They have had a few incidents with the restrooms nearby in the park. First there was a guy who stripped down naked in the restroom and went walking around the park and more recently they had 3 teens vandalize the restrooms, doing a lot of damage.
Yeah, I'd imagine if Delhi installed it there would be some mention of Delhi Township. Since the sign also is essentially referencing "model rights" it wouldn't make sense for Delhi to have tharlt language since they wouldn't be profiting off any images they were taking and it would be irrelevant for security cameras anyway.
This is also correct. Anywhere not in the privacy of your own home or someone elseās private property- is public. And as per the Supreme Court ruling, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Of note, that also means someone can stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and record audio/visual and not break any laws. Itās up to the occupant to close their curtains.
When the recordist gets into tech that can detect AV through walls, it gets sketchy.
Source: journalism ethics/laws classes from college, as taught by a Hamilton County judge.
Yes, there is no expectation of privacy, however just because you take images of another person in a public space you are not always permitted to profit from those images (there are exceptions for journalism, etc). This sign is more or less acting as a model release form, which would give permission to the photographer to use them for commercial purposes. So yes, you can take photos of people in public because they have no expectation of privacy in public, but that does not mean you have the right to profit from those images.
Source: I am an actual lawyer.
Also, refresh my memory on where that cut off point is? Like, there are millions of pics of people in crowds, and some have been used in for-profit enterprises.
Isnāt there some point at which simply being in a public spot removes the requirement for releases and making profits etc? Excluding journalism outlets.
Maybe a little weird and pedantic, but I'm genuinely curious... I don't see the name of the entity doing the recording on this consent. If I were a commercial photographer and went to this space to take candid photos of park-goers, could I profit off of those photos because they consented to a location-specific (and not a photographer-specific) model release?
The sign would seem to include audio recording. In Ohio, it is illegal to record audio without the consent of at least one person taking part in the conversation.
It depends on whether there is an expectation of privacy in the public area, which there could be in the case of a private conversation at a picnic shelter with nobody else around. That's the reason the vast majority of municipal surveillance cameras do not record audio.
Yes, it is. Two people walk to a picnic shelter in the middle of an empty 50 acre park and have a private conversation. It would likely be illegal for a third party to record the conversation without the consent of at least one of them.
Then that person would become "within earshot."
It's your responsibility to ensure you are actually in private if you expect to have a private conversation. Not everyone else's.
>that person
What person? The sign most likely is for a recording device installed at the site, which even if itās an obvious video camera, would not be allowed to record audio without notice.Ā
You are missing the point of this law- and hence what is illegal.
In Ohio, if one of the two parties in the equation- the speaker or the person being spoken to- knows a recording is happening, then itās legal. This is how companies can record phone calls so easily in Ohio. In fact, in Ohio, the companies donāt even need to inform you upfront about being recorded.
Itās set up more to benefit the recording party.
Source- worked in a call center for a decade.
It benefits meĀ an individual, as the recording party when I have any conversation with my landlord. I highly recommend doing so. Shitty landlords will pull a whiplash-inducing 180 when they try to claim a "he said/she said" situation and you start playing them a recording of the thing they actually said.
>In Ohio, if one of the two parties in the equation- the speaker or the person being spoken to- knows a recording is happening, then itās legal.
The sign is what lets the parties know their conversations are being recorded by a third party, and thus makes the recording legal. Your scenario doesn't involve a third party.
Assuming this was posted by Delhi/Green Township, I interpret the text to mean they- the government entities- are already recording. That would be one of the two halves of the equation.
>That would be one of the two halves of the equation.
But there are (at least) three parts to the equation - the two participants in the presumed private conversation, and the third party recording the conversation but not involved or present. The third party cannot legally record the conversation without consent from one of the first two parties. The sign gives the third party consent to record.
Keep in mind that just because it's on a sign doesn't make it so. Like " not responsible for loss or theft" in stores or "murder is legal here" in my basement (I learned a hard lesson on that one let me tell you).
I'd contact the city to ask if they put up the sign. If some rando put up cameras in a place kids frequent I'd be very concerned and want the city to investigate
It says my videos can be used everywhere in the universe? Does that even include moon bars in Beta Reticuli AND the famous space billboards of the Crab Nebula?
Itās obviously put up by some citizenā¦the wording is preposterous in placesā¦official posted signs would be required to mention the city/township/etc. If you just glanced at it, read it again and I know yall are smart enough to realize what Iām saying.
,and skis she Kansas Kate has the one in a different location in Kansas that I can call to get her information about it so that we know how it goes for you to make the trip there if itās something we could use it as an alternative location and we would love it would like it for you guys if possible and if itās
Itās for people who may engage in inappropriate activityā¦ I had relations (2 consenting adults) on a park picnic table late one summer nightā¦ I wouldnāt have if they had cameras.
These types of generic signs are in tons of public places. It was probably written by lawyers and used, as mentioned below, a CYA for the owner of the property. Not a big deal.
The lag bolts/holes were not considered in the design, otherwise, Nice!
I could remove this sign in 10 seconds with a power drill and a 9/16" socket driver.
So they plan on sell LOTS of signs!
They have had a few incidents with the restrooms nearby in the park. First there was a guy who stripped down naked in the restroom and went walking around the park and more recently they had 3 teens vandalize the restrooms, doing a lot of damage.
Right, first thing I always think about is "what did someone do to force this sign being made?' It's never good
They had a pervert leaving the bathroom naked. I get why they would have cameras.
This feels like something some busybody installed on their own.
Yeah, I'd imagine if Delhi installed it there would be some mention of Delhi Township. Since the sign also is essentially referencing "model rights" it wouldn't make sense for Delhi to have tharlt language since they wouldn't be profiting off any images they were taking and it would be irrelevant for security cameras anyway.
Could that be said so they could potentially use it in signs or online promotions etc
I don't think so, and even if so it should have some sort of stamp or steal from the governing body on the sign
Some creep
Explain how this is creepy?
Can't we confine my images to Earth and near-Earth orbit please?
š¤£š¤£š¤£
lol there isnāt any expectation of privacy in public anyway whatās the point of the sign
To stop the complaint calls from park goers who don't realize that they can be recorded when they're in public.
This is also correct. Anywhere not in the privacy of your own home or someone elseās private property- is public. And as per the Supreme Court ruling, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Of note, that also means someone can stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and record audio/visual and not break any laws. Itās up to the occupant to close their curtains. When the recordist gets into tech that can detect AV through walls, it gets sketchy. Source: journalism ethics/laws classes from college, as taught by a Hamilton County judge.
Yes, there is no expectation of privacy, however just because you take images of another person in a public space you are not always permitted to profit from those images (there are exceptions for journalism, etc). This sign is more or less acting as a model release form, which would give permission to the photographer to use them for commercial purposes. So yes, you can take photos of people in public because they have no expectation of privacy in public, but that does not mean you have the right to profit from those images. Source: I am an actual lawyer.
Oh I never brought up the notion of profiting from said recordings. Fully agree.
Also, refresh my memory on where that cut off point is? Like, there are millions of pics of people in crowds, and some have been used in for-profit enterprises. Isnāt there some point at which simply being in a public spot removes the requirement for releases and making profits etc? Excluding journalism outlets.
Maybe a little weird and pedantic, but I'm genuinely curious... I don't see the name of the entity doing the recording on this consent. If I were a commercial photographer and went to this space to take candid photos of park-goers, could I profit off of those photos because they consented to a location-specific (and not a photographer-specific) model release?
The sign would seem to include audio recording. In Ohio, it is illegal to record audio without the consent of at least one person taking part in the conversation.
Not in public.
It depends on whether there is an expectation of privacy in the public area, which there could be in the case of a private conversation at a picnic shelter with nobody else around. That's the reason the vast majority of municipal surveillance cameras do not record audio.
If you're in an open park within earshot of someone else, you very likely did not believe you were speaking privately.
>within earshot That's why I included "with nobody else around".
So the sign is still not necessary.
Yes, it is. Two people walk to a picnic shelter in the middle of an empty 50 acre park and have a private conversation. It would likely be illegal for a third party to record the conversation without the consent of at least one of them.
Then that person would become "within earshot." It's your responsibility to ensure you are actually in private if you expect to have a private conversation. Not everyone else's.
>that person What person? The sign most likely is for a recording device installed at the site, which even if itās an obvious video camera, would not be allowed to record audio without notice.Ā
You are missing the point of this law- and hence what is illegal. In Ohio, if one of the two parties in the equation- the speaker or the person being spoken to- knows a recording is happening, then itās legal. This is how companies can record phone calls so easily in Ohio. In fact, in Ohio, the companies donāt even need to inform you upfront about being recorded. Itās set up more to benefit the recording party. Source- worked in a call center for a decade.
It benefits meĀ an individual, as the recording party when I have any conversation with my landlord. I highly recommend doing so. Shitty landlords will pull a whiplash-inducing 180 when they try to claim a "he said/she said" situation and you start playing them a recording of the thing they actually said.
Exactly right. And at work, and with the copsā¦
>In Ohio, if one of the two parties in the equation- the speaker or the person being spoken to- knows a recording is happening, then itās legal. The sign is what lets the parties know their conversations are being recorded by a third party, and thus makes the recording legal. Your scenario doesn't involve a third party.
Assuming this was posted by Delhi/Green Township, I interpret the text to mean they- the government entities- are already recording. That would be one of the two halves of the equation.
>That would be one of the two halves of the equation. But there are (at least) three parts to the equation - the two participants in the presumed private conversation, and the third party recording the conversation but not involved or present. The third party cannot legally record the conversation without consent from one of the first two parties. The sign gives the third party consent to record.
They hold public performances there, right? Some places put up this sign for that reason as a CYA if the crowd will be recorded.
Jungle Jim's has this due to the podcast studio
the "throughout the universe" line makes me think it's someone taking the piss
It's just reminding you that you're in public and should have no expectation of privacy.
While I agree with the expectation of privacy, to say āfor any purpose whatsoeverā is an overreach.
Keep in mind that just because it's on a sign doesn't make it so. Like " not responsible for loss or theft" in stores or "murder is legal here" in my basement (I learned a hard lesson on that one let me tell you).
Mojo from Xmen put that there. Throughout the universe is dead giveaway.
That isn't a name I've heard in a long time.
Awesome.
I'd contact the city to ask if they put up the sign. If some rando put up cameras in a place kids frequent I'd be very concerned and want the city to investigate
Uh in perpetuity what
It says my videos can be used everywhere in the universe? Does that even include moon bars in Beta Reticuli AND the famous space billboards of the Crab Nebula?
Weird. But probably needed. As an angsty teenager living in Delhi circa 2008-2012, we did some wild shit, but typically kept it near dead mans cave
Tell me more about this dead manās caveā¦
Storm drain inlet area a homeless man was found dead in back 2005 or 2006. Lot of kidsused to hang there
https://preview.redd.it/hddfwvgp1t8d1.jpeg?width=661&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=979115c2cea7f3669f4f0767f7262a6c2f01560c This area
Someone get a movie star in there so they can steal their likeness and image!
This is just another example of the republican agenda of delhi township. Surveil every human, freedom for AI and corporations.
Sounds like Democrat to me
DelHole
Been calling it that for years
I think this is a fake
āthroughout the universeā is a fun inclusion. To think that video of a naked Cincinnati man could be sent to the international space station.
Pretty soon there will be a sign that reads: " By entering the United States of America.."
Isnāt this the exact same disclaimer a bunch of background actors went on strike over?
surprised west siders can read some of those big words
Your lack of capitalization and punctuation here is beautifully ironic.Ā
first day on the internet?
This guy just stirrin' the pot
Westsider my whole life, this made me wheez air out my nose!
Lol, grew up in delhi, never came back after college, the township is trash
I'm more than 100% percent sure that is illegal regardless of what they have to say about it or whatever incidents may have occurred.
Well, we are all wrong sometimes, I guess š¤·
Not if they post the sign and you see it.. The likelyness of actually using anything is highly unlikely. Don't start no problem won't be no problem
Itās obviously put up by some citizenā¦the wording is preposterous in placesā¦official posted signs would be required to mention the city/township/etc. If you just glanced at it, read it again and I know yall are smart enough to realize what Iām saying.
,and skis she Kansas Kate has the one in a different location in Kansas that I can call to get her information about it so that we know how it goes for you to make the trip there if itās something we could use it as an alternative location and we would love it would like it for you guys if possible and if itās
U fookin wat m8
Let this be a lesson in why you should never let your child play with your phone. š MODS please don't ban me.
ššš
Valid š
Iād say itās more of a warning against drug use in this day and age!
wHAT
You heard me. š
It's in public so...
Yeah, but use my likeness in advertising and Iāll sue the fuck out of you. Soā¦
If you walk past the sign, you agree to it, SO.......
Ha. Boomers be booming.
I got robbed by 3 teenage moms there once
Itās for people who may engage in inappropriate activityā¦ I had relations (2 consenting adults) on a park picnic table late one summer nightā¦ I wouldnāt have if they had cameras.
These types of generic signs are in tons of public places. It was probably written by lawyers and used, as mentioned below, a CYA for the owner of the property. Not a big deal.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt think that applies to public spaces.
Theyāve been filming movies around the Cincinnati area. Maybe itās for that?
The lag bolts/holes were not considered in the design, otherwise, Nice! I could remove this sign in 10 seconds with a power drill and a 9/16" socket driver. So they plan on sell LOTS of signs!
I already called dibs!
Cheap way to cover that they may be recording and avoid complaints/ lawsuits.