Here's the two main mentions of AA:
Just because some places are public doesn't make them legal for photography. For instance, a bathroom is a public place, but people have an expectation of privacy in the bathroom, so photos are typically not a good idea. This is also the case with anywhere else people might expect privacy, including inside places like AA meetings or doctor's offices.
Finally, you can't publish a photo that gives away private information about someone. This includes things like the aforementioned AA meeting or doctor's office along with any other situation where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don't have a full sense of the template he's using for privacy, exactly. I mean, I can take a picture of someone in the middle of Yosemite that "gives away private information". Can I take that but not publish it?
He also cites a "no telephoto" rule that's really cloudy.
Basically, I learnt that in Illinois the cops will try and stop you from photographing them based on "illegal wiretapping", but that's not supported by the court.
Also, yikes to Liese's Dave! Poor him.
Isn't "expectation of privacy" a legal thing?
Yeah, I associate that with warrants and searches and the like.
Wikipedia just confused me. I'm just going to live my entire life for the cameras. Feel free to drop by my balcony later, eh?
Just reading that, and not knowing really anything about the legality of photos, I suspect the poster doesn't know what he/she is talking about because he/she doesn't distinguish between civil and criminal liability.
ETA: I mean, there's just no way it's a crime to take a picture in an AA meeting, so...does he mean you could get sued for violating someone's privacy? Sure. But I'm not comfortable with calling those activities "illegal."
"I'm So Goth I Shit Bats" Completed Cross Stitch by DefiantDamsel
I think this one might have more widespread Buffista appeal [link]
But I'm not comfortable with calling those activities "illegal."
Indeed not. If AA meetings are held in rented spaces, they're likely not, in fact, public, and the renting entity has a right to exclude or control the activity in the room, including photography. Failure to comply would be enforceable with physical security, or with a civil tort claim.
That's my read, anyway.
Happy Birthday, Java Cat!
For the occasion, I give you Swinton: [link]
