[drew-y]

In the US:

> When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society[1].

However, this does not apply to areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public restrooms and (I'd assume) skirts included [2].

[1] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights [2] https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf

[Clubber]

Ya the up-skirt thing was interesting. There's some laws on the books but I don't think it's ever been tried in the SCOTUS.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.h...

[piffey]

Left up to the states so far. I know WA it falls under voyeurism.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

I’ve shot street photography and photojournalistic/documentary work for over a decade now and this seems to be the recurring discussion: “It’s legal to just take pictures of people in public?” And yes, it is. It’s literally how photojournalism works and why child labor (Lewis Hine), civil rights (Gordon Parks), war abuses (Don McCullin), and so much more made it to the forefront of National discussions. Not saying TikTok content is that quality but the laws protecting public recording are an essential component of freedom of expression. Once you start choosing which content gets to be recorded due to some subjective quality rating you fall into censorship.

[giantg2]

Why would we just assume that a skirt would be included if the wearer is in a public space and it blows up or somwthing? These sorts or unexplained inclusions/exceptions are could very well be applied to "I assume sticking a mic/camera in someone's face is an invasion of privacy".

Apparently it also doesn't apply to court rooms. Nor does it apply to nudity or partial nudity even if publicly photographed.