Question about expectation of privacy

While shooting some interesting architectural images, I snapped what I felt was an amusing image of a random, shirtless guy standing, looking out of a about 10th floor hotel window. Clueless and not intentionally posing, he was clearly making himself visible to all who cared to look. Does he have an expectation of privacy?

Thoughts ...

https://www.nydailynew​s.com …og-pics-article-1.2179583

texkam wrote in post #18929683
While shooting some interesting architectural images, I snapped what I felt was an amusing image of a random, shirtless guy standing, looking out of a about 10th floor hotel window. Clueless and not intentionally posing, he was clearly making himself visible to all who cared to look. Does he have an expectation of privacy?

Thoughts ...

It probably varies from location to location, but the general rule of thumb in the states is that if you can see it from a public place, you can take a picture of it. There are restrictions because of security and such, but if the guy is posing in front of an open window for the world to see and you take a pic, he's fair game.

No different than all the street photos ever shot with people in them, like sitting around on a sidewalk bistro or farmers market, or coming/going from a business, this was a hotel, not a resident. The only party that could even complain would be the hotel, since it was their property, but the person himself, no.

It would also depend on jurisdiction. Europe, for one thing, has privacy laws that are very different from the US.

in the US, no...

if someone is on the ground floor of a building, and they are visible from the street, they have no expectation of privacy, provided of course the photographer did nothing to enhance their opportunity to get a better shot. i.e. they didnt climb up on a fence or use a ladder or stool, or even climb onto the door frame of their car/truck...

if theyre visible in their yard, that is surrounded with a hedge or trees, if they are visible without the photographer going to extraordinary lengths to get the image, they have no expectation of privacy...

Ltdave wrote in post #18931173
in the US . . . if someone is on the ground floor of a building, and they are visible from the street, they have no expectation of privacy, provided of course the photographer did nothing to enhance their opportunity to get a better shot. i.e. they didnt climb up on a fence or use a ladder or stool, or even climb onto the door frame of their car/truck...

I'm not sure the photographer isn't supposed to climb or stand on something. If neighbors can see into your yard if they look over the fence or use their upstairs window or balcony, it's up to you to avoid nude sunbathing and (dressed or not) nose picking.

Upskirt photos come to mind. There are public stairways, for instance, where a photographer can lurk on a lower level and get shots that invade women's and girls' privacy. Laws vary a lot by location.

It's about going out of your way to get a shot. If you have to pull out a ladder, you're doing something wrong.

I was on this 5th floor rooftop patio, which is at street level of the adjacent building on the right, shooting the building on the right. About 6 or 7 floors up from street level. 200mm.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18931499
It's about going out of your way to get a shot. If you have to pull out a ladder, you're doing something wrong.

So if you were already on a ladder because you were pruning a tree, your activity is benign, but it's unethical to fetch a ladder in order to photograph someone you think will make an interesting subject, even if the resulting shots are the same? Sorry, I don't see how that distinction has enough going for it. Photographers commonly choose where to stand/lie/crouch or even climb on things or fly in planes for various kinds of shots.

I wouldn't approve of flying a drone over a naturist camp to get images, but I believe "reasonable expectation of privacy" has a large gray area.

texkam wrote in post #18929683
While shooting some interesting architectural images, I snapped what I felt was an amusing image of a random, shirtless guy standing, looking out of a about 10th floor hotel window. Clueless and not intentionally posing, he was clearly making himself visible to all who cared to look. Does he have an expectation of privacy?

Thoughts ...

Would you ask a lawyer to take your portrait? Why would you trust photographers' opinions about a complex legal question? There are many articles on the internet written by lawyers dealing with this and similar scenarios in a variety of jurisdictions. FWIW in Australia he would likely be fair game.

https://stevenedson.ne​t …folios/outside-looking-in

Expectation of privacy in these? It appears not.

Because this is a photography forum and I thought some here in the community might have some personal insight. The link in my previous post is from Steven Edson's site. He has a broad scope of work in this genre. Me, not so much. It appears the line is "art" vs "commercial. BTW, to answer your question ... No! I have found lawyers are generally lousy photographers, plus I couldn't afford it.

Best idea is just to look up your local/state laws as to the specifics of what's legal where you shoot. Morally? It's fairly subjective, everyone draws their own line for what they consider too invasive.

You're fine, somebody out on a patio of that hotel has no right of expectation of privacy.