| > Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to. The definition of "public" vs "private" in the context of property is fairly distinct from the one used in the context of privacy law. Obviously an Apple store is a privately-owned property, but in terms of privacy law it's very overtly public - you are allowed to take photos there, and people inside an Apple store would not (or at least, should not) believe that they are "in private". In short, private property (like retail stores) "generally open to the public" allows photography by default, and you're good to go unless there's a "No photos" sign put up by the proprieter. > If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL). For the sake of discussion on this point, let's pretend that the Apple store is unambiguously private in all senses, like your residence would be. I believe that in the relevant jurisdiction taking photos of it would be legal under the conditions that: (a) the photo was taken from somewhere public (b) the owners/occupants of the building made no attempt to prevent it (c) the photo is not of a "sensitive" location (bedroom, bathroom, changing room, etcetera) (d) the photo does not contain genitalia (this is illegal to do without consent, even in completely public scenarios) (e) the photo was taken with ordinary photographic equipment (so no zooming in from 10km away) So obviously the first four are no problem at all, but a telephoto lens specifically might get you in trouble on point (e). Not too relevant to the Apple store, but it's an interesting point of discussion. |