It honestly doesn’t bother me. I realize this is a minority perspective so I’m not here to push everyone else to believe the same as I do. I’m just answering the OP’s question and providing a rationale for my opinion.
I don’t walk around feeling like the world owes me anything. I am content and that is my wealth. If some other person makes a fortune off of a snippet of my life then it honestly has no effect on me, whether I know about it or not. It’s always a choice. I can choose to feel cheated and entitled or I can choose to be content with my life. I also don’t currently view my playing as anything to be stolen. Maybe that is a big part of it that professional/accomplished musicians have to consider which I don’t.
As with so many things in life, context matters:
If I botch a tune, then my position is, “Damned cameras… really, is all that filming necessary?”
If I’m playing unusually well, my position is, “Where’s a video camera when you need one?!”
I seldom feel comfortable filming others, because even if I like what they’re playing, I don’t know whether they’re happy with how the session sounds.
Er … no … but I may be being even more than usually thick … I don’t see the connection …
I mean, this, here, is a public discussion. On a public board. My behaviour in public places - is that public property? I don’t think so. But, as I’ve tried to explain, I can’t quite work out my own feelings on this.
maybe I’m just simple 
is not public public 
Thanks for the answer Ben (and I wasn’t being hypothetical - good to hear these tunes in the wild). I suppose one difficulty is there are several different aspects and several different viewpoints to judge it from. I think the vouyeur camera in the changing room is a bad analogy because that is not a public place, but it does raise the issue of knowledge on the part of the ‘subject’ - if the police find someone with hundreds of hours of voyeur camera recordings I wonder how many people would prefer not to know. That seems close to Ben saying that if he didn’t know he couldn’t be annoyed.
The OP mentioned Paddy Keenan - I think there is something voyeristic about videoing a well know player when they are just having a few tunes rather than performing for an audience. Putting it on youtube makes it worse (‘hey look what I’ve got’). And how about duo playing a small venue deciding to try out a new arrangement with an audience for the first time - surely posting a video on youtube is just plain bad manners. And how about Ben’s T-shirt ?
There’s nothing wrong with Che.
dang Ben, you got a mess o’ Wiki pages… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hall
No. It was an example of something that might have been important or not, a bit of a joke or a deep personal personal statement, for that day or the last 40 years. The video preserves the ephemeral and the ‘candid’ videographer can’t know if the ‘subject’ would want that or not.
I’m thinking through how recording something done in public can be a breach of privacy.
I know. Been around a while.
I’m persuading myself more into Ben’s way of looking at it.
Is that public as in having a discussion amongst a crowd in the pub or public as in having a discussion on C&F ? The discussion in the pub happens in the here and now, onloookers may be part of that but any detail going forwards in time is more like gossip (which is what I was getting at with my quip about the T-shirt). The video is gossip and likelyhood of gossip can spoil the moment.
so then, do ya agree with the record companies’ business model?
Here’s the thing, in answer to what I think is Denny’s point: When I post on here, I am fully aware that it is public, more or less permanent and on display for the whole world to see. I implicitly consent to that by my very act of posting. But when I leave my house, walk down the street and do anything else that just happens to be in a public place, if people photograph me or video me without my permission, I believe that that is an invasion of privacy. I don’t consent to my ordinary, everyday actions being recorded and broadcast just by stepping out of my house.
However, as I have said, sometimes I find that I don’t mind, in practice. I still think it’s rude of people to do it though.
I don’t understand denny’s point.
Have you ever seen a Google Streeview camera car go past Ben ? If it was working then there is probably a photo of you going about your normal business available on the web (i’m now trying to remember where I saw the car). And how about those town centres where the public have accepted that surveillance cameras are a good thing.
I’m not sure ‘invasion of privacy’ is the right word. I think it is more about good manners and working to the consensus what what most people think is OK - which you may disagree with. I live in a small village where the neighbours can see each others comings and goings; the polite thing to do is not to pay attention (or comment on less than expert noises from instruments 
). But if old Mrs Jones doesn’t pick up her paper from by the gate someone will go and see if she is OK - so we have been noticing really. [edit: previously was watching not noticing]
What if that session had been on the street and the camera was from the local TV station ?
Obviously one can get recorded, filmed, photographed in most places. That in itself is not a breach of privacy, unless the camera is sneaked into your home. If recording or videoing gets annoying in a pub, it may be good to chat with the pub owner, so he can do something about it, if he feels it necessary.
It is an entirely different matter if anything recorded gets published, in any way. That is not breaching privacy, but copyright, I think (I’m no lawyer). Unfortunately in an age of facebooking and youtubing this is the norm, and ordinary folk seem to be powerless to fight such publications. Google has a lot to answer there, and regarding streetview: that should be banned. In Germany people can demand to have the pic of their house blurred, but I think this opt-out option is not good enough. If we want to stop world wide BigBrother from happening, we need to demand that services such as StreetView do not happen. CCTV is bad enough, but it does not get screened on TV, unless it is part of a crime news story.
decades if not centuries too late, innit?
Yes, David, I absolutely hate Google streetview. They put up pictures of my home, and probably everyone else’s, that show exactly where the vulnerabilities are and you can even zoom in on them. No need to even visit before casing the joint now, which means you can case a whole area of the size of a small town in about an hour, if you have a mind to it. And Google says that they will remove your home if you ask. This is not the case. They have repeatedly ignored my requests. Am I naive in not wanting my home advertised to potential burglars? Google no longer believes in ‘Don’t be Evil’.
Oh, and they say that they blur people so you can’t identify them. The other week, I was sat with several women who were looking at Google streetview and who could clearly identify whose car it was in several different pictures. In at least one of these pictures, it was clear to these women that the owner of the car should not have been visiting the owner of the house. It’s often easy to identify vehicles (blurred number plates but stickers and markings still very evident) and people (blurring the faces does not disguise people to those who know them well).
I think what Google has been doing is an invasion of privacy, and I for one don’t think we should accept it. And look what it does to communities, witness Germany, where neighbour has been set against neighbour by it.
In fact, I think Google streetview is a very good example of what I don’t like about the prying, snooping world we now live in, and a good example of a bad instance of public photography.
I don’t care. I don’t like it.
I mainly agree with you Ben, and in the past I have done work where we had to carefully look over outdoor photos taken for a legitimate (some would say ‘public interest’) reason to see if anyone might be embarassed, but at times we had (with legal advice) just had to shrug and say ‘heck if we worried about everything it would be hard to ever publish an outdoor photo’.
But I also agree with denny - people have been hitching their horses outside the wrong door for a long time.
Err, is it relevant that they were women ?
Who, the horses?
This is taking the OP a little far afield, but as far as Google streetview, I do hope everyone realizes that the streetview shown is far from being current, up-to-the-moment. I just checked my home online and the current streetview is a good two weeks out of date. I’m not sure how often it gets updated either, but wouldn’t expect it to be all that often (based on satellite flyover and the like).
Regarding the OP, if anyone would video my session playing it would only be run in a bloopers reel, so I guess I would personally prefer not to be posted online. However I have a bit of an aversion to being photographed at all (from years of having to pose for family snapshots and the like).