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/