Forums

    11 posts

  • avatar
    128 sounds
    194 posts
    Recording with highly questionable behavior and language


    Just wanted to seek some kind of input/advice, or perhaps even just to discuss the moral and legal issues around recordings performed in public.

    A recent (and my first) trip to Las Vegas occurred a few weeks back, and I found myself on a transit authority bus (already recording the entire trip of course). A NYC-born Vegas local gets on and basically immediately starts to blow a gasket at how long the bus company left him waiting in 105deg heat. After that, because the bus is unsafely overcrowded he ended up standing immediately behind me and continuing his tirade at top volume into his cell phone and ultimately among other riders. Anywhere else in the world, not only would he have been put off the bus, but there may well have been police waiting at the next stop. Of course, its Vegas so that didn't happen. Now that I'm not in the same location as he, the recording is quit interesting and even funny, it was a little more tense at the time however.

    Because it is a true field-recording, I am tempted to post it; But this recording is substantially more vulgar and violent than anything else I have recorded to date, so wasn't sure if there is a decency code. Of course, if the moderators didn't approve it, I would have my answer right there as well I suppose.

    Basically the below exposes the legal issue from Nevada's point of view, however technically many of our Publicly obtained recordings continually run the risk of infringing upon this. I didn't see any of the provisions excluding public places where reasonable expectation of privacy is less possible:

    NRS 200.650
    Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.
    Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

  • avatar
    1927 sounds
    1765 posts


    I'm not a laywer but I don't think there can be an "expectation of privacy" on public transport...

    Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person's residence and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses, or a phone booth.

    In general, one cannot have an expectation of privacy in public places, with the exceptions mentioned above.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

  • avatar
    527 sounds
    651 posts


    I agree with Timbre.

    This bloke invaded your privacy so he is fair game as far as I am concerned. Upload it by all means.

    "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." Douglas Adams
  • avatar
    1927 sounds
    1765 posts


    Benboncan and I are in the UK where there are no privacy laws.
    If the situation occurred here civil legal action would be impossible.

    However in the USA the unreasonable loudmouth could attempt to sue you for “negligent/ intentional infliction of emotional distress” or other such legalese if you publicised a recording of their behaviour which they may be embarrassed by.
    It could cost plenty to defend yourself against their suit even if they failed to prove their case.

    The Texas case of Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) is illustrative. In this case, the defendant secretly videotaped himself engaging in sexual activities with the plaintiff. The defendant then showed this videotape to numerous individuals and caused severe distress to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

    On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court observed that the facts did not support a claim of negligence. Rather, the Court noted, the facts clearly supported a claim of an intentional injury by the defendant and it was evident that the claim had been cast as "negligence" solely to obtain insurance coverage. The Court then went on to hold that Texas did not recognize a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_infliction_of_emotional_distress

    I'd certainly bleep out any names, or anything which could be used to identify persons involved.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts


    Yeah, but what if you weren't recording, but on the phone with someone else at the time. He comes in, not paying attention to other passengers. Unable to continue your own conversation, you and the person you're calling with listen to his rant for a short while. There is no real difference between recording and listening to/monitoring according to below text. He can expect people to be on the phone on the bus, so when he starts yelling when he enters, he can expect to be listened to, monitored, even narrowcasted over phone network to other people outside the bus. If that's all fine with him, then so he should be fine with recording.
    Especially in Vegas, I would think you can always expect tourists on the bus videotaping as well. He's the one disturbing their recordings, so he should keep his yap shut when the tourists put it on YouTube or whatever.

    The case of the sexual activities videotape is different, because that occurred in a private situation and location and the plaintiff could not have expected the activities to be listened to, monitored or recorded.

    lonemonk

    NRS 200.650
    Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.
    Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

  • avatar
    1927 sounds
    1765 posts


    nemoDaedalus
    The case of the sexual activities videotape is different, because that occurred in a private situation and location and the plaintiff could not have expected the activities to be listened to, monitored or recorded.

    The fact the sex tape was made in a private place isn't a necessary condition for the claim of “negligent/ intentional infliction of emotional distress”.
    If the Texan fellow had made the sex tape in a public place, say outdoors in national park, his ex could still attempt to sue for “negligent / intentional infliction of emotional distress” when he showed the tape to his mates (or if he broadcast it on the internet).

    “negligent/ intentional infliction of emotional distress” claims are often tenuous and usually fail but can still come to court, which means lawyer$.

  • avatar
    128 sounds
    194 posts


    Thanks for all thoughts on the topic. I have all along considered the legal aspects to be secondary and mostly a matter of a larger debate on recording in public. Since no one can be identified by full name and due to the venue in which it occurred, should be ok. It is at very least an audio example of human intolerance.

    I will post the file sometime this weekend and see if any moderators take exception to the content based on their understanding of freesound rules.

    I'll post the link in here when its up so at least you can have a listen.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts


    Timbre
    nemoDaedalus
    The case of the sexual activities videotape is different, because that occurred in a private situation and location and the plaintiff could not have expected the activities to be listened to, monitored or recorded.

    The fact the sex tape was made in a private place isn't a necessary condition for the claim of “negligent/ intentional infliction of emotional distress”.
    If the Texan fellow had made the sex tape in a public place, say outdoors in national park, his ex could still attempt to sue for “negligent / intentional infliction of emotional distress” when he showed the tape to his mates (or if he broadcast it on the internet).

    “negligent/ intentional infliction of emotional distress” claims are often tenuous and usually fail but can still come to court, which means lawyer$.


    Ok, but it still would have been a private situation wher the plaintiff could not have expected being videotaped or the videotape being shown to any third party. If the couple started having sex on a crowded bus and then one of the passengers videotaped them, it would have been a different situation, in which she could have expected their behavior being filmed. I know I would.

  • avatar
    1927 sounds
    1765 posts


    nemoDaedalus
    If the couple started having sex on a crowded bus ...

    I'm sure that routinely takes place on Amsterdam's public transport smile

  • avatar
    128 sounds
    194 posts


    I did post the recording, under moderation now. Will send a link once complete.

  • avatar
    128 sounds
    194 posts


    http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=101276

    11 posts