Candid "legal" questions!

[KmH]

Can someone clear this up for me please. I am being sued by a person who claims personal injury as a result of a minor car accident involving my wife . This person claims she can't do any housework ,cooking etc. due to her injury. I saw this woman at a public function where she appeared to be perfectly fine and I took a few pictures of her both in the room and later on the street outside. I'm not sure if she was aware that she was the subject. I gave these photos to my insurance company. They said they couldn't legally use them because they broke the rules of her "reasonable expectation of privacy''. I think this is nonsense. Any idea where the law stands on this issue? I haven't talked to a lawyer yet.

North Bay in what state?
Both privacy laws and insurance laws differ by state.

An online forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice.
Even hypothetical discussions are unreliable. Further, advice from an attorney is not always reliable.
Some attorneys a very good, some are good, some are average, some are below average, and some are incompetent.

You do not provide enough information about the 'public' function to determine that it was indeed 'public'.

As far as out on the street, the woman should not have any "reasonable expectation of privacy''.

However, the issue your insurance company has may be that your photos do not establish, in a legally satisfactory way, that the woman suffers from a diminished capacity.

 

[dogleg]

Can someone clear this up for me please. I am being sued by a person who claims personal injury as a result of a minor car accident involving my wife . This person claims she can't do any housework ,cooking etc. due to her injury. I saw this woman at a public function where she appeared to be perfectly fine and I took a few pictures of her both in the room and later on the street outside. I'm not sure if she was aware that she was the subject. I gave these photos to my insurance company. They said they couldn't legally use them because they broke the rules of her "reasonable expectation of privacy''. I think this is nonsense. Any idea where the law stands on this issue? I haven't talked to a lawyer yet.

North Bay in what state?
Both privacy laws and insurance laws differ by state.

An online forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice.
Even hypothetical discussions are unreliable. Further, advice from an attorney is not always reliable.
Some attorneys a very good, some are good, some are average, some are below average, and some are incompetent.

You do not provide enough information about the 'public' function to determine that it was indeed 'public'.

As far as out on the street, the woman should not have any "reasonable expectation of privacy''.

However, the issue your insurance company has may be that your photos do not establish, in a legally satisfactory way, that the woman suffers from a diminished capacity.

KmH: Thanks for your comments. I am in Ontario , Canada. The woman who is claiming injury was at a public hearing at a city hall dealing with a property issue that she initiated. There were media photographers there and others who took pictures at the end of the meeting as did I. I also took a picture of her on the street outside. I think the ins. co. spokesperson is wrong about the issue. I just wondered about other experience before I see my lawyer

 

[skieur]

While photos obtained illegally (i.e. trespassing) may be owned by the copyright holder, property obtained by illegal means may be ceased by court order. Because in US law intellectual property is treated similar to real property, I would imagine that this can be the case.

If an image of, say, a celebrity having tea time with their puppy was obtained by criminal trespassing, it may be possible for the image's rights to be ceased. I am not 100% sure if that is accurate, but I don't see why it shouldn't be.

However, in any case the photographer owns the image until the court decides otherwise.

That was the position of the plaintiff who lost the case in New York. The judge ruled that the photos were not obtained by illegal means because taking pictures is not illegal. In fact taking photos is protected by the American Constitution. There is NO such thing as criminal trespass when it is not accompanied by a crime and taking pictures IS NOT A CRIME and NOT ILLEGAL. That is the law in the US.

skieur

this makes no sense whatsoever and is just plain wrong.

Legally it does and it is correct, irrespective of your opinion.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Think of it this way: Let's say I put a sign outside my house, inviting everyone to come inside for a party. One guest tries to convert me to their religion, another insists I can't be healthy without eating meat, and another is explaining, in graphic and explicit detail, the birds and the bees to my four year old child, after snapping a few shots of himself wearing my wife's lingerie.

Can the guests assert their freedom of speech has been violated once kicked out of the party, by virtue alone of the fact that they will indiscriminately invited inside even without condition? If they refused to leave, would the police be unable to compel their leaving?

Granted, stores offer a service and theirfor are held to a higher standard, I could demand a disabled, Black veteran to leave on the grounds that "their kind" isn't welcome while a store cannot. But when it comes to freedom of speech, the same rules apply and free speech is not protected in a private setting.... unless...

The California State Supreme court has ruled that because places like shopping malls, and apparently Wal-Mart parking lots have replaced the traditional city square venue, some free speech activities are permitted. Some other states have similar liberal views. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that the shopping mall and other public areas have replaced the public forum date back to Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, which the suprme court ruled that a landowner could not "limit the use of that property by members of the public in a manner that would not be permissible were the property owned by a municipality" provided that it substitutes the "normal municipal business district. (see Law of the Mall), however this ruling was later overturned in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, which still applies in California jurisdiction due to California state constitutional law, despite that this very case overturned earlier federal standing on the matter.

The issue of if you can photograph in wal-mart and shopping malls however may be another issue, and I am not sure how this may apply.

Imaginative but in the US Supreme Court in the Sony case, "a public place" was defined as a place to which the general public has access. Note: "a Public place" is NOT legally defined here as public property. It can be a mall, arena, museum etc. that is privately owned. Rules related to NO Photography can be enforced through signs or verbally by a representative of the owner. The usual procedure is informing the person that photography is not allowed. If the photographer continues to shoot, then the representative of the owner can escort the person off the property or phone the police and lay a tresspassing charge.

Taking pictures however is NOT illegal or there would not be any papparazi and the photographer retains rights to photos taken or there would be NO papparazi either. So whether you like it or not. This is US law.

 

[skieur]

Can someone clear this up for me please. I am being sued by a person who claims personal injury as a result of a minor car accident involving my wife . This person claims she can't do any housework ,cooking etc. due to her injury. I saw this woman at a public function where she appeared to be perfectly fine and I took a few pictures of her both in the room and later on the street outside. I'm not sure if she was aware that she was the subject. I gave these photos to my insurance company. They said they couldn't legally use them because they broke the rules of her "reasonable expectation of privacy''. I think this is nonsense. Any idea where the law stands on this issue? I haven't talked to a lawyer yet.

North Bay in what state?
Both privacy laws and insurance laws differ by state.

An online forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice.
Even hypothetical discussions are unreliable. Further, advice from an attorney is not always reliable.
Some attorneys a very good, some are good, some are average, some are below average, and some are incompetent.

You do not provide enough information about the 'public' function to determine that it was indeed 'public'.

As far as out on the street, the woman should not have any "reasonable expectation of privacy''.

However, the issue your insurance company has may be that your photos do not establish, in a legally satisfactory way, that the woman suffers from a diminished capacity.

KmH: Thanks for your comments. I am in Ontario , Canada. The woman who is claiming injury was at a public hearing at a city hall dealing with a property issue that she initiated. There were media photographers there and others who took pictures at the end of the meeting as did I. I also took a picture of her on the street outside. I think the ins. co. spokesperson is wrong about the issue. I just wondered about other experience before I see my lawyer

There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public function in Canada. Insurance companies however would not be likely to use them in a minor car accident case unless it developed into a major law suit and by that I mean one that is well over $50,000.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Can someone clear this up for me please. I am being sued by a person who claims personal injury as a result of a minor car accident involving my wife . This person claims she can't do any housework ,cooking etc. due to her injury. I saw this woman at a public function where she appeared to be perfectly fine and I took a few pictures of her both in the room and later on the street outside. I'm not sure if she was aware that she was the subject. I gave these photos to my insurance company. They said they couldn't legally use them because they broke the rules of her "reasonable expectation of privacy''. I think this is nonsense. Any idea where the law stands on this issue? I haven't talked to a lawyer yet.

North Bay in what state?
Both privacy laws and insurance laws differ by state.

An online forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice.
Even hypothetical discussions are unreliable. Further, advice from an attorney is not always reliable.
Some attorneys a very good, some are good, some are average, some are below average, and some are incompetent.

You do not provide enough information about the 'public' function to determine that it was indeed 'public'.

As far as out on the street, the woman should not have any "reasonable expectation of privacy''.

However, the issue your insurance company has may be that your photos do not establish, in a legally satisfactory way, that the woman suffers from a diminished capacity.

KmH: Thanks for your comments. I am in Ontario , Canada. The woman who is claiming injury was at a public hearing at a city hall dealing with a property issue that she initiated. There were media photographers there and others who took pictures at the end of the meeting as did I. I also took a picture of her on the street outside. I think the ins. co. spokesperson is wrong about the issue. I just wondered about other experience before I see my lawyer

It is contradictory both logically and legally that you can have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" at a public function, so I would say that the insurance company rep is wrong. However, the insurance company would be unlikely to use them in a minor car accident unless it turned into a law suit involving substantially more than $50,000. The insurance company also would not likely pursue the possibility of insurance fraud unless it was cost effective for them, which again would only be the case if a fair amount of money was involved.

skieur