can people sue you for recording/taking shots of them?

[NYtransit 457]

my bro told me its dangerous recording/taking of pics in the subway because as you guys know,there are people in the subway,and if you record/take shots of the subway,and there in the shot,isnt that called if invasion of privacy? and they can sue you right?

[RokuSix 3]

I think if the picture is for commercial use, they can sue. If you're just going to enjoy it in your own home, it's not illegal. But still, be mindful of taking pictures of people while transit fanning. A lot of people find it very uncomfortable.

[Aqueduct 1]

Unless you plan on following them around and take photos of them and/or sell their likeness for advertising etc., then there should be no problem.

 

I don't think that guy enjoyed my picture-taking too much.

[nycbusfan 2]

By law you can take a picture of anything you want to in a public area of the subway.

[Y2Julio 206]

You can take any pictures you like as long as you are on public property, there is no invasion of privacy since privacy cannot be expected in public, therefore, they can't sue you. Note, I am not an attorney.

[FamousNYLover 554]

When I was living in Normade Court Apartment and went to Philadelphia trip for first time via , PATH, (NJT), I change bet. and at 86th St, and when I took pic of crowded , lady on crowded train said, "Why ARE YOU TAKING PIC OF ME?

I said, "I'm taking pic of train, NOT PEOPLE."

 

Also, when I was recording new bus lane on 34th St from M34 eastbound from Hitachi camera passenger thought it was illegal, but B/O told her it's not illegal and told her it not terrorist.

[metsfan 2]

The next level:

 

 

- A

[Messino 1]

They can only sue you if you use their image or video for profit and for tv or movie/broadcast.

[MTR Admiralty 4]

If you are taking a picture of a train, a landmark or whatever and there are people in your way, that's their fault. However if you take a picture that has the person as the main subject, infringes upon the person's personal security or invades the person's privacy, without permission or consent from the person, the person has the right to sue you.

[Y2Julio 206]

If you are taking a picture of a train, a landmark or whatever and there are people in your way, that's their fault. However if you take a picture that has the person as the main subject, infringes upon the person's personal security or invades the person's privacy, without permission or consent from the person, the person has the right to sue you.

 

This is a incorrect. As a amateur photographer that does street photography and candid photography of people, I've dug into the subject so I can defend myself if someone decides to confront me and/or calls the NYPD. As long as your subjects don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" - meaning they're not somewhere they'd never expect a camera to be - you're on pretty solid ground. Even if you photograph them while they're on private property, you're in the clear - just make sure they're in plain view and you're not trespassing, of course, some parts of military installations and nuclear plants are off-limits for national security reasons. The problem comes if you intend to use your photographs for commercial purposes. You can't use a photograph of someone in a commercial context without explicit permission. The subject has a right to allow or disallow such use. If you proceed without explicit permission, you haven't committed a crime but the law does allow for a subject to collect substantial monetary judgements in civil court. Because of such liability issues, most publishers will not accept photography for print if a model release does not accompany the photo. (This does not apply to journalism or personal use in public places, of course). So snap away folks!

[MTR Admiralty 4]

This is a incorrect. As a amateur photographer that does street photography and candid photography of people, I've dug into the subject so I can defend myself if someone decides to confront me and/or calls the NYPD. As long as your subjects don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" - meaning they're not somewhere they'd never expect a camera to be - you're on pretty solid ground. Even if you photograph them while they're on private property, you're in the clear - just make sure they're in plain view and you're not trespassing, of course, some parts of military installations and nuclear plants are off-limits for national security reasons. The problem comes if you intend to use your photographs for commercial purposes. You can't use a photograph of someone in a commercial context without explicit permission. The subject has a right to allow or disallow such use. If you proceed without explicit permission, you haven't committed a crime but the law does allow for a subject to collect substantial monetary judgements in civil court. Because of such liability issues, most publishers will not accept photography for print if a model release does not accompany the photo. (This does not apply to journalism or personal use in public places, of course). So snap away folks!

True. I was referring to intentional photography, not like catching somebody randomly in your pic.

[Y2Julio 206]

True. I was referring to intentional photography, not like catching somebody randomly in your pic.

No, intentional or not, you can take their photos. Everything I said still applies.

[2Easy 0]

Of course people can sue you. You meant to ask if they will win. That depends, but if they are in a public space they generally should have no expectation of privacy, so they will likely lose.