# Man sentenced to 90 days for taking pictures



## Josh66 (Jul 2, 2009)

The Herald Banner, Greenville, TX - Man sentenced for using cell phone for improper photography

This story was in the local paper today.  (front page)

A man was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 5 years probation for "Improper Photography".

He was taking pictures of a young girl in the local Wal-Mart with his cell phone.


Yes, it sounds weird, and the guy might be a pervert.  But come on - this was inside a Wal-Mart!  How perverted could the pictures possibly be?


I'm not trying to say that this guy is normal or had no bad intentions...  I don't know him and the article doesn't go into any detail about what the pictures actually looked like.

I _am_ shocked that he will spend 90 days in jail and be on probation for 5 years for _photography_.


I'm going to try to find our local laws and ordinances online...  I want to know exaty what "improper photography" is.


----------



## Phranquey (Jul 2, 2009)

Kinda hard to make any conclusions on that article.  It doesn't say if he was trying to shoot under a changing room door or just walking around taking pictures that a parent didn't like....


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 2, 2009)

Yeah...  There has to be more to it; but I mean, if he was doing anything like that I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his ass kicked on the spot, or at least detained until the police got there.


But yeah, not really a whole lot of information in the article...


----------



## astrostu (Jul 2, 2009)

The most detailed information in the article:  "a woman and her daughter were inside the Greenville Wal-Mart on the afternoon of Feb. 10, 2008 and observed Hayes using his cell phone to take photos of the child."

Definitely not enough to go on to figure out if this was malicious prosecution or if the guy actually was doing something wrong.


----------



## Dcrymes84 (Jul 2, 2009)

Dang that sucks but more information would be nice.  Hes still a perv


----------



## table1349 (Jul 2, 2009)

This is not a real surprise if you were from Texas or follow what happens there. There have been several arrests and convictions under this statue.  One person was arrested for photographing two topless women at Hippy Hollow, the states only public nudity beach in a state park.  There have been several cases of this type.

Their law is not well written in my opinion.  It is intended to deal with photographic or video window peeping or spying for the lack of a better word.  To garner a conviction you must be able to show that the person was taking the photos with the intent to arouse. 

The interesting thing in the article was that the offender pled Guilty. That says a lot for a case like this and would explain the lack of detail in the article.  Keep in mind that this is a sexual arousal case involving a minor. The news media has become very cautious when dealing with sexual matters, victims and children.   This statue does not appear to carry the stigma nor the registration requirement of Sexual Offender however, which I found interesting since this is a felony.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 2, 2009)

"In an interview on March 19, 2008, Hayes told investigators with the police department he had used his cell phone to take the photos on multiple occasions during the previous year."

That seems to mean that he had been persistent and it was a recurring offence. Normally I would think you'd get away with a one-off thing, but persistence like that supports malign intent pretty well. (Canada's Criminal Code actually makes it illegal to persistently follow a person anywhere. How I do so love that law.)


----------



## blash (Jul 2, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This statue does not appear to carry the stigma nor the registration requirement of Sexual Offender however, which I found interesting since this is a felony.



The statute as you explain it seems to apply to both the people who shove a camera in a changing room (thus causing trauma from invasion of privacy), as well as people who use a 600mm lens with a 2x teleconverter on a crop body (where the 'victim' isn't hurt and is likely unaware of being photographed).

Simply being a perv isn't enough to require someone to register as a sex offender - and AFAIK you wouldn't have to register as a sex offender unless someone was hurt (i.e. public indecency, public urination does not require you to register as a sex offender, right?). Ergo, you couldn't require people to register as sex offenders under a widely applicable law like this.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 2, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This is not a real surprise if you were from Texas or follow what happens there. There have been several arrests and convictions under this statue.



Link to the statute please.

...I don't doubt you, but your google-fu is stronger than mine, and I'd like to read it.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 2, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The interesting thing in the article was that the offender pled Guilty. That says a lot for a case like this and would explain the lack of detail in the article.



Yes- That, IMO, makes him a perv.  The lack of detail makes it hard to know what really happened though.


What gets me is that this stuff happened over a year ago, and he is just now being sentenced.  Gotta love our courts...


I go to this Wal-Mart at least once a week...  I just can't imagine something as (appanently) sick as this going on there.

I still want to know exactly what constitutes "improper" photography - but I doubt I'll ever have to worry about it.  It just startled me that someone was convicted of a photography crime.


----------



## Baaaark (Jul 3, 2009)

blash said:


> Simply being a perv isn't enough to require someone to register as a sex offender - and AFAIK you wouldn't have to register as a sex offender unless someone was hurt (i.e. public indecency, public urination does not require you to register as a sex offender, right?). Ergo, you couldn't require people to register as sex offenders under a widely applicable law like this.



It depends on the state.  In Tennessee, I hear public urination will indeed make you have to register as a sex offender.  But its a loophole more than anything.  I don't think it was their intention to do so when they passed the laws.

I'm very liberal when it comes to civil rights (like most on here I'm guessing), but the most annoying part is the lack of finite regulations.  I usually don't mind ambiguous wording and stuff like that, but in this case I'd like to know EXACTlY what situations will be illegal and which ones aren't.

I also think it goes beyond government's reach to limit lust and desire.  Its fine to photograph horrible acts of violence in public places, but take a photo of an of-age woman topless and you go to jail.  WTF?  I know this photo was of an underage girl, but still.  If she's fully-clothed, there is NO WAY this guy should be jailed, perv or not.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 3, 2009)

The story definitely smacks of something missing.  You do not arrest someone for taking a pic in a Walmart... Texas (and I lived there 2 years), or anywhere else.  You *do* get arrested in Walmart for taking pics of children in a covert manner with the intentions of not being honest with the parents of the child about what your intentions are with the pictures.

This person would not be convicted if he was an average open, friendly and HONEST Joe... who walked up to the mom, asked for permission, and proceeded only after getting it.

I recently started tutoring a young man and we went to a local park.  A local school had their young men there playing baseball.  I could have used the 200mm and taken the shots from a distance, but I asked permission of the head teacher.  When asked why, I stated it was for tutoring purposes... he was still not comfortable... so I asked if we could still take pictures and when finished, show him the shots and then delete the shots in front of him... he smiled and said "thats all I would ask".  Se we spent 45 minutes shooting the kids, from far, up close, the sides... ANYWHERE we wanted, and enjoyed the practice and the tutoring, studied the pics for at least 15-20 minutes then deleted the shots in front of the head teacher.

No muss... no fuss, goals attained and both sides happy.  If I was a creep or a jerk, I also would expect to be stopped by the cops... and rightly so.  If anyone started taking pics of my niece, I sure would walk up and ask them to be deleted and the card formatted in front of my eyes... or I would pound on the guy a little and then call the cops myself!


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> or I would pound on the guy a little and then call the cops myself!



Exactly.  It sounds like this guy probably really is guilty of whatever he was tried for (although the article gives no details at all).  I just can't believe that if it was really as bad as it sounds, nobody did anything.



I still can't belive that it's a felony though.  I didn't think there was any way you could commit a felony with a camera (cell phone in this case).


----------



## Joves (Jul 3, 2009)

Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public. Even if it had been just random photos he could have been convicted if Wal-Mart chose to file charges. This would be a case of being responsible in where you shoot but, the guy pleading guilty say alot more about it. People inside a store have expectation of privacy, with the exception of theft cameras. This is true of any private business and, they do not have to post any notices either.
I agree with Gryph on this one. It sounds like their law is too open ended. If I had been one of the people they convicted on such an open ended law that restricted my right to photograph in public areas, I would have had my lawyer file appeals to higher courts on the grounds the law was too vague. The beauty of this country is you have the right to challenge a law if it is either unfair or, is to vague for uniform enforcement. At the least if I lived in Texas, I would get all of my photographer friends to write the legislature to get the law at least ammended the law to be clear on what and, what does not constitute a violation. If they wont then try and vote them out.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a real surprise if you were from Texas or follow what happens there. There have been several arrests and convictions under this statue.
> ...



ec. 21.15.  IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. 
(a)  In this section, &#8220;promote&#8221; has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
(b)  A person commits an offense if the person:
(1)  photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
A)  without the other person&#8217;s consent; and
(B)  with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2)  photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:
A)  without the other person&#8217;s consent; and
(B)  with intent to:
(i)  invade the privacy of the other person; or
(ii)  arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(3)  knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
(e)  For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person&#8217;s consent under that subdivision.


----------



## winsley (Jul 3, 2009)

90 days and 5 yrs on probation.... If you think that's crazy, try working as in the business and you'll see alot crazier!!! Spend a day in the court room and watch what goes on. It will make you sick.


----------



## tnvol (Jul 4, 2009)

If I caught some pervert sneaking pics of my young daughter in wal mart I would definetly have a "talk" with the guy.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 4, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



His Google-Fu *is* srong!


----------



## Crazydad (Jul 11, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This is not a real surprise if you were from Texas or follow what happens there. There have been several arrests and convictions under this statue. One person was arrested for photographing two topless women at Hippy Hollow, the states only public nudity beach in a state park. There have been several cases of this type.


 
That case was actually dismissed because the DA felt they couldn't prove the "intent to arouse or gratify". There was a lot of discussion here around this case when it happened and the general consensus was there was no expectation of privacy and what constitutes "intent to arouse".

Meant to add the link to the article: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...2009/04/30/da_nothing_wrong_with_topless.html

I agree about the law being not well written. But the suburban soccer moms (and I am married to one ), who like the nanny state, want it to be as broad as possible so almost anything they don't like can fall into it. It is pretty scary if the definition is determined by the officer on the scene.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 11, 2009)

...I still can't get over the fact that "improper photography" is a felony.

That's a pretty serious conviction just for taking some pictures...


----------



## epp_b (Jul 11, 2009)

Taking pictures up some girl's skirt?  Fine, lock him up.

Taking a completely harmless and innocent picture of some girl and her mom shopping?  This man needs to sue.



> Their law is not well written in my opinion.


What _is_ well-written in Texas? 



> Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public.


Actually, it's a private location that allows public access.  That usually means you can photograph all you want until an authority figure tells you stop.


----------



## Big (Jul 12, 2009)

I don't know man, even though I love photography, if I had a little daughter and I caught some guy taking pictures of her with a cellphone in Wal-Mart, I would kick his...  and then call the cops!


----------



## Joves (Jul 13, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public.
> 
> 
> Actually, it's a private location that allows public access. That usually means you can photograph all you want until an authority figure tells you stop.


 Ummm no. It is a private area. As is if you are standing in their parking lot. A big part of having your right is using it responsibly.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 13, 2009)

Sure, maybe a 'lil weird but, the "crime" of photography? All this guy needs a book on photography law and he can act as his own lawyer.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jul 13, 2009)

Joves said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > > Well first off inside of Wal-Mart is not in public.
> ...


 
Actually, he was right -- it's a privately-owned public area.  The distinction between public and private differs depending on the subject matter (speech, privacy, discrimination / equal access, etc.)  But for these purposes the question is whether you're in a public space with no expectation of privacy or a private space with an expectation of privacy.  The answer's pretty cut and dried -- you have no expectation of privacy in a Wal-Mart.  Everyone can see you.  You can see everyone.  It's "in public."  You have an expectation of privacy in your house, in a bathroom, etc.  Not in a Wal-Mart.

Now, does that mean you're free to take pictures?  Yes and no.  Is it illegal to take pictures in a Wal-Mart?  Of course not.  But Wal-Mart can restrict photo-taking -- just like it can require shoes.  It's allowed to make rules.  If you do it after being asked to stop (or in violation of a clearly-posted sign), then Wal-Mart could ask you to leave -- refusal to do so would be trespassing.  But, absent such a rule, it's not illegal.

That being said:
A) There are photos that violate an expectation of privacy, even in public spaces (i.e. up a skirt or the like).

B) That it isn't illegal...doesn't mean it isn't creepy in some cases.

(However, I do want to say that we can take this "everyone's a child molestor" thing too far.  There are evil people out there -- but a world where we raise our kids in cocoons out of a fear that every male may be a potential abuser...it's not really a great world.  There are lots of good, innocent reasons to take pictures of kids -- they can be adorable (well, some of them...).  It's unfortunate that we jump to the conclusion that any picture of a child is meant for sexual purposes.  In some, rare cases it is -- but in the great majority of cases it's not.)


----------



## Joves (Jul 13, 2009)

It is not a public area. It is private property much like your house that allows the public in there is a difference. While you are shopping in wether it be a mall or, store you have the expectaion of privacy while doing so. When you are in a park, on a sidewalk or, on a roadway you have no expectation of privacy.


----------



## epp_b (Jul 13, 2009)

^ Oh really?  Go ahead, get naked and run around in a Wal-Mart, then try telling your arresting officer, "It's a private place, I have the same expectation of privacy as in my own home!"


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jul 14, 2009)

Joves said:


> It is not a public area. It is private property much like your house that allows the public in there is a difference. While you are shopping in wether it be a mall or, store you have the expectaion of privacy while doing so. When you are in a park, on a sidewalk or, on a roadway you have no expectation of privacy.


 
Three quick things:

1. They videotape you to watch for shoplifters. 
2. You can't take your pants off.
3. Anything you do in there is viewable by anyone.

I think perhaps you have a personal, subjective expectation of privacy in a Wal-Mart -- but, if so, it's an unreasonable one. Sorry, man, it's a public place.

In fact, if you allowed any and all people into your house, it, too, would be a public place for however long you allowed everyone to come in. By inviting the public to invade your privacy, you give up any expectation thereof. You'd have no right to complain that everyone saw your personal effects -- because you invited them in, and left the personal effects within their range of vision. Similarly, if you didn't forbid photography, you'd have no right to complain about it later if someone took pictures. Whatever you make public, you can't simultaneously expect to be private.

In fact, there's a thorny issue of whether a person in their own backyard is in private or public. They're on their private land, sure. But if they're naked and right next to a public road, with no fence...can someone take a picture? It's a little unclear in some jurisdictions (because of other laws targetting paparazzi), but probably yes. 

There is a movement, of which this law seems to be a part, towards forbidding certain types of photography even in public places. But that's not because the places are "private" or because there's a reasonable expectation of privacy therein. Rather, it is because lawmakers have decided that some types of public photography have negative social effects and should be banned. The wisdom of that view is...debatable -- but it certainly doesn't mean that otherwise public spaces become private. (You still can't take your pants off. )


----------



## KmH (Jul 14, 2009)

Big said:


> I don't know man, even though I love photography, if I had a little daughter and I caught some guy taking pictures of her with a cellphone in Wal-Mart, I would kick his... and then call the cops!


And then wonder why the cops were taking you to jail and not him.

About a year after getting out of jail for assault you would then be trying to figure out how the hell you would pay the settlement his attorney won against you in civil court.

Happens just like that every day, somewhere in America as the result of kicking some's @ss.....before they let the cops do their thing.

Sounds good in theory, but usually backfires big time.


----------



## Joves (Jul 14, 2009)

TheOtherBob said:


> Joves said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a public area. It is private property much like your house that allows the public in there is a difference. While you are shopping in wether it be a mall or, store you have the expectaion of privacy while doing so. When you are in a park, on a sidewalk or, on a roadway you have no expectation of privacy.
> ...


 Untrue but you keep believing that. The store has a right to videotape people in their store. They also have the option of banning you from entering the stores for no reason at all if they choose to and, have you arrested for tresspassing. In public areas you can not be randomly tossed from those areas it is totally different. 
 And you do have an expectation of privacy not from the owners of the property but, from other people in the store.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 14, 2009)

Joves said:


> TheOtherBob said:
> 
> 
> > Joves said:
> ...



When it comes to a right to privacy on private property, you in most cases only have the right to privacy that the property owner grants you.  Exceptions are made in the law for things like restrooms/changing rooms.  Your general right to privacy outside those areas is at the discretion of the property owner.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jul 14, 2009)

Joves said:


> Untrue but you keep believing that. The store has a right to videotape people in their store. They also have the option of banning you from entering the stores for no reason at all if they choose to and, have you arrested for tresspassing. In public areas you can not be randomly tossed from those areas it is totally different.
> And you do have an expectation of privacy not from the owners of the property but, from other people in the store.


 
No offense, man, but you're way off base -- I understand how you could believe that, but it's untrue as a matter of law. Expectation of privacy has a defined meaning in the law and...that meaning doesn't match your understanding. :er:

I think your misunderstanding comes from confusing the idea of privately owned space and private space. Private space is space where you can expect not to be observed by the public -- where you can do things privately. Bathrooms, inside houses, etc. 

Privately-owned space could be anything from a house to a Wal-Mart to a privately-held park -- nothing about being privately-owned makes a space private in and of itself. If you're in a privately-owned park smoking weed, for example, and an officer walks by...can you claim that you're doing it in private, and that he therefore violated your Fourth Amendment rights by observing you without a warrant? Of course not. You may have been in a privately-owned space, but you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a publicly-accessible park (regardless of who owns it). 

Sorry, man -- your idea of what the law is or should be...just doesn't match what the law actually is on this subject.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 14, 2009)

From my, umm, personal dealings with law enforcement - TheOtherBob is correct.

Just one example, you _can_ get arrested for _public_ intox on _private_ property...

(Long time ago...lol.)


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 14, 2009)

Don't forget, people, this is an international forum.  Heatedly discussing law here is a total waste of time as the laws in Sweden are different from the USA and are different in Canada and are different in Africa.  Laws also (for example in the USA) can also change from state to state and even township to township!

If you want to quote law unequivocally, at least have the courtesy to:

1. Be a lawyer with expertise in photographic laws or at least have a strong expertise in the area.

2. State in what geographic location you are stating laws from.

Without these 2 things, all we are, are a bunch of friends arguing semantics and opinions on what we perceive laws  on the internet should be like.  Very many people could be wrong just as easily as many people could be equally right in the same given scenario.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 14, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> and even township to township!



I forget what it's called (there's a word for it...), but Texas is like that.  The law is not uniform throughout the state.  Each town may have it's own laws that are different than the neighboring town...

...It's kind of annoying.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 14, 2009)

I spent 2 years in Texas... they're quite special in how they work.  They even have different income tax and item purchase tax laws from town to town... lol

You guys from "The Republic" sure do things differently from just about anywhere else I have ever seen, and I say that with a chuckle.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jul 15, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Don't forget, people, this is an international forum. Heatedly discussing law here is a total waste of time as the laws in Sweden are different from the USA and are different in Canada and are different in Africa. Laws also (for example in the USA) can also change from state to state and even township to township!
> 
> If you want to quote law unequivocally, at least have the courtesy to:
> 
> ...


 
Well, I don't see anyone "heatedly" discussing anything...but nonetheless.  (And even if we were all lawyers specializing in Texas privacy law...we'd _still _just be a bunch of friends arguing semantics and opinions! Such is the internet.) 

We're talking about common and constitutional law in the U.S. (the underlying question dealt with Texas). The roots of privacy law are debatable, but many would argue that they're constitutionally-based. (Though that's a rotten kettle of fish I don't want to dive into.) Others see them as based in the common law dealing with torts. Regardless, the primary driver of privacy law is not local statutory law, but rather general common or constitutional law. 

Now, are there local statutes that might affect that? Of course. There always are, regardless of the topic. But I don't think we can say that it's impossible to have a discussion of a general, common law issue because local statutes might affect the outcome. Sure, without full context we're talking hypotheticals and generalities...but of course we are, it's the intertubes.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 15, 2009)

Discussion is one thing, offering ACCURATE legal advice is another.  In one if it is wrong, meh, who cares, welcome to the internetz.  In the other, someone takes it as fact... and ends up in jail.  That was my point.  People read here, expect it to be true, and it so not even close to being so.

I was advocating that people use common sense and find out what the laws are local to them for best accuracy.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jul 15, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Discussion is one thing, offering ACCURATE legal advice is another. In one if it is wrong, meh, who cares, welcome to the internetz. In the other, someone takes it as fact... and ends up in jail. That was my point. People read here, expect it to be true, and it so not even close to being so.
> 
> I was advocating that people use common sense and find out what the laws are local to them for best accuracy.


 
....?

No one here has offered any legal advice.  Legal advice tells you what to do in your particular situation.  Discussions of the law, generally...merely discuss the law, generally.  Stating your understanding of the law is by no means providing "legal advice."

Although I agree with you that anyone considering taking an action that may or may not violate the law should consult a local attorney, I don't agree that we should avoid discussing the law out of a fear that someone might misuse or misunderstand it.  They might, it's true -- but knowledge and discussion beats secrecy.  The law is the framework of our society -- knowing and discussing it should not belong only to those who've read (or been forced to read, in my case) Epstein on Torts.

Now, if the man who was arrested were here and asking for advice, that'd be one thing -- and I'd have to tell him the old "IAALBNYL" thing.  But he's not.


----------



## Mystwalker (Jul 15, 2009)

I think law in this case is a bit harsh - not saying he is innocent ... BUT regardless of what law says, photographer have to use common sense.

Is picture worth having irate/defensive parent in your face?

I (parent) am not a mind reader - a photographer's intentions may be innocent, but I do not not know that unless photographer talks to me.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 15, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> They even have different income tax and item purchase tax laws from town to town... lol



...Yeah.  The state sales tax is 6%.  Each town is allowed to tack on an additional 2.25%.

So far, I haven't been to any towns that didn't add on their part too.


----------



## bradly (Jul 26, 2009)

I've noticed in general that people don't like having a picture taken of them unless they specifically are seeking to be photographed. Whether it's legal or not, it's not nice or respectful of those folks. And since I never know who's cool with it or not, I never do any 'candid' shots unless I'm at a parade (where everyone is snapping away).


----------



## skieur (Aug 6, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Don't forget, people, this is an international forum.  Heatedly discussing law here is a total waste of time as the laws in Sweden are different from the USA and are different in Canada and are different in Africa.  Laws also (for example in the USA) can also change from state to state and even township to township!
> 
> If you want to quote law unequivocally, at least have the courtesy to:
> 
> ...



Sorry to inform you but the law does not vary that much from Canada, the US, Britain and elsewhere.  The basic concepts and freedoms are often the same because of international treaties related to journalistic rights.  The differences are minor and some have not been challenged in the Supreme Court of the particular jurisdiction.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Aug 6, 2009)

Quote: Originally Posted by *JerryPH* 

 
_Discussion is one thing, offering ACCURATE legal advice is another. In one if it is wrong, meh, who cares, welcome to the internetz. In the other, someone takes it as fact... and ends up in jail. That was my point. People read here, expect it to be true, and it so not even close to being so.

I was advocating that people use common sense and find out what the laws are local to them for best accuracy. 

I don't agree that someone should spend money on a lawyer to provide basic information related to the law and photography.  Moreover unless the lawyer deals with photography issues regularly his advice is just as suspect as that of anyone else.

It is understandable that some should seek and want to ask questions about the basic legal concepts related to photography and related laws.

skieur
_


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 6, 2009)

I hate to say it, but you are both wrong, and both right... it depends on country, county and even city laws.  You guys are talking apples and oranges.  

If you want the ONE right answer... set the EXACT location and then talk to a local lawyer.  That is the only way you can settle this, if that is your desire.   

While I was living in Texas, they had a different "State Tax" changing from TOWN to TOWN, not even county to county.  Different laws for different geographical areas. 

I am sure this discussion of rights or expectations to privacy is also something that will greatly vary from location to location.  I know it varies from state to state in the US and changes TONS from province to province in Canada.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 6, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> While I was living in Texas, they had a different "State Tax" changing from TOWN to TOWN, not even county to county.  Different laws for different geographical areas.



True.  The town I live in has different laws than the next town down the highway (in the same county).  ...Annoying.


I think "common sense" will save you 99% of the time.  But, there are some laws that defy common sense...


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 6, 2009)

skieur said:


> _ I don't agree that someone should spend money on a lawyer to provide basic information related to the law and photography.  _



Basic to whom?  You?  Me?  Some guy in Peru?  How could you or I help some Peruvian needing LEGAL advice from here?  

Unless you know the laws specific to the EXACT location of the person doing the asking, you cannot and SHOULD NOT offer it.  Chances are you are going to be giving out improper legal advice.

Personally, the last thing *I* would be doing is asking anyone on the internetz anything about the law, even if they told me they were the lawyer living next door to me.... how in the heck could I make sure, unless I went next door and knocked on his door?

Listening to legal advice from here would more than likely  land me in jail as that lawyer is some 14 year old with good grammar and me being very gullible... lol

If you are going to be screwing around with the law, it is a small fee to pay some lawyer to spend an hour of his time and get it straight... and when someone questions you, you have the facts, undisputable and straight from the law books.  Speaking of books, if you don't want to spend the $100 to save your hiney... consult a local law library. Though less reliable, it is STILL better than getting it off the net... as THAT is as unreliable as it gets!


----------



## skieur (Aug 7, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I hate to say it, but you are both wrong, and both right... it depends on country, county and even city laws.  You guys are talking apples and oranges.
> 
> If you want the ONE right answer... set the EXACT location and then talk to a local lawyer.  That is the only way you can settle this, if that is your desire.
> 
> ...



Talk about "apples and oranges", different taxes from one location to another in NO way relates to photographic rights and privacy which are federal in Canada and Britain and state and federal in the US.

By the way, local bylaws related to photography are not even legal until they have been challenged and upheld in court.  Moreover  most of them tend to be reasonable in dictating that you can not disturb normal pedestrian traffic or park enjoyment by setting up and using major production equipment without a permit. If they prevent you from taking photos beyond the restrictions of federal laws, then they are open to court challenge.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Aug 7, 2009)

skieur said:


> JerryPH said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to say it, but you are both wrong, and both right... it depends on country, county and even city laws.  You guys are talking apples and oranges.
> ...



Sorry, but local laws are legal the moment they are published on the date the ordianace specifies.  The courts do not decide if a passed law is legal, the decide if one is illegal.  Not all laws get challenged in court.


----------



## skieur (Aug 7, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > _ I don't agree that someone should spend money on a lawyer to provide basic information related to the law and photography.  _
> ...



You seem to be trying to draw analogies and stretch points to avoid the basic fact that legal concepts in the area of photography are similar for most of TPF, since the majority live in the US, Canada, Britain, Europe, etc.

skieur


----------



## Opher (Aug 7, 2009)

The law in the US is that you can photograph anything or any one so-long as they are in a public area.  Canada is a little more strict as you can get charged with trespassing for taking photos in the mall.  I may be a bit off but i have done some research on the subject.  Because he was in a store and not just the mall aria he may be liable for trespassing but other than that he should be able to fight it. 

(i am in no way endorsing his misbehavior but from a legal aspect he has done nothing wrong)

Correct me if im rong i like to stay up to date


----------



## usayit (Aug 7, 2009)

btw..  (a bit off topic) Texas doesn't have a state level income tax which resulted (in part) with different tax codes for different municipalities.  Much of the local tax codes did make sense.  For example, Addison (North Dallas) gave tax breaks to restaurants to help revive a failing local economy.  What I didn't like was using local taxes to make up for the lack of state level income tax revenue because it is a very regressive form of taxation.

Grew up in Texas.. still a Texan at heart.


----------



## skieur (Aug 16, 2009)

Opher said:


> The law in the US is that you can photograph anything or any one so-long as they are in a public area.  Canada is a little more strict as you can get charged with trespassing for taking photos in the mall.  I may be a bit off but i have done some research on the subject.  Because he was in a store and not just the mall aria he may be liable for trespassing but other than that he should be able to fight it.
> 
> (i am in no way endorsing his misbehavior but from a legal aspect he has done nothing wrong)
> 
> Correct me if im rong i like to stay up to date



In Canada or the US, a photographer can be charged with trespassing for shooting in a mall or a store, but that seldom happens in either country.  If you set up a tripod, people need to walk around you, or you are a visual distraction, then you might be spotted by a security guard and told that photography is not allowed.  If you comply, there may be no problem.  If not, you may be escorted off the property.  You are unlikely to be charged with trespassing, unless you cause a disturbance or are aggressive.

If, on the other hand, you look like a tourist and are taking some quick shots on the move, you are unlikely to even be bothered.  I even told one security guard, that I was taking a photo to show what the item looked like, to my wife.  He did not even ask to see my photo.

skieur


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 20, 2009)

In britain they arrest you for entering a camera shop. Carry a dslr in public and you are sure to be hanged.


----------



## UUilliam (Aug 20, 2009)

JamesMason said:


> In britain they arrest you for entering a camera shop. Carry a dslr in public and you are sure to be hanged.


Nah britain just cannot be that hard, our legal system is too ***** for that...
The most we get is Life for murder (uhmn... life is 20 years according to law...)

And sometimes extended sentences

The americans are badass at legal systems, Say hello to a police officer over there, oh sorry i mean a Cop over there, You better hope your lucky and not get jailed for 2 years for saying hello ;P

Scotland is the place for toggers,
No trespass law, But they balance it out with Criminal damage charges (however if you don't damage anything, there is nothing they can do...)


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 20, 2009)

You're right our legal sytem is far too soft. Just wish that police would do something usefull with there time rather than harrasing photographers or people who drop cig ends and sweet wrappers.


----------



## bp4life71 (Sep 10, 2009)

Let me add something to this.  First off, I'm a 10 year veteran in Federal Law Enforcement.

You will NEVER get arrested for taking pictures in a public place.  This man HAD to do something malicious while taking the photos.

To the person who stated that someone got arrested for taking pictures of TOPLESS woman on a PUBLIC NUDE BEACH.....

YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED FOR TAKING PICTURES IN A PUBLIC PLACE!  There is no expectation of privacy when you are in a public place.  These woman walking around with their juggies out had no reasonable expectation of privacy.  If there was an arrest, it was not for simply taking pictures of them...there had to be something in addition to.

I know what I'm talking about, I am a certified Law Instructor for the Federal Government.


----------



## bp4life71 (Sep 10, 2009)

Opher said:


> The law in the US is that you can photograph anything or any one so-long as they are in a public area. Canada is a little more strict as you can get charged with trespassing for taking photos in the mall. I may be a bit off but i have done some research on the subject. Because he was in a store and not just the mall aria he may be liable for trespassing but other than that he should be able to fight it.
> 
> (i am in no way endorsing his misbehavior but from a legal aspect he has done nothing wrong)
> 
> Correct me if im rong i like to stay up to date


 
What was his misbehavior?  I didnt read the article, but you guys have and stated that it doesnt say anything other than he was taking pictures of a girl with his cell phone.

If he was doing something wrong by taking pictures...alot of you are in big trouble!  

As "perverted" as it may seem to take pictures of little girls, there is no laws against it.  I personally think the guy is a freak, and I too would want to beat his "you know what".  I have small kids, and If somebody was to come up and start taking snapshots...id be angry.


----------



## skieur (Sep 10, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> Opher said:
> 
> 
> > The law in the US is that you can photograph anything or any one so-long as they are in a public area. Canada is a little more strict as you can get charged with trespassing for taking photos in the mall. I may be a bit off but i have done some research on the subject. Because he was in a store and not just the mall aria he may be liable for trespassing but other than that he should be able to fight it.
> ...



I don't know why anyone would see taking pictures of little girls or boys as "perverted".  Probably the same types who consider that taking photos of buildings is a terrorist act.

I did both for a very long time as part of one of my jobs without any releases, since none were necessary.  All were candid, action, or sports.

skieur


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 10, 2009)

skieur said:


> I don't know why anyone would see taking pictures of little girls or boys as "perverted".  Probably the same types who consider that taking photos of buildings is a terrorist act.



Are you a parent?

If I saw someone taking pictures of my kids, especially with a phone camera, I'd be really suspicious and would ask questions.

Having the right to take photographs doesn't override my right to be a concerned parent.

PS
I take photos of a high profile building in the city I work in almost daily, and I do wonder what people think. However if I was ever approached I would be happy to talk to them and show them the photographs.


----------



## skieur (Sep 10, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why anyone would see taking pictures of little girls or boys as "perverted".  Probably the same types who consider that taking photos of buildings is a terrorist act.
> ...



A parent and grandparent.

skieur


----------



## UUilliam (Sep 10, 2009)

To be honest...
If i saw anyone take images of my kids, I would request they delete them

The keyword is "Request"
I wouldn't want my children to be getting put on websites / shared / being used as something to please their sexual desire, Although i ofcourse dont have children, but still wouldn't appreciate it. not without first being informed and asked permission


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 10, 2009)

Glad I'm not the only one!


----------



## Plato (Sep 10, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> The Herald Banner, Greenville, TX - Man sentenced for using cell phone for improper photography
> 
> This story was in the local paper today.  (front page)
> 
> ...



Walmart pics.


----------



## skieur (Sep 10, 2009)

Plato said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > The Herald Banner, Greenville, TX - Man sentenced for using cell phone for improper photography
> ...



Boy, talk about culture shock! This is when I realize that I am in a VERY DIFFERENT country from the U.S.  No wonder, I see things differently!

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 10, 2009)

Not all of us here in the US are nuts. And UU is in the UK.

Personally I could not care less. Unless you're sticking that lens in their diapers. lol.


----------

