ATTORNEY ANSWERS OUR QUESTIONS
HOW CAN YOU ( MR FAMILY) TELL... THESE PICTURES WERE LEGALLY TAKEN IF YOU DID NOT TAKE THEM YOURSELF OR WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN? ... HE HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING.
Susan Miller is an attorney in private practice. She recently retired from the Associated Press.
Susan’s statements are her own opinion and are not to be used as legal advice. Consult your attorney. These blogs may not be reprinted without permission. Write: cspp@epix.net
Sue has graciously allows us to interview her about legal issues surrounding bloggers.
In part one, we talk about picture taking.
MFF: After a three month absence, Mr Family has started publishing pictures of the club.
When and how is picture taking legal and illegal?
Sue: A picture taken in a public place, such as a street, of parked cars or other activity visible from that street is lawful because under these circumstances the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Tort issues regarding invasion of privacy arise when zoom lenses or telescopes or other technology is used to photograph things not visible to the ordinary eye in the location where the picture was taken.
MFF: Can you give some examples?
Sue: Let me add first, that pictures can be taken while engaging in lawful activity or unlawful activity. The pictures are subject to legal action if they violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, not newsworthy, or a reasonable person would be offended by the publication.
MFF: That’s kind of confusing.
Sue; ok, I will give you a case I was involved in. The pastor of a church was upset that an adult bookstore opened about ½ mile down the road form the church. He encouraged persons to photograph cars and email to him. He published them on the internet and even in the church bulletin. The pastor and church were sued by one of the men whose car was photographed. I defended the church on grounds of first amendment protection, freedom of religion and many other reasons. We lost. The court ruled that 1. The parking lot is private property. 2. The bookstore is open only to a certain segment of the public, those 18 years and over not the general public at large. 3. The man parking there had a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie not being photographed. 4. His being there was not newsworthy. And 5. A reasonable person would be offended by the publication and the manner that the photographs were obtained.
What made the matter worse, the person who took the picture could not be located because it ws emailed. Other persons testified they used zoom lenses etc from private property to obtain photos.
and did not have permission from the property owner to do so. The bottom line the picture taking activity cost the church about 25k. The court also said the church engaged in "spying" and was not protected by the state or federal constitution. The court also questioned the practice of soliciting pictures on the internet..
MFF: Are parking lots of businesses , shopping malls etc public or private property?
Sue: They are private property, used by the public, subject to the terms and conditions set forth by the owner/lesee. For example: a fast food restaurant sign: 30 minute parking limit while consuming our food. That doesn’t mean you can shoot pictures of the strip club down the street while eating their hamburgers. Unless the owner specifically states photography is permitted, one can presume it is not. Ask for permission.
MFF: What do you think of Mr family’s picture taking activity?
Sue: I will repeat what the court said to us " How can you tell this court that these pictures were taken legally if you did not take them yourself or were present when they were taken?
You are soliciting pictures from persons over the internet, most of these persons you don’t know from Adam. At a minimum they are of dubious origin, at the worst they could have been altered or faked, or obtained through unlawful or questionable means.
You simply cannot make any representation whatsoever about most of these pictures."
I would say the same to Mr. Family. He has no way of knowing. Noting the three month absence, Mr Family may have run into the same legal problems I mentioned here. I also see the disclaimer which also indicates he probably ran into legal challenges. I appreciate Mr Family’s religious beliefs, but I fail to see how these pictures will serve any useful purpose, as he claims. It may come back to bite him. I reserve further comments until I read more of his blogs
Stay Tuned for Part 2: Libel
Susan Miller is an attorney in private practice. She recently retired from the Associated Press.
Susan’s statements are her own opinion and are not to be used as legal advice. Consult your attorney. These blogs may not be reprinted without permission. Write: cspp@epix.net
Sue has graciously allows us to interview her about legal issues surrounding bloggers.
In part one, we talk about picture taking.
MFF: After a three month absence, Mr Family has started publishing pictures of the club.
When and how is picture taking legal and illegal?
Sue: A picture taken in a public place, such as a street, of parked cars or other activity visible from that street is lawful because under these circumstances the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Tort issues regarding invasion of privacy arise when zoom lenses or telescopes or other technology is used to photograph things not visible to the ordinary eye in the location where the picture was taken.
MFF: Can you give some examples?
Sue: Let me add first, that pictures can be taken while engaging in lawful activity or unlawful activity. The pictures are subject to legal action if they violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, not newsworthy, or a reasonable person would be offended by the publication.
MFF: That’s kind of confusing.
Sue; ok, I will give you a case I was involved in. The pastor of a church was upset that an adult bookstore opened about ½ mile down the road form the church. He encouraged persons to photograph cars and email to him. He published them on the internet and even in the church bulletin. The pastor and church were sued by one of the men whose car was photographed. I defended the church on grounds of first amendment protection, freedom of religion and many other reasons. We lost. The court ruled that 1. The parking lot is private property. 2. The bookstore is open only to a certain segment of the public, those 18 years and over not the general public at large. 3. The man parking there had a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie not being photographed. 4. His being there was not newsworthy. And 5. A reasonable person would be offended by the publication and the manner that the photographs were obtained.
What made the matter worse, the person who took the picture could not be located because it ws emailed. Other persons testified they used zoom lenses etc from private property to obtain photos.
and did not have permission from the property owner to do so. The bottom line the picture taking activity cost the church about 25k. The court also said the church engaged in "spying" and was not protected by the state or federal constitution. The court also questioned the practice of soliciting pictures on the internet..
MFF: Are parking lots of businesses , shopping malls etc public or private property?
Sue: They are private property, used by the public, subject to the terms and conditions set forth by the owner/lesee. For example: a fast food restaurant sign: 30 minute parking limit while consuming our food. That doesn’t mean you can shoot pictures of the strip club down the street while eating their hamburgers. Unless the owner specifically states photography is permitted, one can presume it is not. Ask for permission.
MFF: What do you think of Mr family’s picture taking activity?
Sue: I will repeat what the court said to us " How can you tell this court that these pictures were taken legally if you did not take them yourself or were present when they were taken?
You are soliciting pictures from persons over the internet, most of these persons you don’t know from Adam. At a minimum they are of dubious origin, at the worst they could have been altered or faked, or obtained through unlawful or questionable means.
You simply cannot make any representation whatsoever about most of these pictures."
I would say the same to Mr. Family. He has no way of knowing. Noting the three month absence, Mr Family may have run into the same legal problems I mentioned here. I also see the disclaimer which also indicates he probably ran into legal challenges. I appreciate Mr Family’s religious beliefs, but I fail to see how these pictures will serve any useful purpose, as he claims. It may come back to bite him. I reserve further comments until I read more of his blogs
Stay Tuned for Part 2: Libel
posted by eric roberts | 1:56 PM
5 Comments:
Sweet! Awsome to hear, I look forward to reading the rest!!
great information
Is it just me, or has our freind not updated his page, even the comments section in over a week. Hmm...maybe he is afraid lol.
Mr.Family has removed ALL pictures of cars from his website, as well as the images of the club ads he was using. My Guess is this article hit home, and he may have realized that he was breaking some laws. And now he has taken away the comments section on his new articles. I guess he does not like to be told the truth on his page by others. It is only a matter of time now. I feel the legal wheels turning on his slander/libel campaign.
Mr Family claimed he had an attorney review all of his blogs, which I believe is BS. After his legal problems with Citadel, I do not believe he wanted to take any more chances.
I also think he simply got tired of the mostly negative comments and all the why did you delete that questions?
Post a Comment
<< Home