Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a waste of time. The OP can threaten all she wants... but that's as far as it can go. The neighbor didn't break any laws. This kind of action will only make the OP be the "idiot neighbor".
Legally, he needs a signed release to air the video.
Since she is a minor, the parents would have to sign the release for her.
I wouldn't pitch a fit over it, but if I were on FB, I would never post something like that without asking the parents' permission first. Times have changed, and this is one of the points of etiquette that have arisen because of it, in my opinion.
Legally, he needs a signed release to air the video.
Since she is a minor, the parents would have to sign the release for her.
No, they don't. Are people really this crazy?
The acts you refer to are for schools and libraries only. You really think it's illegal for someone to photograph or film people in public? Every single person on earth with a smartphone should be imprisoned according to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
States have their own laws, too.
No, they don't. Show us these laws that prevent children in public from being viewed, photographed, or recorded.
Hide your kid in the basement, already, and never invite a human into your house, or you are encouraging pedophiles, according to you.
None of which apply here. I suggest that you actually read the links that you post and familiarize yourself with U.S. laws if you're going to continue to live here. Laws may be different where you are from, but only U.S. laws apply here.
Btw, in the U.S. a parental release is only required when using the video for commercial purposes.
Stop pretending to know the law and making this a legal issue. As many have mentioned, there is no legal issue here.
It only took me a few minutes of reading to see these law apply to schools and libraries filtering content or (in the reading I did) videotaping them at school, it has NOTHING to do with this sort of thing.
States have tried different things, and when they have in my observation it ends up being squashed due to flunking constitutionality. In TX here we had an "Improper Photography" law which basically said no taking photos of scantily clad women (bikinis at lake, cheerleaders etc), which I never did anyway. It was struck down as being unconstitutional due to that in public you have no right to the expectation of privacy. After all, if a woman didn't want any stares, why would she choose to wear basically her underwear IN PUBLIC? You can't do that and then complain when people stare. Upskirts, now that's different because you're trying to "loophole" around clothing, but when a woman's frontal area is in your photos and she CHOOSE to parade around basically in her underwear, and you're showing that? Fair game all the way.
Again, until a LAWYER tells me that now one is required to get a parent's permission to photograph a child in public, I don't believe it. Moreover, if such laws get passed, they'll likely end up being struck down the way Texas' law was.
Someone said "times have changed." How? Did perverts and molesters magically appear in the past 5-10 years when they had never existed before in the entire history of the world? Really? Tell me how "times have changed," and why I should consider MY photography a "by invitation only" matter from now on?
Absolutely. If you are fearful of your kid being filmed in public, you are most definitely paranoid.
This was at the guys house....creepy neighbor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.