Question to all but especially the lawyers out there.

What rights does a person have if they have been photographed or videotaped without their consent?

I recently had a conversation with a provider who had an appointment with a client who asked if he could take some photos of her.  She agreed to the photos at which point he told her that the camera needed to recharge so they proceeded with their session.  Afterwards when she asked to see the photos he had taken he refused to show her.  She persisted in her request to see the photos until he admitted that he had actually video taped their session together.  The recharging was just an excuse to place the camera in a convenient location to videotape their session.

While she had agreed to the photos, she never agreed to the videotape and the tape was done without her consent or knowledge.  What rights does the provider have?  What can she do if he decides to post on the web or sell the tape?  I'm sure there wasn't any legal documents like a model release etc.

curious in seattle

Possibly an invasion of one's fundamental right to privacy. Damages may be very difficult to establish, but they may be presumed.  Better shot of getting a mandatory injunction than damages.  But, to a large degree, it really turns on the law of the forum state.  In CA, for example, courts are somewhat more vigilant in protecting individual liberties than in Washington.

By videotaping her without her consent in an environment where she has a right to expect privacy he probably broke some laws.

Personally, I think the best way to enforce these rights is to find a really big guy she knows, who is willing to visit the guy and discuss the issue with him, while force feeding him his video camera.

"while force feeding him his video camera. "

in reverse...

The nerve of some people!

LM

Thanks for confirming what I have said all along.  )

....unless and until he decides to publish the video somewhere.  There is, unfortunately, no criminal wrongdoing here, assuming that he keeps the video for his private use.   As for CIVIL wrongdoing, she would need to establish that there were damages -and she would be unlikely to be able to do that if he did not post the video on the web or some other public venue, or try to extort her with them.   And even then, if he does not receive any monetary compensation for the video, the only damages she would be able to get would be for harming her reputation, which, as I'm sure you realize, would be a tough LEGAL argument for an escort to make in a US court - as ethically clear as it might seem.

If all he wants to do with the video is whack off in private, she can't do anything about it, other then get his identity placed onto a bad client list somewhere.  Or, she might want to contact some knuckle-dragging goons who might otherwise owe her a favor, to apply some sanctions OUTSIDE of the legal system.  That, I am afraid, covers it for the recourse she might have.

I recommend doing a search on "copyright law" on Google and you'll find tons of info, but basically in a nutshell... as long as she did not sign anything, he cannot use any image or video or recording of her in any way, shape, or form. Now I really don't think there's a practical way (short of a lawsuit) to get the video from this guy, obviously if he had any kind of integrity whatsoever none of this would have happened.  But if he were to ever try to make any money, in any way whatsoever, he'd be setting himself up for getting slapped with a nice lawsuit, because a model release is REQUIRED. I did a photoshoot with someone once, and we had a falling out over the contract they tried to make me sign... I refused to sign it, and thus they were never able to use the images, or I could have sued them. This has NOTHING to do with provider vs. not provider, this is about MODELS and copyright law.

Hugs*
Nicole

This pretty much explains what's going on, but as it stands now, Dman is correct, it is not a law in most states.

G

Lets keep the record straight ---

model release is what the subject of the photograph has sign.

copyright belongs to the photographer unless he assigns it to someone else.

In my opinion (used to own a glamour studio)...  escorts should NEVER sign a model release.  If you need photos, go to a professional and have him assign the copyright and ownership to you prior to the photo session.

Do you have a link?

Also I think the difference is taking a video (photo/recording/whatever) secretly to MAKE A PROFIT from it. Of course the government can get away with whatever the heck they choose to if they really want to (such a dismaying thought), but I doubt this guy was doing any government work by videotaping his session.

Hugs*
Nicole

If the provider isn’t provided a Model Release form were she has agreed to have pictures and videotape taken of her were the client provides in detail what he will be utilizing it for, she is in all her right to sue him and he is liable for such thing if he ever distributes, posts or sells it w/o her written consent but until then she can’t do anything. What she can do is let the other ladies and agencies know about his practices so he is screwed into the bad clients list. Certain boards moderators also keep a list of bad clients that they regularly provide the local & visiting providers so they are aware of who is who in a specific city, which is good for those that tour.

When I meet a Porn star, I always provide them with a Model Release Form were I let them know what I will be doing with the Photos and Videos; I also ask them prior to both of us signing the agreement if I can post reviews, solo shots, vid caps or hardcore of our meetings on boards were several hobbyists post them and if they agree, I add it to the document, have it signed and each gets a copy. I once got carried away, posted some Solo Shots of a particular starlet, she found out asked me to have them removed and so I did. BTW, we are still good friends and do respect each other even more.

The bottom line is: until he publicly display’s it in any form you can’t do anything to him and if you physically want to harm him then you will be the one ending up in the joint.

These are my .02 cents if anyone cares to read.

Seth A/K/A The Doctor
PS. The laws might be stricter on different states so she might really want to ask a legitimate legal counselor. BTW,  most initial consultations are free so she has nothing to loose by asking the proper authorities.

and I should have made that point clear.  Sorry for the lack of precision.  If the scumbag keeps the tape for his private use, your friend has no legal recourse.  But if he "publishes" the tape, i.e., posts it on the net, whether for profit or not, then he's invaded the provider's privacy and may be liable for damages.  
    As a practical matter, however, Mr. Galt's suggestion is more likely to get immediate results.  If a few very large people visit the scumbag and politely ask for the videotape back, your friend may be able to nip this problem in the bud. Nuff said?

It seems to me that her verbal consent to photography was not in and of itself legitimate and enforcable.  Why do legitimate photographers have carefully worded consent forms?

The behaviour of the client in this case was not only morally reprehensible, it was legally untenable.

The only problem I see with recourse is the dubious legal status of our Hobby and the concurrent questions regarding whether or not the (legitimably) abused provider wants to involve LE.

This is a civil matter, not a criminal one.  But concur there exist several substantial, but not necessarily insurmountable, hurdles to overcome, should the provider in question choose to proceed civilly.  
    But the best and most direct approach is the one suggested by J.Galt.

if he does publish a pornographic tape then he must comply with 18 U.S.C. § 2257.  You see this this compliance information on all pornographic tapes after the effective date of the law.  He would be in a world of shit if he publishes the video.

EXACTLY my point.
And she didn't sign a model release, thus he has NO RECOURSE if he uses her image in any way whatsoever!
See my post above about using photographers in the thread Daddy's Rose started.. I said exactly what you just said... and it always makes me nervous when ladies who don't *know* what they should or shouldn't sign, use a professional photographer. I've done photoshoots where they tried to get me to sign some really unbelievable contracts, so now I just take my own pictures.

Hugs*
Nicole

http://www.senate.gov/~landrieu/releases/02/2002417521.html

I don't know why they didn't post the link  before. Maybe it didn't go through. Here it is again.

G

If he just videotaped her for his own enjoyment, then in most states she has no recourse.  I suspect that's probably his motivation.

MisterG


-- Modified on 4/28/2002 11:19:59 PM

-- Modified on 4/28/2002 11:15:56 PM

Moreover, many bills that do become law bear little resemblance to the original proposed bill.  Good research though.  I'll keep my eye on this proposed legislation and report back periodically.