The library is now showing at YouTube

[Bramblerose]

I would hope that a library wouldn't reveal a list of my books checked out

Oh wow, you missed the whole librarians v. USA PATRIOT Act thing?

As a point of fact, assuming the right warrant, the library *does* have to hand over a list of what you have checked out AND they cannot tell you that you are being investigated. This is why most library software tracks *nothing* these days.

[LostMyMind]

Actually, that is the issue.
Here recording in any public establishment is not allowed, period.

That may be so in canada. But I think that probably an oversimplification. I can't believe tourist can't walk around with a video camera in hand making videos.

But in the U.S., public means just that. Public, no expectation of privacy. On private property, the owner can make rules regarding this kind of thing.

The fact that he was posting them was likely the issue. There are a number of factors involved in privacy, slander, and libel (there's a lot of overlap between the first one and second two) in civil law, and publication is usually the central point.

Again, for slander it has to be something that isn't true. It's a video. Now if he edit the video to an actual slander, that something else. There is no privacy in a public space. Most of the privacy cases are involved with an ex releasing a video/pictures taken for private use. Regarding publication. The freedom of speech thing comes into play, unless you're selling the video. But it's youtube, so there no money involved.

Bottom line is, if you walk outside wearing clothes thats embarrassing to be videoed and the entire world to see. Then don't wear those clothes. Never expect that nobody going to take a video of you. There are security cameras everywhere nowdays. You're going to be on camera.

Another issue that probably bears on him being banned is expectation of privacy.

There no expectation of privacy in a library. Expectation of privacy means you expect nobody will see/hear you without your permission. You may expect your reading habit to be private. But what you're wearing while in the library does not have "privacy" attach to it.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Video taping in public laws vary widely from place to place. Many libraries have specific rules against video taping or photographing inside the library. Here, for example, are the rules regarding libraries in St. Charles, IL, and here are the policies for the library at Yale. St. Charles forbids it outright, and Yale requires that you get permission from anyone that you film.

[otakuneko]

I would say wandering around inside a library--taxpayer-funded or otherwise--is quite a different thing than wandering around outside.

[LostMyMind]

How so otakuneko? You had to go outside to get to the library. Do you think that the library will not have a video security system? If you expect the library to have one, then you did expect to be videoed, thus no exception of privacy.

Just because the library staff made it a "policy" does not mean that it will stand up to a legal fight in court. Just like when libraries banned homeless from coming inside the library. Those bans have actually been brought in court and so far library staffs have lost. Will that specific guy sue, probably not. He might if he wants to fight that ban, but it seems he got other places to get videos.

Again I'm not saying I accept that guy's fetish. But he's not trying to get shots of under a dress or in the bathroom. Just girls walking around in clothes that they put on to go outside. No different than that guy that goes to the public beach and takes pictures/videos of girls there and post it. They're both public grounds owned by the tax payers.

[sms001]

Oh wow, you missed the whole librarians v. USA PATRIOT Act thing?

No.

I assumed for this discussion that the library would protect my records and reading habits from misuse by other citizens. I don't think Creepy McCamera and his ilk will have warrants.

(This is moot anyway, as even if library records fell under privileged communications, I'm sure Amazon would crack in a heartbeat - and I'm guessing my purchases from there are far more subversive than anything I've ever checked out of a library. )

As far as the expectation of privacy issue is concerned, my point was that perhaps the library could use that as a fulcrum should any litigation arise - that they have at least some obligation to ensure that a greater degree of privacy is met in a library because of the nature of the activity that commonly takes place there, which makes it a variant of the common "public" venue.

[Boggles]

This could ust be me but everyone keeps saying it is a public place. I'm not sure about in the states but here in the UK most Public Libraries are only public in name. They are classed as being privately owned, albeit by the local authority/council. Therefore you can be banned from them and done for trespass if you re-enter in just the same way as a shop could do you.

I'm 99% certain the law in the UK covering filming in public places only refers to outdoo type open public spaces.

[LostMyMind]

In the U.S., a public library is generally owned by the city/county. Which makes it a government building. Which means it's own by the tax payers, thus they have a right to access it unless there is a good reason (military, sensitive information, security, etc...). Thus a government (library staff) creating a policy that infringe on the "tax payers" rights causes issues.

I'm aware that outside the U.S., there are different rights and laws. But we're talking about a library in the U.S.. Even within each state there are different laws about "recording" someone without permission when they expect privacy. The issue is, when you're inside an government public building with people standing around you, the security system videoing you, and guards/staff watching you/door, did you really expect privacy? At least to the point of breaching someone else freedom of speech/press (which includes art, however distasteful it is).

[Raieth]

So let me get this straight.

Library owed by the government makes it public space.
Therefore okay to film in.

I see a slight problem with that.
The courthouse is owed by the government, but I'm reasonably sure you can't film there.

Now I know nothing of US laws but I'm fairly certain that's the case.

As a second note: the difference between security camera's and this guy are that security footage usually is never released and often destroyed after a length of time.
This guy is publishing his videos of people without their permission.

[rvdammit]

Usual IANAL caveats.

My reading on this, for copyright ownership, is that a public place is anywhere that a person might reasonably expect to enter, including private property. They might impose conditions of entry, so anywhere you could walk of the street and roam is a public place. As a for instance malls and shops fall under this definition, as do theatres.

[LostMyMind]

I see a slight problem with that.
The courthouse is owed by the government, but I'm reasonably sure you can't film there.

In some states, you can record a court proceedings. Some states ban recording/filming for "security" reasons. There is no such security reason in a library.

security footage usually is never released and often destroyed after a length of time.

You wish, you can see security video all the time. They get release and spread if it was funny or unusual enough. I'm guessing you never seen cops when they show the security videos. Do you really think anyone have the right to tell the stores what to do with the video they took because they didn't have their customers individual permission?

This guy is publishing his videos of people without their permission.

So, t.v. do that all the time. Do you really think they get permission from every person that walks by the camera? No, they don't. What about all the celebrity photos/videos, you know... of them inside restaurants, stores, etc... Do you have the same outrage for the people who take those picture/videos as you have against this guy?

If that guy was standing outside the library and video them leaving and coming, would you still be complaining? Probably, so why is that? I don't like having my picture taken or videoed either. But I expect, if I walk outside there is a chance that it will happen. Now days, unless you live out in the woods, when you go into town/city/mall/library/etc... you're going to get on film of some sort.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

So, t.v. do that all the time. Do you really think they get permission from every person that walks by the camera? No, they don't.

Yes, actually, they do. It's the law. Whenever you film anything that is going to be used commercially, you better make damn sure you get anyone caught on video (long enough to be recognized) to sign the standard consent form or you will have your ass handed to you in court. That's one of the first things I learned in film classes.

What about all the celebrity photos/videos, you know... of them inside restaurants, stores, etc...

Celebrities, politicians and other 'public figures' have a different set of rules applied to them. The courts have upheld this difference repeatedly. If you choose to be a public figure, then you have less privacy than someone who chooses not to be a public figure. You also have a higher burden of proof than a 'normal' person when it comes to taking legal action for things like libel or slander. That's the major downside of being a public figure.

[LostMyMind]

Yes, actually, they do. It's the law. Whenever you film anything that is going to be used commercially, you better make damn sure you get anyone caught on video (long enough to be recognized) to sign the standard consent form or you will have your ass handed to you in court. That's one of the first things I learned in film classes.

/sarcasm on
mmmhhh, Maybe I should sue N.F.L. for showing my picture at a game. Maybe I'll go to New York and walk past the Today Show window camera and then rake in some dough....
/sarcasm off

You're talking about commercial use of someone's likeness. This guy isn't doing anything commercial. You won't win a lawsuit against someone for videoing or taking your picture in a public area. Or for releasing such video/picture. Some people will go the extra mile to "blur" the face, but this guy didn't even show the face, at least from what I saw when the link was up.

Now if this guy edited the video to add some marketing or include it in a non-documentary movie, then you would have a shot of using this "law" (which vary from state to state). Not to prevent it's release, but to be paid for the use of your "likeness".

Celebrities, politicians and other 'public figures' have a different set of rules applied to them.

You're correct, as far as being able to say "that's is a private picture taken in a private area, you can't sell/release it." And all of it involves pictures/videos of them in non-public place. Or saying I should be paid for my "image" that you're selling.

However we're talking about a video in an public area. Pictures/videos in a public area is free game unless you use it for an commercial use. Which I'm guessing is what your film class was about.

It all boils down to, is an public library a "private" place. In the U.S., of course not. There is no expectation of privacy inside the library. Just like there is no expectation of privacy at the mall, park, or beach. Cameras are everywhere, you will be on "film". And the taker of such film, has the right to share that film with anyone he/she chooses.

While you may have an expectation of privacy regarding any "conversation" in a public area (which also varies from state to state). But that falls under wiretapping laws.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

I was specifically referring to your comments about tv shows and celebrities, which is why I specifically quoted those parts of your post. I wasn't commenting on the OP at all, in fact, in my previous post. Just yours.


I think that whether he can do what he is doing legally is up in the air. The internet is evolving so quickly that it is creating holes in various parts of the law, because there is no precedent yet for many of the things that happen online. There are questions that would need to be answered, I think, before a judge could say whether he is breaking any specific laws.

First, he's filming women's backsides in an obviously sexual manner. Yeah it's out in public, but it's obviously sexual. Is that free speech, or can one of those females make a complaint and have him arrested for harassing or stalking her in public?
Second, he is not using the pictures commercially, but he is posting them on an incredibly public forum, specifically for other men to gawk at. Is that a form of voyeurism? There are laws against certain types of voyeurism. Does this particular action fall under those laws? It is illegal to film minors like that in many places---how does he know the girls he films are not under 18?
Third, the security guards there have the right to ask him to leave if he is causing a disturbance. Is filming women in that particular sexual manner considered a disturbance? Many people obviously find it quite offensive; what if the girl noticed him behind her and got really pissed off? Or what if another patron noticed what he was doing and made a complaint? Would he have a right to do it then?


I don't know if he could legally get away with it or not. I find it interesting, though, and I would be interested to hear what legal arguments could be made both for and against. In fact, I think I will email my friend, who is currently in law school in Florida, and ask her about it. She's extremely bright and can cite some statutes that pertain to it, I'm sure.

[MMATM]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I think the conversation thus far has been missing the point. The videotaping, regardless of its legality in place and/or commercial or non-commercial release and/or use, can and should be banned in light of the harassment issue. Whether the faces or likenesses of any of the videotaped women are visible is irrelevant, as the videographer in this instance has crossed the line between tastelessness and misconduct, in deliberately videotaping women in an inappropriate fashion. In such cases, the ultimate use or content of the video is secondary to the harassing and/or threatening nature of the filming itself. In short, the action of filming is the offense, rather than the content or use of the video itself. It is the sole discretion of the "victim", in this case the videotaped women, to determine whether or not harassment has taken place.

Also of note, many "public" libraries in the United States are not in fact "public" in the sense that they are owned by the taxpayers. Lots of them are taxpayer-owned, yes, and I don't know the specifics of this situation, but most "public" libraries take their name from the services being offered to the general public as opposed to a specific population (e.g. students/faculty of a college or university). Some of these libraries may in fact be "public" in that they are owned by the state, but even those libraries owned by the government are under the jurisdiction of the state/city/town in which they're located (generally speaking) and so said local government can in fact eject people from truly public libraries in some situations, including lawbreaking. This one? I don't know. Most likely yes, as harassment (i.e. the videotaping) is a crime and as such the videographer in this instance is lucky not to have been arrested, as any one of the women "featured" in his video could have pressed charges.