I had someone to call cops on me

[Village Idiot]

Maybe if people weren't so fearful and reactionary they would be less apt to interpret a man taking a picture of a (purple smoke bush) as some sort of crime. I wonder what they reported to the police, exactly?

suspicious character snooping around a neighbor's yard.

And to think, all the people that called the cops just had to do was go and ask if the OP was of Arabian descent and/or affliated with a terrorist cell...

:er:

 

[Mike_E]

Ever notice how the people who most fear a thing are the most vocal about it?

Why would you be afraid of a camera, hmmm?

 

[gsgary]

I would have told him to F off

 

[pbelarge]

I would have told him to F off

You might get away with that in the UK, but not here in America. Cursing at police is not welcomed.

btw, the "you can take pics of whatever you want" isn't EXACTLY correct.

You can't break out the zoom lens and shoot into someone's window. Essentially, you can take pictures of pretty much anything visible from public spaces as long as you don't violate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.

(and no, I'm not an atty nor do I play one on tv)

If a person is on public property, unless there is a local law, the only items that are not permitted to be photographed are Federal buildings and the such.

Privacy is behind closed doors and windows...

You may disagree, but google the law and post it for me...if you can find it.

 

[epp_b]

he sidewalk to intercept me. He demanded to know where i lived, who was the girl with me, what did I take a picture off. After I showed him the picture on the camera and the bush, my ID and walked with him to my house, he was satisfied and left.

Too bad. As long as you are in public and doing nothing illegal, you are under no obligation to even listen to the officer.

I would have simply told him the truth (I'm taking some pictures of this nice flower bush) and walked away.

If a person is on public property, unless there is a local law, the only items that are not permitted to be photographed are Federal buildings and the such.

Privacy is behind closed doors and windows...

You may disagree, but google the law and post it for me...if you can find it.

I'm not sure if the US has this same stipulation, but Canada's Privacy Act has a "voyeurism" clause. You can shoot pretty well anything from public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. You can take a picture of a house, but you can't peer into someone's window with a telephoto lens.

 

[Village Idiot]

btw, the "you can take pics of whatever you want" isn't EXACTLY correct.

You can't break out the zoom lens and shoot into someone's window. Essentially, you can take pictures of pretty much anything visible from public spaces as long as you don't violate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.

(and no, I'm not an atty nor do I play one on tv)

If a person is on public property, unless there is a local law, the only items that are not permitted to be photographed are Federal buildings and the such.

Privacy is behind closed doors and windows...

You may disagree, but google the law and post it for me...if you can find it.

Privacy Law in the USA

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in places like bathrooms, your own home, etc... That means you can't stand on public property and photograph some one through their windows.

 

[pbelarge]

From the ARTICLE posted above.




"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.
2. appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.
3. publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home.
4. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation. A successful defamation action requires that the information be false. In a privacy action the information is generally true, but the information created a false impression about the plaintiff.

Only the second of these four rights is widely accepted in the USA. In addition to these four pure privacy torts, a victim might recover under other torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, or trespass.
Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion only applies to secret or surreptitious invasions of privacy. An open and notorious invasion of privacy would be public, not private, and the victim could then chose not to reveal private or confidential information. For example, recording of telephone conversations is not wrong if both participants are notified before speaking that the conversation is, or may be, recorded. There certainly are offensive events in public, but these are properly classified as assaults, not invasions of privacy.




I am not aware of a written law in general in this country that restricts one from photographing much of anything from public property, except for what I posted earlier, or it is a local law.

The example the author states above about phone calls being recorded or even taping a conversation is not a National Law.
NYS permits the recording of phone calls and conversations without the party being recorded having notification of the recording.

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

Lots of bravado being spewed. The OP did the right thing to be UNconfrontational with the police with the little girl in tow. What kind of example would the opposite have set?

Personally, I probably would've tried to immediately break any tension with the police and made some crack about his comment about liking bushes. It seems to work more times than not when I've had a situation with them (police, not bushes). They're doing a job that I won't and are human also (by and large). Like someone mentioned above, they may be shutterbugs as well.

Likewise, I probably would've gone over to the nosy neighbors and introduced myself, handing them a business card. Thanked them for being attentative towards the neighborhood and let them know that it's quite possible they will see me again doing something similar.

There was no harm done and at the end of the day, it's nice to be nice. There is no need to escalate a situation that doesn't warrant it.

 

[pbelarge]

Lots of bravado being spewed. The OP did the right thing to be UNconfrontational with the police with the little girl in tow. What kind of example would the opposite have set?

Personally, I probably would've tried to immediately break any tension with the police and made some crack about his comment about liking bushes. It seems to work more times than not when I've had a situation with them (police, not bushes). They're doing a job that I won't and are human also (by and large). Like someone mentioned above, they may be shutterbugs as well.

Likewise, I probably would've gone over to the nosy neighbors and introduced myself, handing them a business card. Thanked them for being attentative towards the neighborhood and let them know that it's quite possible they will see me again doing something similar.

There was no harm done and at the end of the day, it's nice to be nice. There is no need to escalate a situation that doesn't warrant it.

Are you practicing to run for office??? :mrgreen:


Actually that was well said.

 

[Village Idiot]

Is this better?

Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, 652

The actual US law.

One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

It says one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise. It doesn't say one who intentionally intrudes when not on public property.

If you want to pay a lawyer, I'm sure they can find a precedent where this has had to do with photographing into some one's house regardless of where they were standing.

That would be like me standing on the sidewalk, which is generally considered public property and taking photos of everyone in your home and being able to get away with it if there weren't laws like the above one to protect people from that.

 

[manaheim]

From the ARTICLE posted above.








"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.
2. appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.
3. publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home.
4. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation. A successful defamation action requires that the information be false. In a privacy action the information is generally true, but the information created a false impression about the plaintiff.

Only the second of these four rights is widely accepted in the USA. In addition to these four pure privacy torts, a victim might recover under other torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, or trespass.
Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion only applies to secret or surreptitious invasions of privacy. An open and notorious invasion of privacy would be public, not private, and the victim could then chose not to reveal private or confidential information. For example, recording of telephone conversations is not wrong if both participants are notified before speaking that the conversation is, or may be, recorded. There certainly are offensive events in public, but these are properly classified as assaults, not invasions of privacy.




I am not aware of a written law in general in this country that restricts one from photographing much of anything from public property, except for what I posted earlier, or it is a local law.

The example the author states above about phone calls being recorded or even taping a conversation is not a National Law.
NYS permits the recording of phone calls and conversations without the party being recorded having notification of the recording.

Errrr... what?

You can say whatever you like dude, but I have researched this topic extensively and even consulted with two licensed attorneys on the topic.

In synopsis, you can shoot most anything you can see from public property... exceptions for sensitive government installations and such. You can shoot pictures of pretty much anyone that is out in the open. You cannot shoot pictures of people who have a reasonable expectation of privacy... regardless of where you happen to be standing. This includes shooting people in a visually obstructed back yard, through windows in their own home (open or closed), etc.

All in all, it's actually pretty simple. There really aren't too many laws on this because there are not too many restrictions, but where there are restrictions they are reasonably clear.

From my own cache of links:

Photographer's Legal Rights
Court Case on Legality of Sale of Street Photography
http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

Actually that was well said.

Except for the part by using UNconfrontational when, in fact, it should have been NONconfrontational. (and the CAPS were for emphasis only)

 

[Heck]

Cop is always right so all you can do is protect your gear and avoid being locked up on a trumped up charge. I was told I could not take a photo of a bridge while I was in a public park. I was also told cameras were banned from that park lol. Now holding 5 grand worth of camera im not about to go all perry mason on this guy. I just said ok and walked away. Sucks but thats the way it is now a days.

 

[ifi]

These things take fun out of photography. BTW the bush looks good :thumbup:

 

[pbelarge]

From the ARTICLE posted above.









"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.
2. appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.
3. publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home.
4. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation. A successful defamation action requires that the information be false. In a privacy action the information is generally true, but the information created a false impression about the plaintiff.

Only the second of these four rights is widely accepted in the USA. In addition to these four pure privacy torts, a victim might recover under other torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, or trespass.
Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion only applies to secret or surreptitious invasions of privacy. An open and notorious invasion of privacy would be public, not private, and the victim could then chose not to reveal private or confidential information. For example, recording of telephone conversations is not wrong if both participants are notified before speaking that the conversation is, or may be, recorded. There certainly are offensive events in public, but these are properly classified as assaults, not invasions of privacy.




I am not aware of a written law in general in this country that restricts one from photographing much of anything from public property, except for what I posted earlier, or it is a local law.

The example the author states above about phone calls being recorded or even taping a conversation is not a National Law.
NYS permits the recording of phone calls and conversations without the party being recorded having notification of the recording.

Errrr... what?

You can say whatever you like dude, but I have researched this topic extensively and even consulted with two licensed attorneys on the topic.

In synopsis, you can shoot most anything you can see from public property... exceptions for sensitive government installations and such. You can shoot pictures of pretty much anyone that is out in the open. You cannot shoot pictures of people who have a reasonable expectation of privacy... regardless of where you happen to be standing. This includes shooting people in a visually obstructed back yard, through windows in their own home (open or closed), etc.

All in all, it's actually pretty simple. There really aren't too many laws on this because there are not too many restrictions, but where there are restrictions they are reasonably clear.

From my own cache of links:

Photographer's Legal Rights
Court Case on Legality of Sale of Street Photography

Your first link is an attorny's opinion, not a copy of the written law

Your second link is not relevant to the post