Ugh, more erroneous baloney. This is getting tiresome, but I'm concerned that some kid who is new on RRN is going to take you seriously and get themself in trouble.
RussNelson wrote:Taking photographs from public property is always legal. Under certain circumstances, profiting from those photographs may be illegal.
Russ - IT ISN'T ALWAYS LEGAL
- On public property YOU MAY NOT PHOTOGRAPH PERSONS WHO HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
. If you think that I'm wrong, why don't you bring your camera on the MBTA and take an "up-skirt" photo. Or perhaps walk into the mens room on the Public Garden and shoot a guy in a toilet stall. Maybe at the South Station platform you'll find a mother inside an Amtrak roomette nursing her new-born. Grab a nice artistic shot by telephoto of a guy entering his PIN in a street ATM. Let me know how any of those work out for you Russ. (P.S. I won't come and bail you out.) I think that it would be great for you to actually do what you say and lead by example.
RussNelson wrote:That said, a policeman may wish to inconvenience you, and there seems to be no restrictions on her or her doing that.
I don't know any department, with the possible exception of Mayberry, North Carolina, that doesn't have a set of rules and regulations
in force prohibiting a conduct such as this without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
RussNelson wrote:Under NO circumstances, however, should you allow a policeman to engage you in deleting the photographs. Either 1) you've done nothing wrong, or 2) you have, and you're destroying evidence. Either way, deleting the photographs makes no sense.
In your scenario whereby "you have done something wrong", if by photographing against the law and a policeman has made a discretionary decision not to arrest you, but instead give you a verbal warning; (1) there is no evidence because a criminal prosecution is not contemplated, and (2) would you rather delete your shot and walk away or
risk being arrested (in which case your camera may be seized and held as evidence), go through the booking process, have to either bail yourself out of jail or spend the night in a room that ain't quite "the Ritz", go through numerous court hearings and possibly a trial, suspend your life for months with this on your back, have a permanent arrest and booking record which is permanently kept in the local police department and FBI's computer data base, give an attorney thousands of dollars towards his next vacation, and subject yourself to a possible criminal record for the rest of your life ? What do you think Russ ? I think that it makes a lot
RussNelson wrote:On private property, you are subject to the whims of the property owner. Absent a contract (preferably written) dictating the terms of your use of the property, the property owner can change his mind at will, at which point you are trespassing and must immediately depart.
Oh brother ! Do you get your posts from one of those Genie fortune teller balls, Russ ? That's a very all-encompassing statement which implies that all property owners possess this incredible power all the time, which in fact they don't. It is virtually universal that where consistant prior consent has been given (or lack of enforcement against), that notice must be given (written notice in housing situations) in order to revoke such consent. There are even situations under common law, whereby members of the general public cause private property to become a public way if it is is used regularly as a common, accepted practice, over a period of time without a property owner enforcing a right of exclusion. As you suggest, the whim of a property owner is not
going to make you law abiding at 2:05 and a trespasser at 2:06. Under some circumstances where if your entry onto the property was legal initially, only after you have left (within a reasonable amount of time) after having been given a trespass notice and then return
, would you be considered to be trespassing, providing the law allows for it. Trust me when I tell you that there are many apartment house owners who wish that your premise was true as they sit on an apartment occupied by no-contract, non-rent payers for long periods of time after notice has been given to persons that they cannot legally evict.
Here's a little example: Your buddy and his girlfriend live in a little apartment in Massachusetts off the NEC where a replica NYC "20th Century Limited" is coming through on an east coast tour. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity and you want to get some shots of her. This apartment is right up to the tracks and is the absolute perfect vantage spot for this kind of a shot. Nobody will get this close at this location ! So your buddy says, "come on over and we'll shoot it, then have a party". Your buddy said when his lease expired, "I'm staying but no longer paying rent", and hasn't paid for almost two months now. There has been no civil court action. You show up with your tripod and camera for the shoot. Ten minutes later, who shows up but the landlord telling you that you have to leave as the three of you are trespassing. He says that he's calling the cops if you guys don't leave. What's going to happen ? Is he right ?
IMHO, the answer is no, he's wrong. Nothing's going to happen. Go tell him to whatever, and enjoy your photo shoot and party. Have one for me. (No crime has been committed.)