|
MGoBlue wrote:
SNIP 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. In a former profession, I needed a modified model release to photograph the exterior of houses. At the Mystic Seaport Museum in Connecticut, where there are outdoor exhibits open to all, I have to register as a photographer and sign an affidavit that the photographs are for personal, not professional, use. DD, W1MCE |
"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! =----- |
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" Jerry Oxendine wrote: OOOPS! Sorry about that. I forgot about Huntersville, Davidson, etc. Nice area and expensive! I remember when the area was still country and all those houses right the shoreline weren't built. Could've bought a house in the '70's for a 3rd of what it is now. And, also, I wouldn't move in there for nut'in'--not to mention the traffic is HORRIFIC on the I-77 corridor. Bumper to bumper morning and evening--least little fender scraper, your commute is over! Let me modify this by say that, yes, there are lots of HOA communities everywhere. But if you do a little snooping before moving, you can find older neighborhoods that dont have the HOA nonsense. I am just independent to let someone tell me what to do on/with my own property. And if I catch some bird on a scooter taking pictures, he better not be on my land! He comes down my driveway snooping, he just might get his (*censored*) kicked. Sorry, but that is the way I feel about it. But I've been here for many years, all of us here get along well, stand beside the proverbial fence and chat, borrow/loan tools, and all is well! ...Without any cussed HOA! Jerry K4KWH www.qsl.net/k4kwh wrote in message ... Jerry, my daughter lives in Cornelius NC, (which is as you know just a few miles north of you) they have an HOA but it apparently doesn't mean a darn thing. The neighbors are moving into $220,000 new homes, they put up metal sheds chain link fences, etc. which both are against the HOA rules. NC is no different than any other state, they all have the dreaded HOA's. From what I see, the HOA rules are only enforced when some damn nosey neighbor want's to put there nose into your business. God Bless America for our Freedoms, where ever they may be. Jerry Oxendine wrote: Move to NC! While I am sure there are HOA communities as the population grows, there are still plenty of older neighborhoods with excellent homes without HOAs here in my state. And I have never had trouble finding a place to live without 'em. Once checked out a neighborhood in my town called YorkChester. Many older homes of many styles and sizes. It had been desig- nated an historic neighborhood and you couldn't even change the style of your front door without dealing with the old blue-haired lady with the peepovers. NOPE! I ain't moving there. But I found a nice place on a dead end street where such things had never been thought of. Been here for 17 years. Maybe it is more difficult in, say, California (the land of fruits and nuts--dare I say it), but it is still possible to find antenna-friendly places to live if one really wants to. I have no sympathy for someone who moves into such a place where restrictions exist KNOWING it. I am just fiesty enough and ornery enough not to let someone else tell me what I can do on my own property. One's property rights should reign supreme; i.e., your rights end at my property line, and mine end at yours. Most people are sincerely enough for such rules not have to exist. The neighborhood will conform by osmosis or "peer" pressure. If a neighborhood has junk cars in it, look at the rest of the houses; they likely will too. If there are mostly frame "shotgun" houses, the rest are likely to be, too. If the neighborhood is nice, brick/frame, trimmed hedges, mown lawns, *most* all the others will be, too. Choose your neighbors carefully and check for HOAs and coven- ents FIRST. Jerry |
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. |
|
|
"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/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com