So I’ve done some basic research on California law. It seems that in considerably “private” locations it’s potentially illegal but in places such as sidewalks, courtyards, in shopping centers, it is certainly legal and there’s no basis for any sort of arrests or prosecution if confronted for filming.
With that said, it’s clear that any form of harassment when filming is certainly worth acting on for police or authorities, given the individuals report this and have some sort of proof.
Nonetheless, is there any insight people can converse on in this topic regarding the legality of specific stores like Target, Walmart, Costco, open malls, etc.?
I read that it can depend on the individual companies’ or stores’ policies.
Voyeurism is classified as being filmed in the ‘act of undressing’ or ‘sexual activity’. There’s a long shot difference bet-ween that and wearing clothes which are sexually suggestive or sexually accented for the purpose of sexually accenting the body. Hence why I’m curious about the technicalities and differences.
Filming and photographing people in public places is not illegal in any state; however, filming under clothing or in any place where there is an expectation of privacy is illegal.
Tax payer funded places are as public as you can get. Shops, malls, restaurants, etc are private property and may have their own rules prohibiting filming.
See this post for a more in-depth discussion on public vs. private.
Thank you for clarifying. This was my conclusion as well. With you being the head mod, I take it people who get frustrated or uncomfortable with these things are just ignorant to the reality of what we are allowed to do.
Haven’t been caught in a bit but I certainly have had to shape my skills in a fashion which makes it less conspicuous. I personally don’t even need up-sk-irts to enjoy the art of candids.
Do what you want, but never without fully educating yourself.
Quite frustrating to know people who choose to wear things which directly and literally accent/show off their figures and body parts would even be uncomfortable with these issues. Makes me sick to be honest… but in all reality, that’s just how it is.
The world must get honest. And very honest at that.
I do have direct knowledge about CA laws, as I made a living taking pics of celebrities in public places. You might get hassled by private security or by the police from time to time, but as long as you’re in a public place (tax payer funded) and there are no posted signs prohibiting photography (as is the case in some publicly funded museums or parks) you should be fine.
Of course this comes with a caveat. There are nuances to the rules. Be careful, and know what risks you’re taking on before you get out there.
Don’t even do it if you aren’t willing to risk it. You may get caught and tell any lawyer or court whatever excuse, but end of the line your reputation would be ruined. Just cause you don’t get in trouble for it in court, doesn’t mean you’re all clear. A quick google search of your name for a background will come up that you were in court for suspicious photography behavior. On top of that, the victims will post publicly about their exposers and they will expose you to the world. Nothing stays private anymore. No job, no friend would want to be associated with you