"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/