"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"
"MGoBlue" wrote in message ...

"Russ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:53:40 -0500, wrote:



Ed Price wrote:

"James" wrote in message
...
Same where I live in Raleigh NC, only enforce these hoa rules when
it is
convenient.

Case in point, somebody put in a pool in backyard, not allowed in
hoa
and
county
rules,
homeowner stops paying hoa dues, hoa filed lein, homeowner filed
lawsuit.
His/her rights of due process were violated.
Homeowner collected over $ 350,000 from our hoa, the insurance only
covered
$ 200,000 and we the rest of the hood had to pay up with increase
in
hoa
dues.
Homeowner sells house and moved out. Did the hoa board learn ? no
!
They changed rules so now you need three signed complaints from
separate
neighbors before
the hoa will look into anything.

One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he
don't
like
to see.

Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures.

Ed
WB6WSN

That's called invasion of your privacy and harassment. To hell with the
HOA, call the police and file a complaint. Make it a matter for the
court, put this guy where he belongs. Some of those kind of people
don't
learn until the financial ball hits them in there pocket.

Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing. You have no expectation of privacy in
a public place. You cannot forbid photography of the public areas of
your property.

Russ

Yes, you can. None of your private property is public. Expectation of
privacy has nothing to do with the civil claim of Invasion of Privacy. It
is only a 4th Amendment doctrine.

You have every right to forbid photography of your private property, much
like concert venues and museums have that right, whether open to view or
not. To say otherwise would allow photography through open windows, if
viewable from the outside.

Thank YOU for playing.



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.

"Don Forsling" wrote:

(snip) 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.
(snip)


Exactly right, Don. According to several court cases, a person in a pubic
place has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Likewise, property is not
protected when photographed from a public place. In other words, as long as
you're not on private property, and what you're photographing can be seen
from outside that property, you can photograph it. There are a few
exceptions. For example, you cannot photograph someone through a window of a
house, even if you do so from a public place. You also cannot do anything
out of the ordinary, such as climbing a fence to photograph into private
property.

What you can do with those photographs is another matter (and this is
where some protections exist). In general, there are few restrictions on
photographs used for private or journalistic purposes, but commerical use
often requires permission (a release) from the person on the photograph or
the owner of the property photographed. But even here there are exceptions.
For example, a person photographed in an embarassing situation may be
protected from even journalistic use if the photograph is not specifically
news related and a person included in the general background of a photograph
used for commercial purposes may not be protected.

Everything changes when you enter private property (and a museum is often
considered private property, even if only owned by the state). In this case,
the owner of that property makes the rules.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
According to several court cases, a person in a pubic
place has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Likewise, property is not
protected when photographed from a public place. In other words, as long as
you're not on private property, and what you're photographing can be seen
from outside that property, you can photograph it.

If one doesn't want those photons being collected by a camera,
one should keep them at home.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"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/

Dwight Stewart wrote:
Greetings, Cecil. Haven't heard from you in that other newsgroup (rrap)
for some time.

The code testing issue was pretty much resolved.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Cecil Moore" wrote:

The code testing issue was pretty
much resolved.


Ah, but you know that is never going to end the debate about it. Anyway,
just thought I'd say hello. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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 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

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/