Slashdot Mirror

That's nice, except you do not "actually have the legal right to shoot him."

http://photosecrets.com/can-i-...

You'd probably do prison time. And even if you got off, your legal costs would almost certainly exceed $25,000.

The second part of your answer is more realistic. Call the police. Move your children inside. Put up a screened play area. Etc.

That's funny, I'd love to see where that's defined in LAW. Link please.

I think I've figured out your problem, at least in regard to this issue. You haven't realized that `what is acceptable' and `what is legal' are two very different things. Acceptable varies from person to person. Legal (which could be seen as `things not deemed so unacceptable as to be prohibited by law') may vary from place to place to some degree, but it generally not up to individuals (except for judges who make rulings based on the law, of course.)

My statement was not about law, it was more about what `plainly visible' meant.

In any event, the law with regards to photography has been pretty well worked out in the actual laws and in the court rulings that followed. Read up on it (at least that's accurate for the US, anyways, I'm not talking about other countries, and yes I realized the incident mentioned in /. was in the UK.) You are certainly welcome to believe that the law hasn't caught up to technology, and there's truth to that, but either way, if it's not illegal, it's not illegal -- no matter what *you* think.

Now, you may be right that if the police want to charge you, they'll find *something*, but that still doesn't make something that's not illegal illegal.

Somehow you think there's a major difference between driving slowly with a with a bunch of high-resolution digital cameras and staying still with one. I'd love to see the court ruling that said this.

You figured that all out about me based simply on the idea that if you need a telescope to see it it's not plainly visible? Impressive. In any event, what is legal has generally been worked out by the law and court cases is this --

From Wikipedia: Filming of private property from within the public domain is is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room. In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case there is a general expectation of privacy. Should the individual not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public if using an average lens or video camera. Although this may make the action legal, it does not make the action moral in which case it is left to the photographer to utilize moral senses.

If you want to find the law/court cases that led up to this, fee free -- I don't feel the need.

The argument being made here is like making the argument that just beacuse taking one "free" newspaper is legal, driving around and taking ALL the free newpapers in the city is legal.

Bad analogy, for several reasons. One, you've described something that's probably legal (certainly, it would be difficult to charge somebody with theft of something that was given away, though it's possible that there are specific laws in certain areas that cover this very scenario, perhaps dealing more with denying the use of the paper to others rather than theft?) Two, you're not taking anything but pictures. A better analogy would be to go around taking pictures of all the free newspaper kiosks.

Just because it's considered generally acceptable to take one picture from a car for your own use, does not make it acceptable to take as many pictures as you want of a specific target for commerical use.

Again, the law regarding photography is well worked out. You may not think something is *acceptable*, but for now, what google is doing is *legal*, and it's not just because google is a big company.

Wait ... was google `perving into windows' ?

In any event, read up on the law (at least in the US.) Google can't really publish pictures of you nude in your bedroom touching your special place any more than anybody else.

(The following text applies, I believe, in the USA, Australia, the UK and maybe other places, check with your local lawyer, I'm not one.)

Unfortunately, inside privately owned buildings they (being the owners, managers or agents) can prevent you from taking photos (or, ask you to leave). (If they ask you to delete your photos, you tell them to fuck off, or just pretend to. But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)

However, outside, on public property, they can't do shit, and you tell them that.

Most of the time, you just need a smaller camera. It won't take as nice photos (perhaps), but it is much less obvious, and beats not being able to take photos at all.

By the way, the often used "security threat" or "terrorism" bullshit, is just bullshit. If a terrorist wants to take a photo, they don't need a big obvious camera, they just use a small one. More to the point though, tourists (terrorists?) take photos of public buildings everyday, unless you are willing to fuck with your tourist revenue...

For comments around public photography and laws around photography in the UK:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=56
For the USA:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.photosecrets.com/law.html
Lots of links for different countries:
http://www.photolawnews.com/
There are also guides for Australia I believe, and other countries.

http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

Aparently, if your building was built after 1990 it is protected by copyright. I wonder how Google could or would monitor that?

Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.

What you fail to mention is that US!=The rest of the world. Things work differently in Australia.

Things aren't that different..

Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.

http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is _n19_v38/ai_11742489 What a waste of time....

Paparazzi photographing celebrities fall under the newsworthy exception. Try it with the average guy on the street and see what happens. (Hint: Put some money away for legal fees. Lots of money.)

According to Bert Krage, he summarizes what you can and cannot photograph. People in public have very little privacy rights, unless they move to a secluded area such as a bathroom. Another website talks it being ok as long as it isn't being used for commercial purposes. I even found a site where they explicitly say you can take pictures on the New York City subway.

For example, say I was taking pictures at Disneyworld. I do not have to get permission of every single person that might be in the picture, as long as I'm not doing it for commercial gain. It would be nearly impossible to take pictures if you had to get permission from everyone that might be in the picture.

"The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission."

(http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html)

Main Entry: 1commercial
Pronunciation: k&-'m&r-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce (2) : of or relating to commerce (3) : characteristic of commerce (4) : suitable, adequate, or prepared for commerce b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality (2) : producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success
2 a : viewed with regard to profit b : designed for a large market
3 : emphasizing skills and subjects useful in business
4 : supported by advertisers

(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?comme rc ial)

The law varies from state to state. There are privacy laws (which would not be violated here), and publicity laws (which may be being violated).

There's a whole host of rules and regulations about when you need to get permission and when you don't for photographs of people, places, and things.

A good article is here.

It seems news media usually get away with photographs of identifiable people in states with publicity laws under a fair use exemption for newsworthy reporting. In some states the publicity laws only apply to celebrities, but in others they apply to everyone (details).

1) Your photos are horrible (click to view tips about travel photography here)
2) Your "photos" should be called "thumbnails"
3) You have obviously not taken even one of the Photo Workshops advertised on your site, and people don't like to be around hypocrites