The media doesn't even photograph people without their permission. Who
the heck do you think you are, someone special? Don't invade the wrong
persons privacy, you could be surprised.

Basic rule of photography? Is NOT the law of the land.

Don Forsling wrote:

No, thank you! The BASIC rule of photography is this (and I make a living
at it):

If you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on public property, you can
legally photograph anything you can see from where you are standing. There
are, of course, exceptions for various national security considerations,
etc., but it is absolutely not against the law to stand on a public sidewalk
or in a public street and take a picture of somebody's house, their rose
bushes, their car, their ugly fence, their goofy-looking mailbox, their body
etc., etc. The fourth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it. And
it's not at all like the case of a museum--a museum is, first of all, not
public property in the sense of the law as it applies to photography (or
just plain "seeing"). First of all, photography (flash) can damage museum
property and annoy the patrons and is often prohibited by _rule_ for that
reason. Also, and one does not have unrestricted access to a museum as one
does to a street. It is not _public_ in the sense that's pertinent here.
And by the way, you _can_ legally take a picture of, say, the side of a
house sporting an open window and capture, perhaps, some of what's inside
the house and visible. And that's the law.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500, wrote:

What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA
but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady
(who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they
find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just
a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes,
my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't
enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit
21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the
roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line
when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build
the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union
County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport
would have heavier traffic.

Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several
months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a
Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have
gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally
long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real
estate lady and the guy next door.

I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you
enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade
yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my
privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just
because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S.
Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy.

"God Bless America"

Tell you what Jim, I'll stand in the public street all I want and take
pictures of anything I want to and you can't do squat about it. I
won't trespass on your property and I won't take pictures inside your
property without your permission. Your privacy ends at your front
door, and rightly so but what's in public view is just that...public.
Ask the people at Bay Hill CC in Orlando who lost the lawsuit against
the computer game company that used images of their houses in a golf
game. Ask the big-time Hollywood star who just lost the lawsuit
against the paparazzi taking pictures outside her house. Don't be
foolish enough to accost me on public property or threaten me. The
immediate and long-term repercussions will amaze you. You aren't big
enough to intimidate me and you don't have enough money to make the
legal problems go away. Grow up a little and consult a professional
instead of getting legal advice from television or here on the 'net.
In a bit of irony, we are almost on the same side in this. I am
currently looking for a home in an area without deed restrictions.
Even if I weren't a ham, I would not sign a contract for a house with
CCRs. I lived in Heathrow in Seminole County, FL and in another CCR
community here in NC and I've had enough. When you sign for a house
in a CCR community, you are signing an ordinary commercial contract
that is completely enforceable (from both sides!) no matter what you
think or how hard you stamp your feet.

Russ

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:13:03 -0500, wrote:

The media doesn't even photograph people without their permission. Who
the heck do you think you are, someone special? Don't invade the wrong
persons privacy, you could be surprised.

Basic rule of photography? Is NOT the law of the land.

Don Forsling wrote:

No, thank you! The BASIC rule of photography is this (and I make a living
at it):

If you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on public property, you can
legally photograph anything you can see from where you are standing. There
are, of course, exceptions for various national security considerations,
etc., but it is absolutely not against the law to stand on a public sidewalk
or in a public street and take a picture of somebody's house, their rose
bushes, their car, their ugly fence, their goofy-looking mailbox, their body
etc., etc. The fourth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it. And
it's not at all like the case of a museum--a museum is, first of all, not
public property in the sense of the law as it applies to photography (or
just plain "seeing"). First of all, photography (flash) can damage museum
property and annoy the patrons and is often prohibited by _rule_ for that
reason. Also, and one does not have unrestricted access to a museum as one
does to a street. It is not _public_ in the sense that's pertinent here.
And by the way, you _can_ legally take a picture of, say, the side of a
house sporting an open window and capture, perhaps, some of what's inside
the house and visible. And that's the law.

Sorry Pappy, you're wrong. You have NO expectation of privacy in a
public place. How many photos have you had published? I have had
many and none of them required model releases. Why? You guessed it,
didn't you...there is no privacy in public. I cited examples in
another post but I'll repeat them here, just for your edification. A
big Hollywood star lost a lawsuit in the last couple of weeks against
the paparazzi taking pictures outside of her house from public
property. Some homeowners at the Bay Hill CC in Orlando, FL lost a
suit against a computer game compant that used images of their houses
in a game. As a matter of fact, the law protects ME from your
intrusion or interference when I'm in public no matter what I'm doing.

Russ

"Cecil Moore" wrote:

If one doesn't want those photons being
collected by a camera, one should keep
them at home.


Greetings, Cecil. Haven't heard from you in that other newsgroup (rrap)
for some time. Where have you been lately?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

wrote:

The media doesn't even photograph people
without their permission. (snip)


It's done all the time, Pappy. Do you honestly think the media runs around
getting permission (a release) for all those people at a sports event,
demonstration, or some other news story? If you or your home is a news
story, or either is caught in a photograph of a news story, there are few
privacy protections involved. If you or your home is photographed from a
public place, there are few privacy protections involved.


Who the heck do you think you are, someone
special? Don't invade the wrong persons privacy,
you could be surprised.

Basic rule of photography? Is NOT the law of
the land.


The case law is clear on the matter, Pappy. And there are dozens of books
on the legal issues surrounding photography, most citing specific cases,
available to photographers. Any wise photographer has read several (I've
read perhaps all of them over the years).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:27:21 GMT, Russ wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500, wrote:

What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA
but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady
(who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they
find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just
a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes,
my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't
enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit
21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the
roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line
when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build
the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union
County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport
would have heavier traffic.

Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several
months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a
Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have
gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally
long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real
estate lady and the guy next door.

I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you
enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade
yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my
privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just
because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S.
Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy.

"God Bless America"

Tell you what Jim, I'll stand in the public street all I want and take
pictures of anything I want to and you can't do squat about it. I

Actually there is. As a civil matter, if you have enough money you
can sue most any one for most any thing that you *think* affects you.

Now you might, win, or quite likely would win, but to do so is
expensive. For many just the prospect of being taken to court can be
a deterrent.

You could also sue for harassment... But we are looking at something
like 20 grand to file a suit unless it's small claims. A good lawyer
can draw it out to the point where it can run into 6 figures. The
only ones winning in that case are the lawyers. It *may* depend on
how much you can afford to protect your legal rights to do what some
one else doesn't like.

Another option is for him to contact a couple neighbors and they
report you to the police as acting suspicious. You may get hauled
away and only have the opportunity to explain later.

In New England a group is suing the pilots flying out of a local
airport because they don't like the noise and there is nothing illegal
about what the pilots are doing. So, by harassing the pilots by
filing lawsuits they figure they can force them out. It may work and
it may backfire if the pilots counter sue for harassment.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

Let's not get stupid here.

I don't make threats.

I as well as you and all reading this do know that there are HOA's that
run a decent and positive program.
I believe this thread was centered around the HOA that wants to try and
push their program to the limit with some people on the boards and some
neighborhood people who think they are cops, running around the
neighborhood harassing their fellow neighbors for the most stupid thing
they can find. That is what the majority of us are complaining about.
People who think they are real cops when in fact they are just the
neighborhood nuisance.

The new neighborhood I am moving into (159 homes), there are 9 "real"
cops, 3 still on the job and 5 retired, just like myself. I do believe
the neighborhood is well protected. Oh, I failed to mention that the
Chief of the County Police also resides there. Being private property we
do not have police patrols so the good neighbors as they are look out
for each other when it comes to strangers driving through. When I was
ask by two people when I stopped at a stop sign if they could help me
find someone I was looking for. I told them I was looking over the area
because I was buy a home there and gave them the address. We had a very
nice talk and I moved on about my business.

As I have said before as well as others: I respect your privacy rights,
you should be doing the same.

"God Bless America"

Russ wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500, wrote:

What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA
but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady
(who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they
find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just
a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes,
my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't
enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit
21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the
roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line
when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build
the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union
County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport
would have heavier traffic.

Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several
months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a
Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have
gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally
long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real
estate lady and the guy next door.

I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you
enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade
yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my
privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just
because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S.
Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy.

"God Bless America"

Tell you what Jim, I'll stand in the public street all I want and take
pictures of anything I want to and you can't do squat about it. I
won't trespass on your property and I won't take pictures inside your
property without your permission. Your privacy ends at your front
door, and rightly so but what's in public view is just that...public.
Ask the people at Bay Hill CC in Orlando who lost the lawsuit against
the computer game company that used images of their houses in a golf
game. Ask the big-time Hollywood star who just lost the lawsuit
against the paparazzi taking pictures outside her house. Don't be
foolish enough to accost me on public property or threaten me. The
immediate and long-term repercussions will amaze you. You aren't big
enough to intimidate me and you don't have enough money to make the
legal problems go away. Grow up a little and consult a professional
instead of getting legal advice from television or here on the 'net.
In a bit of irony, we are almost on the same side in this. I am
currently looking for a home in an area without deed restrictions.
Even if I weren't a ham, I would not sign a contract for a house with
CCRs. I lived in Heathrow in Seminole County, FL and in another CCR
community here in NC and I've had enough. When you sign for a house
in a CCR community, you are signing an ordinary commercial contract
that is completely enforceable (from both sides!) no matter what you
think or how hard you stamp your feet.

Russ

HEY ! Even though I am from the opposite side of the aisle.

You got to "LOVE" Willie Brown )
- He has been a Good
- - and Faithful Public Servant.
- - - Who has Served the State of California,
- - - - and the People of San Francisco very well.

God Bless Him, amen, Amen. AMEN !

~ RHF
..
..
= = =
= = = wrote in message . ..

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:29:04 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

In New England a group is suing the pilots flying out of a local
airport because they don't like the noise and there is nothing illegal
about what the pilots are doing. So, by harassing the pilots by
filing lawsuits they figure they can force them out. It may work and
it may backfire if the pilots counter sue for harassment.

This was tried in the San Francisco Bay Area some years back.
Flight patterns, changed for environmental reasons, brought outgoing
flights over housing south of San Francisco. After a number of
nuisance suits had been won in small claims court, Willie Brown, then
speaker of the assembly got a law passed preventing such suits. To
avoid problems with laws designed for specific entities (and probably
to minimize opposition), he managed to write the law so narrowly that
it applied only to SFO and one tiny airport up in Siskiyou County that
had no interest in the legislation.


..

"Ed Price" wrote:

Great Freudian slip re "pubic place". huge grin


Done all the time recently. I have a new desk with the keyboard too far
off centered. As a result, typing mistakes have increased dramatically. In
this case, that "Freudian slip" got right past my spelling checker.


Have you ever considered testing the universal truth
of your assertion? How about spending a week or
two at a playground, photographing only little girls,
say ages 6 to 10. Let us know if you survive.


Lets be realistic here, Ed. We're not talking about child porn - laws
don't protect that. What we're talking about is photographs taken for
legitimate purposes (art, advertising, travel, architecture, news, and so
on).

Regardless, while I haven't photographed little girls specifically (and
have no special desire to do so), I have dozens of images of kids at
playgrounds, parks, and on the street, in my film library. Some were taken
by me and some by my wife. Whatever the case, nobody has ever complained
while either of us were taking those photographs.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article 5Dayb.252403$mZ5.1876750@attbi_s54,
says...
Why does it have to be about damn property values?

Fairly simple, actually:

If your property value increases, your equity increases. If you have
more equity, then there's more value that you can borrow against.

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email: