Had my first semi "confrontation"

[Chip]

Huh, it appears I could be at least partially mistaken. I wasn't familiar with the specific cases you mentioned and was falling back on my experience as a photographer and casino surveillance professional. Here's some further reading for anyone curious.

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Washington case and opinions.

Yes, that is one of the WA cases I was referring to. The WA supreme court reversed the trial court conviction for voyeurism. The court said:

Both Glas and Sorrells engaged in disgusting and reprehensible behavior.   Nevertheless, we hold that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to actions taken in purely public places and hence does not prohibit the “upskirt” photographs they took.  

 

[GringoLoco]

Yes, that is one of the WA cases I was referring to. The WA supreme court reversed the trial court conviction for voyeurism. The court said:

Both Glas and Sorrells engaged in disgusting and reprehensible behavior.   Nevertheless, we hold that Washington's voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to actions taken in purely public places and hence does not prohibit the “upskirt” photographs they took.  

Yeah, that's incredible to me that he was successful. He must have had a well paid lawyer lol. I can see that case easily being defeated all the way up to the Supreme Court, but that's the nature of the courts. They don't always agree with each other (or us).

 

[Chip]

Yeah, that's incredible to me that he was successful. He must have had a well paid lawyer lol. I can see that case easily being defeated all the way up to the Supreme Court, but that's the nature of the courts. They don't always agree with each other (or us).

Many people were shocked all over world! Then all over again a few years ago when Georgia Supreme Court said the same thing. Of course, the fault here lay with the wording of the statutes. I assume the judges disliked the result but in this case felt they had to enforce criminal law exactly as written.

Last time I went to UW Huskies game I saw signs posted that said no photography allowed yet everyone was snapping away with no interference from security. What are the rules with this?

 

[GringoLoco]

Many people were shocked all over world! Then all over again a few years ago when Georgia Supreme Court said the same thing. Of course, the fault here lay with the wording of the statutes. I assume the judges disliked the result but in this case felt they had to enforce criminal law exactly as written.

Last time I went to UW Huskies game I saw signs posted that said no photography allowed yet everyone was snapping away with no interference from security. What are the rules with this?

That'll be a policy thing, I don't think that's actually addressed by law. Of course not abiding by policy is grounds for them to kick you out if they want. Every stadium I've been to has their own rules for photography and they're not at all the same. Yankee stadium was cool with my dslr as long as it didn't have a "professional telephoto lens" or something to that effect. I inquired and they basically said they just don't want some idiot swinging a 600mm f/4 around smacking people in the face. They only care about the safety and guest satisfaction aspect and were totally cool with my 80-200mm f/2.8, which is a meaty chunk of steel and definitely considered a "pro lens". But then some other stadiums won't allow any camera with a detachable lens. And then Emerald Downs, the local horse racing track, said I can use whatever I feel like as long as I promise not to sell the photos since they have a contracted pro photog. It seems different stadiums not only have different rules, they even have different reasons for their rules.

 

[jctarvin]

C'mon fo!ks! 1) Someone mentioned paparazzi. They photograph people who are public figures. No harm, no foul. 2) I believe the general issue is "expectation of privacy". If you are walking in a public park, or on the sidewalk you can't reasonably have an expectation of privacy. But, you certainly can if you are on your own property. Then, you can freely beat the crap out of the drone operator.

 

[Mr. Salty]

By law, a private property owner has ZERO right to any subsurface mineral in Texas? If that is true, then who owns all the minerals in Texas?

It’s not just Texas. It’s fairly common in the U.S. for mineral rights to be separate from surface rights, at least in any place where there’s a chance there are any minerals (including oil or gas) worth extracting.

When I lived in southern Illinois a few years ago there was a coal company undermining vast expanses of land, damaging highways, schools, private homes or whatever and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

 

[JDawg]

C'mon fo!ks! 1)But, you certainly can if you are on your own property. Then, you can freely beat the crap out of the drone operator.

No

 

[SteelFlyer]

What states 'require' you to delete pictures or video of people in public places?

North Carolina for one prohibits photographing others from a drone without their consent. It is not a criminal violation, but they can sue you in civil court. It doesn't specifically say you have to delete the images, but...

 

[SteelFlyer]

I would like to know what states and see a link to that section of law if that's true.

No one has the reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

This isn't North Korea.

He did nothing wrong and your reply sounded like you were scolding him.

You don't need to talk to anyone like that in this forum.

"YOU," as you addressed SpiderSkeets, need to offer him an apology.

This is an excerpt from the North Carolina Law:

It is illegal to operate a UAS in North Carolina to conduct surveillance of a person or a dwelling occupied by a person without the person’s consent. This includes the house or dwelling and the land immediately surrounding it. It also includes the boundary where a homeowner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These limitations also extend to surveillance of private property (lands and fields) without the consent of the owner, easement holder, or property lessee. In the case of UAS photography, consent is required from individuals when the photos will be published or otherwise publicly disseminated. This does not apply to newsgathering, newsworthy events, or events or places to which the general public is invited.

 

[GringoLoco]

I would imagine if you read the definitions in the legal code they would define "surveillance", and it would be different from what typically happens, which is a random person briefly being somewhere in the video. Surveillance implies closely monitoring one or more subjects for the purpose of gathering information about them. Also, I believe the people would have to be clearly recognizable for a release to be needed.

 

[Chip]

I would imagine if you read the definitions in the legal code they would define "surveillance", and it would be different from what typically happens, which is a random person briefly being somewhere in the video. Surveillance implies closely monitoring one or more subjects for the purpose of gathering information about them. Also, I believe the people would have to be clearly recognizable for a release to be needed.

Right on target. Found this excerpt from a Seattle city ordinance which defines "surveillance:"

“Surveillance” or “surveil” means to observe or analyze the movements, behavior, or
actions of identifiable individuals in a manner that is reasonably likely to raise concerns about
civil liberties, freedom of speech or association, racial equity or social justice. Identifiable
individuals also include individuals whose identity can be revealed by license plate data when
combined with any other record. It is not surveillance if an individual knowingly and voluntarily
consented to provide the information, or had a clear and conspicuous opportunity to opt out of
providing the information.

“Surveillance capability” means the ability to collect, capture, transmit, or record data
that could be used to surveil, regardless of whether the data is obscured, de-identified, or
anonymized before or after collection and regardless of whether technology might be used to
obscure or prevent the capturing of certain views or types of information.

“Surveillance data” means any electronic data collected, captured, recorded, retained, processed, intercepted, or analyzed by surveillance technology acquired by the City or operated at the direction of the City.

“Surveillance technology” means any electronic device, software program, or hosted software solution; that is designed or primarily intended to be used for the purpose of surveillance.

 

[Chip]

"...in a manner that is reasonably likely to raise concerns about civil liberties, freedom of speech or association, racial equity or social justice."

This seems a bit vague to me also but its not a criminal statute which applies to private individuals. Its an ordinance that purports to limit what the Seattle Police Department can do with drones and other technologies which it wants to use for surveillance.

 

[Chip]

Telephoto, not zoom. And even then it's only illegal under certain circumstances.

Whose zooming who? Sorry, its possibly juvenile but I like the song. Found the case which proves your point but also excuses my use of word "zoom."

This is Lisa Jacobson. She was an NBC reporter who worked in Chicago.

 

[Chip]

She investigated and reported on the disappearance of Lisa Stebic in 2007.

 

[webidextrous]

I was thinking maybe make a sheet of paper with an FAQ of all the inane questions people have. Has anyone tried that and was it effective?

 

[Chip]

Suspect #1 was the husband

 

[Chip]

A rival reporter at CBS News used a telephoto lens to capture photos of Lisa Jacobson in bikini talk about an invasion of privacy.

 

[Talley]

I haven't had any yet but I'm well preparred when I do.

"Ma'am... I'm just testing out my new xray camera with the latest fabric gamma ray filter to see if I can really see through clothes"

ya... can't wait to see that reaction.

 

[Chip]

Except that Lisa Jacobson was in a bikini with her children at suspect #1's house. Jacobson sued CBS for various things including invasion of privacy. The trial court dismissal of the case was upheld on appeal. The court said:

The elements required to prove intrusion upon seclusion are (1) an unauthorized intrusion
or prying into the plaintiff’s seclusion; (2) an intrusion that is highly offensive or objectionable
to a reasonable person; (3) that the matter upon which the intrusion occurs is private; and (4)
the intrusion causes anguish and suffering.

The third element of the tort, requiring allegations of private facts, is the predicate for the other elements, and as such, if this element is not proven, this court need not reach the other elements.

Our analysis in this case begins and ends with the privacy element. We conclude that (1)the plaintiff cannot reasonably be said to have had a legitimate expectation of privacy or seclusion in the Stebics’ backyard, and (2) in addition, the videotape reveals no specific act that could be considered private.

First, although the pool was surrounded by a six-foot fence, the lot lay at the bottom of an incline, which, according to undisputed expert testimony, made the property between three to five feet lower than the surrounding area. This is supported by photographs in the record, in which the sliding door leading into the pool area can be seen clearly over the fence from the Reardon/Ahlstrom ground floor. Our review of the record and the evidence substantiates the trial court’s finding that, given the layout of the property and the surrounding area, the videotape could just as easily have been shot from the public sidewalk or the grassy area behind the Stebics’ property, the latter of which is even closer in distance than the Reardon/Ahlstrom home.

The expectation of privacy was further diminished by the fact that the video was of the backyard of Craig Stebic, who was at that time subject to observation not only by law enforcement, but by the media, which the evidence showed maintained a near constant presence around his house. Although the plaintiff contended she was unaware of any media presence in the area when she arrived that morning, she admitted learning that day that there were, in fact, television and camera crews in the neighborhood preparing for the search the following day, and that Puccinelli had come to the Stebics’ door seeking an interview. Under all of these circumstances, it cannot reasonably be said that the plaintiff, as an experience
reporter, as well as a lead reporter on the Stebic story, expected that she would find seclusion on the readily visible property outside of their home.

The plaintiff makes much of the fact that a "zoom lens" was required to properly identify who she was. Assuming that a zoom lens was used here, the plaintiff fails to cite an Illinois case showing how this could be dispositive under the circumstances of this case. Further, her argument seems disingenuous given the fact that her car was parked in front of the Stebic house at the time the video was shot. This fact also helped CBS confirm that she was present in
the yard.

Finally, there is nothing shown in the videotape that is especially private. The plaintiff is shot from a distance, has a towel around her waist, and is seen primarily walking around talking on her cell phone. Her children are briefly shown, but their images similarly aren’t entirely clear. Accordingly, we find no error in the dismissal of this issue on summary judgment.

 

[Donnie Frank]

If he requests that you delete it, some states require you to do so. Not everyone wants to be recorded by a complete stranger, so YOU need to be mindful of what you're doing.

Does this go for cell phone recordings in public places. Ya really wanna open THAT can of worms?