4 ms·
Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under
by electromagnetic 17y ago
Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under harassment laws, depending on your state or country.
Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens.
Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime.
Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record.
Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through.
So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash.
In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.
- shard 17y agoIn the US at least, photography on public property does not require the permission of the subject, otherwise photography in crowded tourist spots would be well nigh impossible. There are of course exceptions, such as when the subject expects privacy (even in public, upskirts are no good), when you are making a profit from your photographs (which will then require model releases), or when "national security" is involved. (ref http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm ) In the UK it is approximately the same, with the addition that the subject may not be harassed (defined as behavior that causes alarm or distress over multiple incidents) (ref http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v... ) I've found the relevant laws regarding photography in Canada (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php), and it seems to follow the US and UK in general. Therefore I think there are unspecified extenuating circumstances in the case of the photographer that got fined $1000. Ever since 9/11 there has been increasing scaremongering regarding people using "professional" looking cameras, which is an erosion of rights with no real benefits. I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off.
- electromagnetic 17y ago"I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off." I actually mistyped that sentence, sorry. What I meant was: I would only photograph something I own, or that no one owns. I don't know how I messed that sentence up, I guess my brain flat-lined for a minute.
- shard 17y agoThat doesn't make it much better. You still can't take photos in public where there are strangers, cars, or non-governmental buildings present. So pretty much it's photos inside your house, landscapes, and clouds.