So I have heard from a few girls about hobbyists doing hidden cameras to record time together unknown to the girl.  Seems kind of sleezy but maybe just my opinion.

Seems like grounds for blacklisting, and for breaking a thing ... or two.

... get naked ASAP.  

Taking of videos, pictures, etc should only be done with the agreement of all parties involved.

Consent is mandatory in any sexual situation.  Filming someone without their knowledge means you didn't ask for their consent.

Like someone else mentioned if you don't get consent to film it is against the law.

I recently had a lady mention this.  She asked me to undress in the bathroom.  Didn't bother me a bit and if it makes her feel safer she is more fun to interact with.   bigdell

for anyone to do and I have heard this being done by both parties.

There is a well known reviewer who takes videos, pictures, all that of providers. Then he will give himself up in reviews and admits that sometimes the girls know, sometimes they don't. Well now they do dude so too late for that.

completely inappropriate to video or take pictures of someone without their consent. this would be tough to accomplish in a hotel situation. sounds more likely done at someone's home or apt!

I was thinking the same thing...  There's the Gawker case (140 mills) and the Erin Andrews case (27 month in the slammer + 55 mills from the hotel) would hopefully serve as recent reminders that this could go really, really, really bad for you.

I imagine in the case of a hobbyist videotaping a provider without her consent, the hobbyist is counting on the provider not wanting to take it to court because it would mean the provider outs herself.

Yes. Sex needs to be consensual. Period. End of story.
Totally unrelated is recording. Minnesota is a one-party  consent state, so if one party of the conversation  consents to recording it, it is legal.  What one does with that recording, however, could be actionable.  So if I am having a conversation with you, either you or I can record the conversation without the other person's consent. A third party could not record it.  
Ok.....  as usual, with the law, there are exclusions. Like you cannot record in certain places where privacy is expected, i.e., bathroom, locker room, etc.   You need to exercise caution.  You can legally, for example, record conversations  with your boss, but if that violates corporate  policy, you can be fired and have no recourse.  The old adage.... just because  it's  legal doesn't  mean you should  do it applies.
As always, situations are different. Do not consider this to be legal advice. My personal advice is to not record your sexual  liaisons unless there is mutual agreement.

MN is a one-party consent law. So depending on circumstances, it could be very legal. Sleazy, yes. But could be legal.

1. Erin Andrews. That case was centered around a criminal  action. The perp invaded her privacy by recording through a rigged peephole. The civil suit that awarded millions was because the hotel didn't protect ms. Andrews' expectation of privacy.

The hobbyist would be outting himself.  I.e., if it were a case, hypothetically, of course, where it was pay-to-play, he would have created prima facia evidence that he engaged in a criminal act.  An LE dream come true.

Here is a kicker for you.....

There is a difference in a "criminal" law suit..... and "civil" law suit.

...we could get zasu knight to visit. no spying needed.

Yes, of course there is a HUGE difference between criminal and civil proceedings.

Now your "civil" argument.... I agree that since P4P wasn't shown or what ever here..... and the act of intimacy was consensual..... but the taping wasn't!!    That is where the Civil case is what would happen.

yes please bring her to MN....

For the Hobbyist..... NOT OK.   Unless you get the approval of the lady.

Privacy from a lawyers webpage.....

...desire to beat your chest and act like you know what you're talking about.  I don't know if you play a lawyer on TV, but if you do in real life, I sure hope all you do is defend parking tickets.  Holy shit.

And the more you write the more you prove it.  So do us all a favor and PLEASE stop grabbing at straws.  Just give it up, OK?

Imagine this....  after the goings back and forth above, I do agree with one of your points.

Being discreet and respecting one another's privacy applies to both providers and hobbyists.  Secretly recording hobbyists is no more acceptable than secretly recording providers.

Beyond that, yes indeed there are a lot of sleazy idiots who don't think through the possible consequences of what they do.

Actually I didn't need to ask because I know not right to record without consent.

Loveyourtouch.... ARE  YOU A LAWYER???

you visit well reviewed & respected providers for outcall & DON'T try to secretly recordl if you do incall.

I never said it was OK for the escort to record..... I said... I understand if they do.

Wrong... big time civil case.

Cite a case for me. Give the citation.... please

You are smart enough to use google search.

Double standards never work.

"well reviewed & respected" either way doesn't say anything other than he or she has played and ain't an uncle LEO at that time...if you think "well reviewed & respected" means you aren't in for a world of hurt on the safety side either short or long term...well I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to take a look at...it's for sale.

Old bongwater is at again.....I mearly stated that the thred problem was less likely with a well reviewed provider...Because this type of behavior would ruin her business & her reputation & as far as that bridge go's bong how much did you pay for it.