yadda!). However, don't make the mistake that I almost did by disregarding the potential threat of what he is doing. If I had simply just changed my number, I would not be here right now as mine was apparently courting the idea of murdering me. Better to be safe than sorry (or unable to be sorry). Good luck and be safe.

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
Would there be a difference to you whether he uses a camera or his phone? Photographers take pictures of subjects... including people.

I agree. Photographers take photos with a camera.
Perverts take photos with a phone.

But a well made fake badge. Next time he has his phone out, present the badge, as your pose for his pic...see if he runs off.

Personally, I'd take his pic too. Then confront him. If you're really sneaky, have two burly friends with you. Have them nonchalantly pose as fellow patrons, one on each side of him (in case he tries anything).

reply to post by miniatus


Private spaces (including occupants) can be photographed without consent as long as the photographer is standing on public property, and does not breach privacy to do so (like opening a gate, or moving a curtain). The camera itself does not need to be visible either. The common belief is that private property cannot be photographed at all, but that belief is wrong. You only cannot photograph private property if you're told (by sign, or an individual) not to photograph.

If you're curious, I have an entire thread up outlining photography and the law which might give you some more insight into what is, and isn't legal.



reply to post by WhiteAlice


Telephone calls are a very different kind of harassment from photography. You'll notice that, outside of telemarketing, there is no job which allows for you to repeatedly call somebody you don't know again, and again, and again.

As I said earlier though, if repetitively taking pictures of somebody, even to the point of obsession, were enough to land a stalker/predator charge, then every paparazzi would be in prison. Obsessively taking pictures of, and following around, the same individual for days, weeks, months, and even years is the job description of the paparazzi.

There does need to be a malicious intent as well for predator charges to actually arise, which, in your case, was discovered in the perpetrators home. Without a malicious intent alongside their seemingly obsessive behavior though, there is no actual crime. All that you are doing here is stereotyping the other party because of an action that is completely legal, but which would make you uncomfortable.

As myself and Defcon, and you have all suggested though, if the OP doesn't like being photographed, he should go talk with the owner of the building, or non-emergency.

The owner of the building can decide whether or not photography should be allowed inside, and then take action based on their decision.

If the OP notices this person following them outside of the building, by all means, it is time to start getting authorities involved. But to judge them based on the simple act of taking pictures makes everyone who has ever taken a picture, or owned a camera, a candidate for being a predator.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Normally, you would be correct but a celebrity is defined as a "public figure" and public figures, by source of their notoriety, fame, and so on, actually have less rights to privacy than the average person. So, legally, you're comparing apples and oranges as while the OP and a celebrity are both people, one is not a public figure and the other is. Basically, two different legal treatments. It is also why schools are required to request permission from parents as to whether their student can be photographed at specific events. If a parent does not grant permission, then all pictures containing that child will be destroyed. These things are actually outlined through legal precedence and stare decisis by the US courts. Look it up.

Telephonic harassment and being routinely photographed by a total stranger would both fall under potential indicators of stalking behavior. Trust me, I know. What do you think was in my stalker's basement?

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
How many times can you count when the paparazzi were charged with being predators for taking photographs constantly of celebrities?

There are different laws regarding “public figures” specifically.
As a matter of fact, a local “shock jock” (same guy whose wife was in the Hulk Hogan video) is fighting a court battle against another “shock jock”, because he made rude remarks about his wife on the air. The issue here is that the one jock is claiming she is a “private citizen”, but the other one is stating that she is on the show on a regular basis, making her a “public figure”.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
Or, consider the work of Normal Bob Smith, who actively films and takes pictures of complete strangers, again and again, at Union Square.

Are they the same strangers though?
See there is the rub, if he is repeatedly taking photos of the same people without their consent, they can most likely get him for stalking.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
Admittedly, one can easily read something predatory in nature into it, but, then you're making unfounded guesses. The photographer, in turn, could file a claim against the OP for defamation of character, should it turn out he has no actual predatory intentions.

This is why you contact the police, they will figure out the details without you getting into trouble yourself. You have the right to contact the police when anyone is acting in a suspicious manner, for any reason. This is no different then calling in a “suspicious vehicle” sitting in front of your house in the middle of the night, and does not in any way constitute “defamation”...

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
Law enforcement, because they're often unaware of photography laws, absolutely love to try and take away the right for citizens to take pictures. It doesn't mean that law enforcement is always right though.

If they aren't that is going to be between the police, the suspect, and the court system. The person who made the call is not liable for that in any way. You can bet though that the unwanted photography would come to a quick stop the minute the police are involved though.

reply to post by defcon5


1. Consent is not mandatory when you are standing on public ground. Consent is only mandatory when both you and the photographer are on private property. Anything visible from public property can be freely photographed without consent, including people and buildings. If the photographer is on public property, but you are on private property, then once again, consent is not necessary. If you close your door, draw blinds, or go somewhere secluded, on private property, then no, the photographer cannot follow and photograph you.

2. There are no "public" and "private" citizens photographically speaking. Visiting dignitaries, the President, elected officials, celebrities, business employees, adults, and children are all the same when standing on public property. If they are visible, and have not established a secluded space (like a bathroom, or ATM machine) where privacy is expected, then you can freely photograph them, and it is 100% legal.

3. There is no difference between "paid" photographers and amateur photographers. Anywhere that the Press is allowed to record and take photographs, you are allowed to record and take photographs. The only exception being private events, where the Press is specifically invited, and an invitation is necessary for admittance.

Comparing comments made on a radio station, or telephone harassment, is not the same as somebody taking a photograph of you. A photograph does not slander you verbally, or threaten you psychologically, as radio slander and telephone harassment can.

Basically, you can dislike being photographed, but it only amounts to a personal preference, and not a legal right. There is no expectation of privacy when you are on public property, so you do not have the right to not be photographed when you're on public grounds.

Coming back to the topic at hand though, the OP can approach the owner of the building and let them know what is going on, and the owner (because he owns the property) can legally decide whether the person taking pictures should be allowed to continue or not. That, aside from calling the non-emergency number, is the proper channel for the OP to take.

Trying to criminalize photography is not the proper route to take. Taking photos of people in public is fully protected by the freedom of expression and of the press as covered in the first amendment of the Constitution. It is not now, nor can it ever be made, illegal to take pictures of people when they're out in public.

As for calling someone, talking about them on air, going on live television to speak about them, sending them mail, and other things of that nature: those are all covered under different kinds of laws, and I do believe that they constitute harassment, slander, defamation of character, and other criminal activity. Photography is not included among them though.

I'm done with going over this again and again though. I've stated my case for the legality of photography, and what I think the OP could do, should they not like it. For further informattion on photography and the law, see my thread right here, which outlines and includes links to the legal processes which photographers are obligated to abide by.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Again, the problem with all of your arguments is that you are only looking at the legality of whether or not your photo can be taken.

Like I said before, which was conveniently ignored: Something that is perfectly legal can still constitute harassment, if aimed at a specific individual.