People of Wal-Mart

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Show me where in "the law" where a business doesn't have the right to throw whoever the hell they want out of the store, which is what I stated. you only have the right to be in that store at the management's discretion.

And then you can prove to me that you're STILL not an asshole for doing something like that in the first place.

We have a entire host of civil rights laws that state a business may not throw people out for any reason. Actually, we have whole list of reasons you directly may NOT refuse someone service and if you do so you will be subject to criminal and civil legal actions. The issue here is quite simple: you have no reason to expect any sort of privacy in a store that has already told you they will be video taping you. If Wal-Mart wants to ask someone to leave for taking pictures they can do so. However, as I've already said, they do not have to do any such thing. Nor is there any recourse one could pursue in courts against photographs taken in a space where no reasonable expectation of privacy ever existed.

This would be no different than telling the rink staff at your local beer league game you wanted the people in the audience to stop taking pictures of you. The rink certainly does have the authority to say no pictures and enforce that policy, but they have no obligation to do so. As the rink is a business held open to the public you have no reason to expect that anything going on there, outside of the restrooms as there is federal law on that issue, will be private. If you don't want to be photographed you can avoid public spaces, including businesses held open to the public. If you are in a business you may request they enforce their reasonable rights to stop photographing, but what they do is up to them. It in no way changes the fact that you (once again) have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a space held open to the public.

Being an asshole isn't against the law, shrug....

[DarkStar50 679]

I work at a grocery store, I see/deal with these people every day. I woudlnt go about making a parody site though, I'm sure if someone found out there picture was on the internet without permission it could get bad.

For the record, there are people at Bauer who aren't too pleased with you for posting the pics of the new Supreme skate line. I know because I talked to them the morning after you did it.

[Ahriman 1]

Show me where in "the law" where a business doesn't have the right to throw whoever the hell they want out of the store, which is what I stated. you only have the right to be in that store at the management's discretion.

And then you can prove to me that you're STILL not an asshole for doing something like that in the first place.

We have a entire host of civil rights laws that state a business may not throw people out for any reason. Actually, we have whole list of reasons you directly may NOT refuse someone service and if you do so you will be subject to criminal and civil legal actions. The issue here is quite simple: you have no reason to expect any sort of privacy in a store that has already told you they will be video taping you. If Wal-Mart wants to ask someone to leave for taking pictures they can do so. However, as I've already said, they do not have to do any such thing. Nor is there any recourse one could pursue in courts against photographs taken in a space where no reasonable expectation of privacy ever existed.

This would be no different than telling the rink staff at your local beer league game you wanted the people in the audience to stop taking pictures of you. The rink certainly does have the authority to say no pictures and enforce that policy, but they have no obligation to do so. As the rink is a business held open to the public you have no reason to expect that anything going on there, outside of the restrooms as there is federal law on that issue, will be private. If you don't want to be photographed you can avoid public spaces, including businesses held open to the public. If you are in a business you may request they enforce their reasonable rights to stop photographing, but what they do is up to them. It in no way changes the fact that you (once again) have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a space held open to the public.

Being an asshole isn't against the law, shrug....

You could have just said you agreed I wasn't wrong and left it at that. And your right, being an asshole isn't illegal, however it is also not an obligation.

[JR Boucicaut 3802]

I work at a grocery store, I see/deal with these people every day. I woudlnt go about making a parody site though, I'm sure if someone found out there picture was on the internet without permission it could get bad.

For the record, there are people at Bauer who aren't too pleased with you for posting the pics of the new Supreme skate line. I know because I talked to them the morning after you did it.

QFT

[Leafsrule16 5]

I work at a grocery store, I see/deal with these people every day. I woudlnt go about making a parody site though, I'm sure if someone found out there picture was on the internet without permission it could get bad.

For the record, there are people at Bauer who aren't too pleased with you for posting the pics of the new Supreme skate line. I know because I talked to them the morning after you did it.

Im sure a lot more people seen them then me. There was an add on facebook of a guy who had them looking to send pics.Its not like I arranged this entire mass posting, i just simply forwarded what i found to the forum, not to mention i wasnt even the first to post them on here.

[Drewhunz 3]

Yeah, but this isn't PHEW. We actually have a relationship with the manufacturers and in turn have information about yet to be released product that gets harder to come by when people feel the need to get credited to be the first to post something.

[DarkStar50 679]

and you still thought it was a good idea?

[Drewhunz 3]

Hey, doesn't your mom want credit for a joke she e-mails you that you heard about several years ago? ;) Same idea. Recognition without effort or the search for correct information.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

You could have just said you agreed I wasn't wrong and left it at that. And your right, being an asshole isn't illegal, however it is also not an obligation.

The issue is you implied there was something the subjects of these photos could do about their pictures on the blog, on that you are dead wrong. You were wrong in claiming that one could get the police to some how prevent your picture from being taken on public property. You were also incorrect in stating that a business owner/empkoyee can throw someone out of the business for any reason. You were correct that Wal-Mart doesn't have to allow photos to be taken in the store, but they don't seem to have any official policy on the matter. The parking lot, and anything else that can be seen from the street, is completely outside Wal-Mart's control. Being realistic, the employees probably don't give a rat's ass what you do as long as you aren't creating any additional work for them.

I can think of worse things going on in the world. Plus you gotta admit, it's a bit funny to see a white chick with a sweatshirt designed to look like a Nazi flag standing next to two black guys. It really says: "look at how far we've come when Neo-Nazi's and minorities can purchase shoddy Chinese goods at the same location."

[Rustpot 1]

The issue is you implied there was something the subjects of these photos could do about their pictures on the blog, on that you are dead wrong. You were wrong in claiming that one could get the police to some how prevent your picture from being taken on public property. You were also incorrect in stating that a business owner/empkoyee can throw someone out of the business for any reason.

Actually, you're wrong.

It's harassment while in the store, defamation/libel on the website. Maybe not prevent the photos entirely, but sure as hell land them in trouble after they take them.

Walmart, just like any business, has the right to refuse service to anyone. Just because they will let most anyone in does not mean anyone can stay and traipse around with cameras all they like. Once asked to leave if you do not you are trespassing and breaking the law.

If I catch someone snapping shots of me I WILL ask them to explain themselves and ask they delete/destroy them if I don't like why or call the police if they refuse. I have no idea if they are stalking me, trying to use my likeness without consent, or have a belief they are harvesting souls for offerings to the devil. If I find my ass on a website making fun of people being "redneck" or whathaveyou, I would demand to have it removed, then seek legal action if they didn't. If Walmart knew who was taking these photos and banned them from the store, entering the premises would be trespassing.

This is why paparazzi are usually off the property of restaurants, stores, etc where celebrities are and the only real close ups are on public streets or when they sneak up on them.

And don't go on about how the paparazzi do it to celebs so some jackass with a website can do it to anyone. There's a thing called "reasonable expectation of privacy" which we all have, and celebrities, being who they are, have been decidedly given less by judges and rulings.

[cptjeff 0]

The issue is you implied there was something the subjects of these photos could do about their pictures on the blog, on that you are dead wrong. You were wrong in claiming that one could get the police to some how prevent your picture from being taken on public property. You were also incorrect in stating that a business owner/empkoyee can throw someone out of the business for any reason.

Actually, you're wrong.

It's harassment while in the store, defamation/libel on the website. Maybe not prevent the photos entirely, but sure as hell land them in trouble after they take them.

Walmart, just like any business, has the right to refuse service to anyone. Just because they will let most anyone in does not mean anyone can stay and traipse around with cameras all they like. Once asked to leave if you do not you are trespassing and breaking the law.

If I catch someone snapping shots of me I WILL ask them to explain themselves and ask they delete/destroy them if I don't like why or call the police if they refuse. I have no idea if they are stalking me, trying to use my likeness without consent, or have a belief they are harvesting souls for offerings to the devil. If I find my ass on a website making fun of people being "redneck" or whathaveyou, I would demand to have it removed, then seek legal action if they didn't. If Walmart knew who was taking these photos and banned them from the store, entering the premises would be trespassing.

This is why paparazzi are usually off the property of restaurants, stores, etc where celebrities are and the only real close ups are on public streets or when they sneak up on them.

And don't go on about how the paparazzi do it to celebs so some jackass with a website can do it to anyone. There's a thing called "reasonable expectation of privacy" which we all have, and celebrities, being who they are, have been decidedly given less by judges and rulings.

And you would loose in court if you were in a public location or business. And you sure as hell don't understand defamation and libel laws. In order for those to come into play, you have to specifically say something as fact that is blatantly false, known to be blatantly false and is damaging to the person's reputation. If a photo is unaltered, it will never come under defamation law. The absolute defense in those cases is truth- that's one of the founding principles of the United States legal system. If you wore the pink thong and t shirt in Wal mart, that photo is not in any way illegitimate unless Wal Mart has a store policy against it, in which case you complain to Wal Mart and They take legal action against them for violating store policy. Privacy rights do NOT come into play. As for libel, a "it seems to me that..." or a "It is my opinion that..." statement before a statement makes it an opinion rather then a statement of fact and thus not defamation.

Legitimate defamation includes something like the swiftboat ads from 2004. Blatantly untrue, known to be untrue. Damaging to reputation and good name. Wal mart photos representing an accurate portrayal are nowhere close to that.

And yes, the signs say they have the right to refuse service to anyone. However, that's wrong. Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

If you discriminate or refuse anyone based on one of those categories, you're in very deep shit with the US attorney's office. That doesn't mean you can't throw them out if they're a member of that class. It does mean that you can only do it if they're being a jackass, not just if they're black, female or gay.

And harassment is only if they keep doing it after asked to stop. However, they don't have to delete any photos, and if you try to overpower them and do it yourself you're in a good deal of shit for that. Assault or Battery, possibly theft or property destruction depending on what you do.

And honestly, if any of this was legally dubious, failblog and the like would have been shut down ages ago.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

It's harassment while in the store,

Not at all, harassment is an overt action that requires repetition. Certainly doesn't apply to passive activities like photo taken in public locations.

defamation/libel on the website. Maybe not prevent the photos entirely, but sure as hell land them in trouble after they take them.

You clearly have no grasp of how defamation, or libel, laws work. First, you'd have to prove something false was said with the intent of causing the subject harm. The photos are what they are, nothing untrue in them. Then you would have prove by preponderance of the evidence that economic damage resulted from the photos, and an exact dollar figure of that damage. Absent any one of those elements and you have no case.

Walmart, just like any business, has the right to refuse service to anyone. Just because they will let most anyone in does not mean anyone can stay and traipse around with cameras all they like. Once asked to leave if you do not you are trespassing and breaking the law.

Actually you don't. I can't open up a coffee shop and put up a "white's only sign," nor could I open up a sub shop and put up a "blacks only" sign. Can't open up a book store and put up a "no Catholics allowed" sign either. In fact a business is not allowed to refuse service to anyone based on the following: race, ethnicity, religion, sect, color, national origin, age, sex, familial status, veterns, or the disabled. In some states you can throw homosexuals on that list as well. So no mate, you can't refuse service to anyone you want. If you don't like it then don't open a business.

If I catch someone snapping shots of me I WILL ask them to explain themselves and ask they delete/destroy them if I don't like why or call the police if they refuse.

Seriously, call the cops some time and see what happens when you tell them you're calling because someone is taking your picture in a public space.

I have no idea if they are stalking me, trying to use my likeness without consent, or have a belief they are harvesting souls for offerings to the devil. If I find my ass on a website making fun of people being "redneck" or whathaveyou, I would demand to have it removed, then seek legal action if they didn't. If Walmart knew who was taking these photos and banned them from the store, entering the premises would be trespassing.

You can demand they worship you as the great god Walpanga and seek legal action if they won't. You wouldn't have a case. The only way using your likeness without consent could ever come into play is if you could prove that they were making money directly from your image. In short: this applies to famous people, not to the rest of us. Again, going back to the hockey rink: if someone wants to put pictures on their face book page from their hockey game that happen to contain you're image there's not a thing in the world you can do about it.

This is why paparazzi are usually off the property of restaurants, stores, etc where celebrities are and the only real close ups are on public streets or when they sneak up on them.

Again, no one said you have a right to go into a private business and take photos. But that's between you and the business. If someone entered a restaurant and took photos you'd come back to the basic fact that you were in a public space and no expectation of privacy.

There's a thing called "reasonable expectation of privacy" which we all have, and celebrities, being who they are, have been decidedly given less by judges and rulings.

You have one in your home, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any public space, or space held open to the public. "Reasonable" is the key word there. It's not reasonable to believe anything you do will be private when you are in a business open to the public. It's not reasonable to believe anything you do in a public park will be private by virtue of the fact the public has a right to be there.

[Rustpot 1]

Thanks for jumping to conclusions and reading between the lines on my post. It explains exactly why I usually try to not engage in discussions on this board in particular.

And you seem to forget the little part that says "reasonable expectation of privacy is an expectation of privacy recognized by society". If you can prove it in court that you can go shopping and expect to not have your picture taken and placed on a website that is obviously intended to ridicule and show you as a freak of society then you will win. There have been MANY more extreme stretches made.

And yes, you can refuse service to ANYONE. Your basis for refusal can be questioned, it doesn't matter if a handicapped, gay, female, African, veteran, 80 yeard old, Scientologist, albino walks in, you can keep them out.

And you obviously didn't get the rest of my point.

[Too Old 1]

Jesus H. Christ! It'd be much nicer if you two would just take the bickering to PM's instead.

[Drewhunz 3]

Don't worry, they're arguing their way to a few days off if they keep it up. It's amazing how many lawyers are on this board btw.

[Too Old 1]

I really enjoy this site for the wealth of information and help to be found. While a little fun now and then is good it drives me nuts to have to read where two adults bicker over things. Life's too short to not enjoy it guys! ;)

[Chadd 916]

I work at a grocery store, I see/deal with these people every day. I woudlnt go about making a parody site though, I'm sure if someone found out there picture was on the internet without permission it could get bad.

For the record, there are people at Bauer who aren't too pleased with you for posting the pics of the new Supreme skate line. I know because I talked to them the morning after you did it.

Bauer needs to recognize that they can't completely control the exposure. Once the skates leave their offices, people are going to see them and the pics are going to get out.

[Juice_Slowjamz 0]

I work at a grocery store, I see/deal with these people every day. I woudlnt go about making a parody site though, I'm sure if someone found out there picture was on the internet without permission it could get bad.

For the record, there are people at Bauer who aren't too pleased with you for posting the pics of the new Supreme skate line. I know because I talked to them the morning after you did it.

Bauer needs to recognize that they can't completely control the exposure. Once the skates leave their offices, people are going to see them and the pics are going to get out.

Word.

Skates aren't G14 classified.

[Scotty 8]

It's sad, pathetic, trashy, and screwed up all at once.