Two from the doctor's waiting room

[otherprof]

At the doctor's office this morning, with iPhone

 

[Jeff15]

Nice fone shots.....

 

[pixmedic]

nope. in fact, many doctors offices have cameras in the lobby and entryways. as does pretty much every emergency room waiting area.
the expectation of privacy begins when you are in a private room speaking with a provider or other medical personal.
your personal feelings may be such that you wouldnt photograph anyone in that area, but the waiting areas are still considered public spaces which is why the providers always call people back to a room before discussing anything sensitive with them.

this has come up plenty where I work when people want to videotape or photograph what is going on in the lobby...word from the hospital systems legal team as well as the directors are that lobby is fair game and we cannot stop them.
private rooms are another matter.

 

[terri]

This link is to a hospital in Aruba, and it's from their personal website. They have every right to their own company rules.

If the OP took these shots in this facility, I agree it seems outside their posted rules on photography.

I'm in agreement with the guidelines posted by Pix here for what's allowed in the US.

 

[pixmedic]

your first link is simply stating that hospitals policy. not legal policy.
your second link appears to be pictures of someone that was in a coma. those would have been taken in a private room where there IS an expectation of privacy.
an altogether different situation.
also, note that in that case those pictures were reported yet were not made to be taken down, as far as the original story goes.
i can seclude myself in a wal-mart isle, but that does not mean i am owed my privacy.
if there are no signs at the business barring photography, its not a legal issue in that public space.
your feelings that it is a sensitive environment/situation do not make it a legal obligation to do or not do something.

 

[waday]

for what's allowed in the US.

Sorry to get into the weeds, but wouldn't that be: for what's allowed in Pix's hospital? This is such a vague and definitive statement that I do not think applies to everything (in the US). Wouldn't it depend on each individual facility/office? For example, if I go to a (private) doctor's office, the doctor is likely renting space in a building; therefore, the property I drive and park on is private and the doctor's office itself is private. I would then theoretically need permission from all the above to photograph, and they could legally stop me at any point since I'm on private property.

 

[The_Traveler]

Interestingly, a health care provider would not be allowed to take this picture above and post it because, under HIPAA, they have a responsibility to keep secure the patient's protected health information which includes the images that would allow the person to be identified.

 

[pixmedic]

for what's allowed in the US.

Sorry to get into the weeds, but wouldn't that be: for what's allowed in Pix's hospital? This is such a vague and definitive statement that I do not think applies to everything (in the US). Wouldn't it depend on each individual facility/office? For example, if I go to a (private) doctor's office, the doctor is likely renting space in a building; therefore, the property I drive and park on is private and the doctor's office itself is private. I would then theoretically need permission from all the above to photograph, and they could legally stop me at any point since I'm on private property.

laws governing photography have always been kinda shady, and with the advent of the camera phone it just complicates things.
US law says that public areas are fair game. there is no distinction between a wal-mart and an ER lobby. (unless you are a health care provider)
most people dont want their picture taken while they are just out about during their day whether its at a restaurant having a private dinner, or while sitting in a doctors office waiting room waiting for test results, yet nobody bats an eye at a candid photo of someone eating a meal. im sure that guy proposing to his girlfriend at the park they first met at doesn't want some random person photographing them to post up on social media. the entire rallying cry behind street photography is "public space gives me the right to photograph"....those offices are public space (areas that are used by the general public, not owned by the general public)
patients and non medical personal do not fall under HIPPA.
the solution would be for places that dont want photographs being taken in their facilities to post up notices stating a "no photography" policy. in the US it is legal for a business to ban photography within their place of business.

 

[otherprof]

At the doctor's office this morning, with iPhone

Why did I post those shots from the waiting room? Never again!

 

[pixmedic]

At the doctor's office this morning, with iPhone

Why did I post those shots from the waiting room? Never again!

View attachment 166860

dont sweat it. its no big deal

 

[waday]

US law says that public areas are fair game. there is no distinction between a wal-mart and an ER lobby.

Hmm. I've seen no photography signs on storefronts. Outside the store, I can see. Inside, I'm assuming it's Walmart's choice since it's Walmart's property.

Since you're making the claim, take your camera inside Walmart and start taking pictures. See how long it'll take a manager or employee to inform you to stop taking pictures. You'll be told that you're not a customer, and that you're inhibiting the use of the store for others, thus you're trespassing and you need to leave immediately or the police will be called. Hasn't happened to me personally, but I can see this being their response.

Also, regarding your post, I don't necessarily disagree with you, except for the fact that if it's private property, the owner could call the authorities if you refuse to leave. While I generally agree that an office is used by the general public, it's only used by the general public that have business there. If someone decides to just wander in and sit in the waiting room, my guess is they'd be asked to leave.

All this said, I'm all for using our rights to the extent we have them. This is a good discussion.

 

[limr]

The legal right to take photographs exists. Business are allowed to regulate that right for their own properties, but that is not the same as saying that something is illegal. It is against that business's policy, but not against the law. The business can impose penalties or remove you, but they can't press charges under a "no photographs" statute. It would have to be violation of something else, or maybe trespassing.

 

[waday]

The legal right to take photographs exists. Business are allowed to regulate that right for their own properties, but that is not the same as saying that something is illegal. It is against that business's policy, but not against the law. The business can impose penalties or remove you, but they can't press charges under a "no photographs" statute. It would have to be violation of something else, or maybe trespassing.

So we're saying the same thing?

they could legally stop me at any point since I'm on private property.

thus you're trespassing and you need to leave immediately or the police will be called.

could call the authorities if you refuse to leave

My entire argument is based on being on private property with the owner having the authority to make one leave if that person has no business there or are going against their policies--thus trespassing. I did not mean to indicate that taking pictures was illegal, rather continuing to be on private property against the owner's wishes was illegal. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[pixmedic]

US law says that public areas are fair game. there is no distinction between a wal-mart and an ER lobby.

Hmm. I've seen no photography signs on storefronts. Outside the store, I can see. Inside, I'm assuming it's Walmart's choice since it's Walmart's property.

Since you're making the claim, take your camera inside Walmart and start taking pictures. See how long it'll take a manager or employee to inform you to stop taking pictures. You'll be told that you're not a customer, and that you're inhibiting the use of the store for others, thus you're trespassing and you need to leave immediately or the police will be called. Hasn't happened to me personally, but I can see this being their response.

Also, regarding your post, I don't necessarily disagree with you, except for the fact that if it's private property, the owner could call the authorities if you refuse to leave. While I generally agree that an office is used by the general public, it's only used by the general public that have business there. If someone decides to just wander in and sit in the waiting room, my guess is they'd be asked to leave.

All this said, I'm all for using our rights to the extent we have them. This is a good discussion.

im not sure exactly what claim you think im making. i only claimed that it was legal to take pictures in public areas.
even if i DID take my camera into wal-mart and took pictures, and even IF the management asked me to leave, they could do nothing about the pictures i already took.
they could not confiscate my camera, nor do anything about the pictures if i post them online. they could only ask me to leave. have you not seen the many "people of wal-mart" pages? im sure wal-mart would rather those not be there.

im not sure why someone would walk into a business and start taking pictures anyway without some sort of other ulterior motive. nor do i understand why said person would refuse to leave to the point where they are trespassed out, but i suppose its a plausible scenario, albeit an unlikely one.

my claim was that the entire genre of "street photography" is based on the "public area" claim, and much of it revolves around taking pictures of people that either do not know they are being photographed, or simply can do nothing to stop it. i doubt many people shooting in that style stop and ask people for permission, or what their situation is.
I would gather that a fair amount of street shots capture people in very private or sensitive moments, regardless of location, but noone really bats an eye at the vast majority of it.

the morality/ethics of that sort of photography is a whole conversation unto itself, and really does not need to be had on this thread except that those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[waday]

Refer to my post here. Good to know that we agree.