If a guy is being creepy, does he have the right to photograph women if he is on public property?

If I’m running a coffee shop and he’s driving away my customers by being a creep then yeah he’s got to go.
The average photography student or enthusiast takes a few pics on a shoot and moves on to the next project rather than photographing people compulsively over an extended stretch. That’s got to get really old after the first week.

My nature is to defend people’s right to do as they please so long as it doesn’t hurt others. Having some guy take your picture on a public street shouldn’t hurt you unless he gets right in your face or gets down on the sidewalk to try to shoot up-skirt.

If he is creeping their customers out, I think the coffee shop is within their rights to tell him to leave their premises. But when he’s out on the sidewalk, he is on public property and has as much right to be there as any other person does.

@mrrich724 Maybe you should flex da guns to scare him away. But only if you’re wearing that shirt that says “I need a box of band-aids to cover up all deez CUTS!” I can’t believe you sported that.

This reminds me of a story about a pedo named Jack McClellan that takes pictures of little girls in public places like parks, and posts them on his web site. It is beyond creepy, but public photography isn’t against the law. However a person who owns a business can throw people out. A private business isn’t public property.
Seriously, this guy pushes his luck and gets away with it. My point is based on the legal precident of such a case, I doubt there is anything anyone could do about public photography of anyone else, either.

By public property do you mean like a sidewalk? Then yes, he has the right, but he cannot sell the photographs to anyone without a signed release, is my understanding, if the person photographed would be able to recognize him/herself in the photo.

If you mean coffee shop, then you are actually talking about private property, open to the public. I’m sure the coffee shop owner has the right to evict a creepy person – or anyone – from the premises.

This brings to my mind two interesting questions -

1) Some businesses actually post a sign that says ‘We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone’. What happens if they are discriminating? , and

2) If you have private property that is open to the public, how do the rules changes? It seems that anyone is allowed to photograph hotel lobbies or building fascades visible from a public street for example. Are you required to obtain permission from the property owner before selling these photos, or by making the property public does the owner waive their rights on this matter? Obviously selling photos of the inside of someone’s home without their permission would be considered an invasion of privacy.

A coffee shop is not public property. The owner can refuse entry to whomever he chooses as long as he isn’t discriminating on the basis of protected categories such as age, race etc.

In this case he is discriminating on the basis of the photogs offensive, creepy behavior.

There have been cases of shop owners telling aggressive panhandlers to go elsewhere. Similar principal.

Even tho the sidewalk immediately in front of shop is technically ” public property”
The Police will back up the business owner.

How do I know that? When I first began street performing doing balloon animals, I had a lengthy conversation of the Sergeant on the beat.

I was there with the owners permission but was curious to ask about what would have happened had I not. And there were a few times that obnoxious guys were accosting folks begging and the cops told them (nicely) to move on. Had they not, I’m sure they wouldn’t have been so nice.

I also had an interesting conversation with a Moonie selling roses who recounted a time that he foolishly chose to be belligerent about it. He and his days supply of roses spent the rest of the day in a jail cell waiting for someone to bail them out :)

EDIT. The previous two responses were posted while I was typing mine. Didn’t mean to be so repetetive.

Unfortunately, it is not illegal to be creepy. Creepy people have the same rights as non-creepy people, but must also abide by the same laws and restrictions as non-creepy people.

Pretty much as soon as you leave the house you’re fair game where photos are concerned. However a business owner has the right to ask someone to stop in his place of business. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

It sounds like the photographer actually was on private property, the Church Street Marketplace. I did a little research, and the charter of the Marketplace (§ 324, b, 1) states that “the commission (set up to operate the marketplace) shall have the same status as a private user. From that it seems to me that the Church Street Marketplace is, for all practical purposes, private property, and the commission can ban anyone they please.

If you don’t want your photo captured in public, then don’t go out in public.

That’s what we don’t want lest we get guys camped in front of grade schools with long range cameras claiming it’s their right to be there.

Like it or not, it’s the law. I was a photojournalist for 10 years. As long as I was on public property, I could photograph anything I wanted, even those on private property as long as I didn’t set foot on the grounds.

Just last week I shot a commercial job for a downtown client. They wanted exterior photographs of their high rise office building. I walked across the street and shot their building from the sidewalk. There happened to be a bank behind me on my side of the street, and they sent security out to confiscate my cameras. They bluffed a good bluff but in the end I just walked away from their yelling at me and demanding that I turn over my equipment. I told them that my job was none of their concern and I didn’t have to speak with them beyond that. There was absolutely nothing they could do.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies LOL. And if you don’t want to be killed by a plane crashing into your house then make sure you’re never at home. It’s a terrific strategy. If you don’t want something to happen to you, then make sure you’re never in a place where that thing can happen to you. I am so loving your answer! : )

Well those are natural disasters and accidents. There’s not necessarily a mind that motivates the apparent offense.

But in all reality, those who would photograph under unscrupulous intentions should not prevent others from pursuing their craft genuinely. Much great art has been produced through “street photography”, and museums understand the powerful nature of photography as an art form to capture human nature in a manner that no other medium can.

I relate this subject to gun laws. There is a right and wrong way to use them. And at the end of the day, we should protect the rights of individuals to record the activities around them. Much injustice has been uncovered in this way. Much history has been documented in this way.

There is a way to address this issue though. It involves a community coming together to protect itself as a whole. Although I have the right to photograph anything from a public position, there is nothing stopping a group of neighborhood citizens from gathering together to stand in my way. If a predator/pervert would indeed set out to photograph children in the school yard, then a band of parents in his face would make short work of his career.

In this way, our rights are protected, our community comes together, and our perverts are put on notice.

I remember a story about a guy who wanted to clean up the prostitution in his neighborhood. He did this quite effectively by walking right up to the people and putting a video camera in their face. Every one of them panicked and took off. Soon his neighborhood was free from prostitution.

”If a guy is being creepy, does he have the right to photograph women if he is on public property?”

Yes.

I’m with @RealEyesRealizeRealLies (awesome name, btw)

This is in the hands of the people. All they have to do, is take a picture of him, right back at him! Let him know you’re there! Ultimate Karma. Cancel the action out with an equal and opposite reaction. He’ll understand.

Funny thing about the word public. I’m an individual citizen. Does it automatically make me public domain if I’m walking somewhere public. I mean a person couldn’t just take a picture of me and use it on a billboard without my consent. Why can someone take my picture and or take pictures of my children and post it on the internet without my consent.
I mean, even with movie stars they get to have photos of their childrens faces blocked out if they desire it. So why is it a person who isn’t famous, have less rights?
I say that is creepy and if he keeps it up and scares customers away, then they should be allowed to sue him for financial losses.
Whats to say he wasn’t hired by competitors to do just that, or maybe he doesn’t like the coffee shop owner and wants to ruin his business.

Technically I believe he has the legal right to take photos in a public place, unless they’re pictures that might be usedby terrorists (uk) However, if he’s being creepy then u could use antisocial behavior legislation to stop him…. Alternatively beat him to a pulp & smash his camera, it’s all good!

The key issue, as mentioned previously, is whether the photos taken publicly are being used for profit.

If someone is taking photos of you in a public setting and making money on it and you can prove it, then you can sue.

If not you don’t have a case because you were in a public setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. It all hinges upon money in that context.

It seems that the coffee shop guy was doing this for himself rather than making a profit.

But evidently he was not on public property.

Real Eyes case is totally different as he was photographing a building at the request of the owners of that building even tho he was doing it in front of the bank’s building.

I’m surprised that the security guys decided to jump ugly on him, but he was perfectly within his rights.

Even if they had chosen to call the police, I’m sure they would dismiss it as a nuisance complaint since RE wasn’t really affecting anybody or anything and had a perfectly reasonable case for being there.

This is totally different from creepy stalker guy hanging around constantly and making customers nervous and potentially harming business.

Much of this is a case by case judgment call and doesn’t lend itself to blanket statements.

RE has a very valid point, but life isn’t always fair as I have found out myself.

There is a fine line between busking and vending. But there is a definite line.

But when it gets right down to it, the judgement of individual shop owners regarding the space immediately adjacent to their store and the judgement of whichever policeman shows up is what will prevail that day. That’s just the way it usually is.

For myself, personally, I usually had little difficulty finding a shop owner in advance who liked the idea of having a free clown in front of their place. If one didn’t like the idea, it wasn’t that difficult to find another nearby who was delighted with it and could see how it might benefit them.

It was lot easier than being belligerent about asserting my rights. The time wasted trying to explain it all to the cops down at the station can be saved by just asking permission from a cooperative shop owner in the first place.

If creepy guy had not been so sneaky and surreptitious about his activities and intent in the beginning, doubtless he wouldn’t have provoked the reaction he did.

I have no idea whether he was a creepy perv or not but the problem was that he was ACTING LIKE one.

If his intentions were merely artistic or journalistic, it would have been a lot smarter to have a little pre-conversation with the coffee shop owner.

RE’s situation was totally different since he wasn’t planning to be there on a continuous basis. He did his job and left. Why waste time with over-zealous security guys ? He wasn’t a threat to anyone’s security.

Creepy guy was a different story. He chose to be sneaky about it and be there continuously. Wrong choice.

If his motives were not pervy, he could easily have clarified that initially.

“Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.”
Philip C. McGraw

I find this an interesting question from a philosophic point of view. What exactly do we mean by privacy? If someone took my picture and put it on billboard, I would be outraged. But on what grounds? In what way is my privacy being invaded? Even if someone I did not know took my picture in order to place it in a private album, for whatever reason, I would feel creepy about it. Would I have a right to object? It seems to me that the whole issue of privacy has not been well investigated from an ethical point of view.

Ethical issues and legal issues are poles apart.

It would be nice if everyone acted ethically but because they don’t, there are laws in place.

Your example about the billboard would be covered legally because that’s clearly a commercial use of it.

The photo sitting in an album at home, no legal grounds.

I can certainly understand photographers desiring to get candid shots, which are no longer truly candid if asking permission first.

But when I was taking pics of kids for my display board after I had painted their faces, they weren’t truly candid and I always asked permission of the parents and child both.

I can’t remember ever being refused but I did it because that’s the way I would want to be treated by someone taking my picture.

But ethics aside, the folks upthread who said that if you don’t want your pic taken, don’t go out in public are basically correct.

None of us really has any idea of how many security cameras have filmed us on any given day. I think we would be shocked at the total.
Many find this extremely disturbing on grounds of privacy.

Maybe it should bother me more, but honestly it really doesn’t.

Since I’m not doing anything criminal or of which I would have occasion to feel ashamed, I don’t mind.

So where do ethics come into play there ? Major crimes against people (rapes, murders, vicious assaults, etc) have been solved and perpetrators identified by those ubiquitous security cameras so I’m fine with them.

Others aren’t ok with it and they have a right to their point of view. They liken it to “Big Brother” is watching you.

But in the novel, Big Brother also was able to watch in the privacy of ones own home. BIG BIG difference. Private vs. public.

The fact is that courts have ruled that in public, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We would all do well to remember that :)

We truly are our own Big Brother.

@Captain_Fantasy

very good call

Now, if the people would storm the castle, and insist upon total transparency of all world governments, we might actually love that Big Brother. No more back door deals… anywhere… Total disclosure between corporations, scientific research… everything available to everyone who dances with the Goog.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It’s coming sooner than you may think!