I should have specified I was referring to United States laws. I know German laws are more privacy-focused than the US.

The question said nothing about publishing.

@MichaelHall but Publishing or not is all that german law cares for in most cases (only for very intimate pictures possession is looked at as an infringement of the right)

But German publishing laws have absolutely nothing to do with taking a picture in the US. It is irrelevant.

@MichaelHall "Publishing" is showing the screenshot to a friend or uploading it to the cloud or social media. Basically if you don't want to take Schrödingers Screenshot, in that state where no-one knows about it, because no-one opened it, then publishing is the very core of the issue. You also should know that we answer for all juristictions, especially since the question was not tagged US at the time I answered, and had nothing US specific in it.

Perhaps there is a German word for "publish" that doesn't translate directly, but the English word comes from the Latin "publicare" which means to make something available to the public. Showing a photo to a friend would be an example of private, not public use. For cloud storage or social media, a determination of public or private would depend on your settings.

I understand answers from other jurisdictions are welcome, but that wasn't my point. The question asked only about taking a photo. Certainly what you may do with it after that is part of a good and complete answer, but commercial publication seems to be the central theme of your answer and it isn't the question that was asked.

@MichaelHall "publishing" isn't commercial publication. It is anything you do with that photo that involves a second pair of eyes. If I look it up in a dictionary, it says "law: communicate to a third party". Any third party. Not just the general public.

Yes, I agree you can publish without being paid, it's just that you mentioned paying the subjects, so I used the word "commercial". Anyway, letting that issue go, the definitions of "public" and "private" are well established and a merely involving a "second set of eyes" just doesn't meet any reasonable definition of public. In fact, a secret kept between two friends is almost the direct opposite. (a solo secret being the only higher level of privacy possible...) Since the question didn't even mention showing the screenshot to anybody else, I really don't see what your argument is...

Compare it to libel. Obviously you can libel anybody you want, to your private friends in emails, and if they keep their mouth shut, nobody will ever know or sue you. Doesn't make it legal though. It's still libel, because you talked to a third party aka "published" it. It doesn't need to be publicized (I think that is the word you were looking for originally).

But that's not what public or publish means at all. Look them up... and again, the question asked nothing about sharing with anyone. It just asked about taking a screenshot. If we can't agree on that then no discussion will be of any use. I will simply downvote and move on...

Then do so, I literally cannot do any more then quote a dictionary to you. If you do not believe the dictionary, I cannot help.

You actually haven't quoted a dictionary, that's the problem. How about I start? Oxford: Public 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. 2. done, perceived, or existing in open view.

to make known to another or to the public generally: dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/…

Oxford: Private 1. belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.

Oxford: Publish 1. prepare and issue (a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) for public sale, distribution, or readership.

Your definition is specific to "purposes of defamation" only. You are taking a specific corner case and trying to expand its limited applicability to everything. ("can I publish a secret to you? It will be public, just between you and I" said no person ever.)