# Candid "legal" questions!



## swiftparkour94 (Sep 29, 2012)

I was shooting in a parking lot today outside of local stores. The thought "Is it legal?" came to mind considering that I'm no longer on the sidewalk and have entered potentially private property. Is there a black and white answer for this? (pun intended).

Another question...can I shoot in stores since there is a difference between store policy and the law?

Still fairly new to candid and street photography....I believe I am improving. If it matters, I live in the USA, in California


----------



## Tony S (Sep 29, 2012)

Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow.  This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations (most of them post no photography at the entrances).  They may have rules to tell you to stop taking pictures, but their only real recourse if you do is to have you removed from the property and given a no trespass order, which means if you come back then the cops can take you in.

  It's legal, but the owners can remove you for doing it if they don't want you to.  They really don't even have to post it, they can just say "go, we don't like what you are doing".


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Sep 29, 2012)

Tony S said:
			
		

> Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow.  This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations (most of them post no photography at the entrances).  They may have rules to tell you to stop taking pictures, but their only real recourse if you do is to have you removed from the property and given a no trespass order, which means if you come back then the cops can take you in.
> 
> It's legal, but the owners can remove you for doing it if they don't want you to.  They really don't even have to post it, they can just say "go, we don't like what you are doing".



Hmm ok. That's really weird because normally when people shoot candid they claim they legally can in the streets, but not in stores. I've seen videos of them saying to property owners "Oh no, were shooting this on the sidewalk in the public, not in your building". I guess I'll take my chances anyways and if I get caught and asked to leave or delete the images then I will. I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property


----------



## Tony S (Sep 29, 2012)

Re-read my post.  You can shoot legally and unbothered from the street, I didn't say anything to the contrary.  It's when you are off the public right of way and on private property when you are at the whim of what the property owner wants to allow to take place.


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Sep 29, 2012)

Tony S said:
			
		

> Re-read my post.  You can shoot legally and unbothered from the street, I didn't say anything to the contrary.  It's when you are off the public right of way and on private property when you are at the whim of what the property owner wants to allow to take place.



Oh ok that sounds more clear now, thanks


----------



## Judobreaker (Sep 29, 2012)

Hmm... It's not that black and white...
You're not always allowed to shoot the interior of a building, even if you are on the sidewalk.
Try shooting the insides some government building with a longer lens through the window and see if they accept it...


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Sep 29, 2012)

Judobreaker said:
			
		

> Hmm... It's not that black and white...
> You're not always allowed to shoot the interior of a building, even if you are on the sidewalk.
> Try shooting the insides some government building with a longer lens through the window and see if they accept it...



You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property. It doesn't matter if your shooting inside of there though it'd leave you very conspicuous and you'd be led to questioning or interrogation, especially if it's one run by the gov or city


----------



## vfotog (Sep 30, 2012)

swiftparkour94 said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're definitely wrong. Because of invasive paparazzi, there are now paparazzi laws in place in California. If you are out in a public, but are using say a telephoto lens to shoot through someone's window, it's an invasion of privacy and not legally allowable.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 30, 2012)

swiftparkour94 said:


> ...and if I get caught and asked to leave or delete the images then I will. I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property



I don't believe that you can be compelled to delete images, regardless if you were trespassing or not when you shot them...


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 1, 2012)

Legality and practicality probably differ here.  

The legality of standing on someones or some corporations private property without permission is quite clear...you can't.  It's called trespassing.  This applies to whether you are simply taking pictures or selling hotdogs.  I've been asked to leave a remote corner of an active factory parking lot on a Sunday afternoon (factory not open) while out taking pictures of trains passing that spot.  They were right, I was in the wrong, and immediately complied.

The practicality of standing there is that it is most likely very harmless to the owner or anyone/anything I'm taking pictures of....EXCEPT...  And here's where the lawyers come in...if, for example, you climbed a tree or ladder, or even stood on an icy lot and fell, or simply fell getting out of your car...then there's LIABILITY for the property owner to consider.  That's what "drives" corporate America, as well as some individual property owners, to disallow any trespassing for any reason.  I certainly don't want to lose my house because you climbed a tree on my property without my permission and broke your leg.  And many courts these days consider the 'deep pockets' of a 'big company like xxx' and award millions of dollars to someone who was clearly in the wrong but 'got hurt' while doing so.  I can quote many such instances.

But, if you are standing in a publicly owned place such as the sidewalk, street (watch out for cars!), or even a public (vs private) airport, feel free to shoot away.  Note, however, that many bus stations are private property such as Greyhound, Trailways, etc.


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 1, 2012)

The laws vary by country, state, and municipality.  But usually the laws will somehow encompass the following:

You may generally shoot photos of anything you want which is generally visible and exposed to the public if you are standing on public property, with a few exceptions.

You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area.  As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)  

You may NOT shoot a photo of someone in a place where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".  For example... you may NOT shoot a photo in a public restroom ... even though it's public property (also... that's just creepy.)  Keep in mind that "reasonable expectation of privacy" is up to a jury to decide... if someone is outside in their own backyard, but they've planted shrubbery or erected privacy fences and you're finding a clever way to shoot around them... you're probably going to have a hard time convincing a jury that they weren't trying to create a private space and that you've violated it.

You may shoot a photo of something on private property as long as you are standing on public property AND the subject is plainly visible (you don't need to do anything special to get the shot because it was in plain view.)

When standing on private property (even private property which is generally accessible to the public such as a shopping mall, a hotel lobby, etc.) you must abide by the rules of the property owner.  If there are no rules, then you CAN shoot photos.  If they ask you to stop then you must stop.  They cannot confiscate your camera (that would be theft) and then can destroy your photos nor can they force you to destroy your photos.  But they can escort you from the premises and tell you not to return.  If you do return, then you've trespassed and could be charged as such.

These rules just have to do with whether you're allowed to snap the photo.  What you can do with the photo after you snap it is a whole new set of rules.

If you're taking the photos because you plan to engage in commerce with them then there are more rules which may apply.  But as long as you're just taking the photos for your own personal enjoyment then generally you can safely take a photo as long as the subject is visible either on public property or on private property where you are not prohibited from shooting.  

Paparazzi is a whole different subject.  The paparazzi are generally taking photos of famous people.  Usually you'd need a model release in order to use those photos and the subjects typically wouldn't grant such a release.  But it turns out the 'press' gets an exception to the rule.  The press does NOT need a model release to use photos of people.  The paparazzi are essentially working for the press (even if they are freelance photographers (and usually they are), their only intended use of the photo is to sell it to the press.)  The paparazzi could not sell the photos to, say, a company who wanted to use the celebrity's image as part of their ad campaign, but they CAN sell the photo to a newspaper or magazine who may use it in an article without needing a model release.  That's how they get away with do something that any other photographer would NOT be allowed to do.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Oct 1, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area.  As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)




I believe this is not correct.  The Transportation  Security Administration (TSA) acknowledges that  photography is permitted in and around  airline security checkpoints as  long as you're not interfering with the  screening process. 

The TSA Blog: Can I Take Photos at the Checkpoint and Airport?


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> swiftparkour94 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and if I get caught and asked to leave or delete the images then I will. I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property
> ...



That is legally correct in the US, Canada, and other countries.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> The laws vary by country, state, and municipality. But usually the laws will somehow encompass the following:
> 
> You may generally shoot photos of anything you want which is generally visible and exposed to the public if you are standing on public property, with a few exceptions.
> 
> ...



There is an legal argument over whether famous people should have an expectation of privacy, when they are not involved in some official function related to their role in entertainment, politics, etc. There have been some preliminary rulings in some areas of Europe but it has not been totally resolved.  Editorial and artistic use for financial gain from a photo taken in a public place is the right of everyone, NOT just the press, under the law in the US and Canada.

skieur


----------



## FitzTML (Oct 2, 2012)

Here's a nice little one page summary of photographer's rights in the US:
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
It's always good to consult a legal professional and I am not one of those.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 3, 2012)

swiftparkour94 said:


> You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property.





Tony S said:


> Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow.  This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations



Both of these can't be held as a quote of law. These things vary greatly from country to country. I.e. some of the differences I know between for instance USA and Australia: Shopping malls are publicly accessible in the USA and therefore considered public in most states for the purposes of privacy rules (including photography). In the USA your right to photograph extends WAAAAAY beyond the sidewalk and street. In Australia on the other hand it's a strict opposite. If you're not on public land then it's up to the owners and this includes things like buildings or services which are run by the government but privately owned such as buses, train stations, and in a more bizarre case the entire south side of my city which is owned by the Southbank Corporation... Now to make matters more complicated where I live you have the right to take photos until told otherwise after which you're trespassing on private property, and any photos you captured until the point where you're asked to stop / leave are yours to keep, but snap a photo afterwards and it will be considered as being taken during a crime.

The second point can be quite different as well. As far as I am aware in the  USA if you can do something from public land it's your prerogative. Shoot with a 500mm lens into a government building (terrorism laws are the exception here, but it's not a case of privacy). In Australia and in many parts of Europe they apply the reasonable person clause. If a person can reasonably expect privacy then they deserve it. I've heard this referred to as the iPhone clause. If you can capture it from the street with an iPhone it's fair game, but if you need a long lens, or need to climb a tree to see over a fence etc you're out of luck if you get caught.


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 3, 2012)

The TSA screen area may have changed.  It was always a rule that never made sense to me.  While I cannot photograph an officially classified area, I _also_ can't visit the classified area either... I don't have clearance.  So I always thought it was odd that general members of the public could walk through the TSA screening area and see everything in plain sight... but whip out a camera and you'll have several agents telling you that you can't do that.

BTW, I actually _have_ seen TSA officers prevent people from using cameras because the screening area was in the background -- telling the people that they're not allowed to use cameras there (granted, just because the TSA officer says so doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.  But they can make your life miserable while you sort out what you may and may not legally do.)

As my layer friends are fond of reminding me:  you can do anything as long as you're certain that you can convince a jury to take your side.


----------



## vfotog (Oct 3, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> Paparazzi is a whole different subject.  The paparazzi are generally taking photos of famous people.  Usually you'd need a model release in order to use those photos and the subjects typically wouldn't grant such a release.  But it turns out the 'press' gets an exception to the rule.  The press does NOT need a model release to use photos of people.  The paparazzi are essentially working for the press (even if they are freelance photographers (and usually they are), their only intended use of the photo is to sell it to the press.)  The paparazzi could not sell the photos to, say, a company who wanted to use the celebrity's image as part of their ad campaign, but they CAN sell the photo to a newspaper or magazine who may use it in an article without needing a model release.  That's how they get away with do something that any other photographer would NOT be allowed to do.



this part is wrong. Paps are allowed to do what they do not because they are press but because basically anyone is allowed to take photos of anyone in PUBLIC. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets, so they can take photos of famous people or total unknowns. The entire genre of photography (street photography) exists because of this. The Pap laws exist to restrict them from harassing their subjects and also so that people won't be doing things like using long lenses to shoot through windows into people's homes, which are protected.


----------



## KmH (Oct 3, 2012)

swiftparkour94 said:


> You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property.


Note that not all sidewalks are on public property. 

As Steve5D mentions, here in the USA you cannot be compelled to delete images, nor do LEOs have the authority to confiscate your memory card unless they have a search warrant.
Private security guards have even less authority than do LEOs.

LEOs often do not know as much about the applicable laws as photographers do, and/or simply use their authority to make stuff up that sounds plausible.
LEO = Law Enforcement Officer

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


----------



## sapper6fd (Oct 3, 2012)

Tony S said:


> They may have rules to tell you to stop taking pictures, but their only real recourse if you do is to have you removed from the property and given a no trespass order, which means if you come back then the cops can take you in.



Cops will "take you in" for Tresspassing in the US?  My god.  Glad I live in Canada!  you can be given a Tresspass order preventing you from coming back on the property by the property owners here, if you violate that its nothing more than an $85 fine from the police!  The only time the police can arrest you for Tresspassing here is when you are commiting what is called "Tresspass by Night" which is where you are caught tresspassing at night and in posession of breaking and entering tools.  At which point you dont even need a tresspass order for them to take you in.


----------



## skieur (Oct 3, 2012)

Garbz said:


> swiftparkour94 said:
> 
> 
> > You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property.
> ...



Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.

skieur


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Oct 3, 2012)

Thanks so much everyone for the useful advice! Here's something else I've been pondering...can I shoot candid on a cruise ship? Not that I can afford one, I'm just wondering.....it seems extremely tough to answer and I can't figure it out myself!


----------



## KmH (Oct 4, 2012)

You would check with the cruise ship owners since you would be on private property.

As far as what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' you would need to check with whichever governments water the cruise ship happens to be in, assuming the ship is inside  government controlled waters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters


----------



## skieur (Oct 4, 2012)

swiftparkour94 said:


> Thanks so much everyone for the useful advice! Here's something else I've been pondering...can I shoot candid on a cruise ship? Not that I can afford one, I'm just wondering.....it seems extremely tough to answer and I can't figure it out myself!




A cruise ship is a "public place", so until and unless you are told otherwise by staff, you can take photos and use them for any purpose commercial or otherwise, but advertising.

skieur


----------



## Garbz (Oct 5, 2012)

skieur said:


> Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.



Good catch but on a technicality. Either way you won't retain the rights to your photos on private land if you're trespassing. Try and get that past the courts.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Oct 5, 2012)

skieur said:
			
		

> Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.
> 
> skieur


Except when charged with Criminal Trespass... just sayin'...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 5, 2012)

The internetz is the place to go for legal advice....we're all legal experts here


----------



## skieur (Oct 5, 2012)

Garbz said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.
> ...



Sure you will. It has already been done in well known civil cases in the US, a famous one in Canada, and I am sure, Australia as well since the same law applies.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 5, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO, Not true.  A case in New York, where the judge indicated that taking photos was not a crime even when trespassing, therefore the photographer retains rights to all images taken.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 5, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> TCampbell said:
> 
> 
> > You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area. As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)
> ...



Yes, there is a SHORT list of US classified areas such as area 51 in Nevada, where photography is forbidden but it is very short.  If the area is not on the list, then photography is permitted.

skieur


----------



## Garbz (Oct 6, 2012)

skieur said:


> Sure you will. It has already been done in well known civil cases in the US, a famous one in Canada, and I am sure, Australia as well since the same law applies.



This hasn't been tried on photography in Australia as far as I know, but it's unlikely you will. The outcome of the tort of trespass should it end up in court will likely end up with requiring to pay some form of compensation. Think about that for one second. You're on my land taking photographs of my stuff after I said no you can't (key here is after I've said so, anything before hand is fair game). In what world would you ever hope to retain copyright and/or make a profit of something taken while trespassing once you know a trespass case will be brought against you? The many of the fundamental trespass cases involve your right to make your own money from your land, i.e. someone digging under your property for minerals. Even without damaging or interfering with the land the cases all have been found for the property owner (except in Australia where you don't own anything of possible value underneath the ground on your property).


----------



## skieur (Oct 6, 2012)

Garbz said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you will. It has already been done in well known civil cases in the US, a famous one in Canada, and I am sure, Australia as well since the same law applies.
> ...



There are 2 basic legal issues that have won the case for photographers under the laws of several western countries:

1. trespassing may be illegal, BUT taking photos is NOT illegal with the few exceptions of top secret installations, courts, washrooms, changerooms etc. (There are famous paparazi shots taken while trespassing that have been published in magazines throughout the world.)
2. The photographer is the first owner of copyright and that does not change if the photographer was trespassing as the law is written.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Oct 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## skieur (Oct 7, 2012)

unpopular said:


> 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


----------



## manaheim (Oct 7, 2012)

Search "legal" on this forum and you'll get about 12 million threads on this topic.


----------



## skieur (Oct 7, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Search "legal" on this forum and you'll get about 12 million threads on this topic.



Non sequitur!


----------



## manaheim (Oct 7, 2012)




----------



## unpopular (Oct 7, 2012)

> At common law a trespass was not criminal unless it was accomplished by violence or breached the peace. Some modern statutes make any unlawful entry onto another's property a crime. When the trespass involves violence or injury to a person or property, it is always considered criminal, and penalties may be increased for more serious or malicious acts. Criminal intent may have to be proved to convict under some statutes, but in some states trespass is a criminal offense regardless of the defendant's intent.
> ​




​Criminal Trespass legal definition of Criminal Trespass. Criminal Trespass synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

eat it skieur.
​


----------



## vfotog (Oct 8, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



this makes no sense whatsoever and is just plain wrong.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

exactly. and in what jurisdiction was that case in, anyway? If it was in New York State Court, it has no precedent elsewhere. Even if was a lower federal court decision, it can only be used as persuasive argument - albeit strongly persuasive - in any other jurisdictions.

In other words, what some court decided in New York has limited, if any, weight here in Montana. For such a legal expert, Skieur seems to have little understanding of how the US courts actually work.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

On second thought, this issue couldn't be heard in federal court if the photographer was not demanded to cease the property, and because the definition of criminal trespassing is not a constitutional issue. I doubt very much that the damages would be high enough to be heard in Federal Court (I think $250K to qualify, but I'm not sure).

If the photographer lost, and had demanded that the property be ceased it could be heard in federal court as a first amendment violation. But since the property owner lost the issue of trespass is not a federal issue and would be heard in federal court; not being a federal issue, it must remain within the state court system to decide.


----------



## vfotog (Oct 8, 2012)

Maris66ol said:


> I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property



there shouldn't be any confusion. like most businesses, the public is allowed to enter so the mall can conduct the business of selling things to their customers, but it's not owned by the government/public. It's private property, just like a bank or restaurant or whatever.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

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.


----------



## dogleg (Jan 23, 2013)

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.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 23, 2013)

just get to the spam already.


----------



## KmH (Jan 23, 2013)

dogleg said:


> 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 (Jan 24, 2013)

KmH said:


> dogleg said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


    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 (Jan 27, 2013)

vfotog said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



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

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 27, 2013)

unpopular said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2013)

dogleg said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > dogleg said:
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2013)

dogleg said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > dogleg said:
> ...



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


----------

