[Edgar_in_Indy]

A private person on a private car is a private environment, especially if your subject is the person/the situation in the car.

In terms of viewing the interior or occupants of a car, that is not how US courts have looked at it. If something within a private space is visible through a window in plain view from a public place, or a place where the person has a right to be, then there is not an expectation of privacy in that thing being viewed.

For example, if a police officer is walking down an alley and sees a marijuana plant sitting inside on a window sill, he can go into the house and seize it. (Assuming this is a jurisdiction where possession of said plant is a crime).

And as for vehicles, courts have consistently held that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle compared to a residence.

---

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 08-11-2017 at 07:00 AM.

[honey bo bo]

the car behind me had the driver, front seat passenger, and a dog in the backseat. The dog was sitting in the middle seat (between the driver and passenger) and the way the light fell it would have been a really interesting

The car of which you speak is me and my mistress taking my wife's hated dog to the Vets to have put down unbenounced to her and I have a gun in the glove box. What lens would you use?

[bm75]

In terms of viewing the interior or occupants of a car, I do not believe that is how the courts have looked at it. If something within a private space is visible through a window in plain view from a public place then there is not an expectation of privacy in that thing being viewed

Perhaps this applies to the act of simple "looking" but this does not apply when the person is the subject of a photo and there's no public purpose for making the photo. I mean: what if someone takes a picture of my family at my home window? what is the purpose for doing that? What kind of subject could it be? And what if I saw the picture posted, in which my family is fully recognizable in its family occupation? I have the right to bring a lawsuit to the photographer and ask for the photo to be deleted. Actually I would call the police and check who the photographer is; these days people do crazy things....
BTW, according to the Italian law, the simple act of making photos in public is not prohibited. Making photo to a single person and using those photos is a completely different thing.

[aslyfox]

The car of which you speak is me and my mistress taking my wife's hated dog to the Vets to have put down unbenounced to her and I have a gun in the glove box. What lens would you use?

well if you put it that way ------

---------- Post added 08-11-17 at 09:26 ----------

Perhaps this applies to the act of simple "looking" but this does not apply when the person is the subject of a photo and there's no public purpose for making the photo. I mean: what if someone takes a picture of my family at my home window? what is the purpose for doing that? What kind of subject could it be? And what if I saw the picture posted, in which my family is fully recognizable in its family occupation? I have the right to bring a lawsuit to the photographer and ask for the photo to be deleted. Actually I would call the police and check who the photographer is; these days people do crazy things....
BTW, according to the Italian law, the simple act of making photos in public is not prohibited. Making photo to a single person and using those photos is a completely different thing.

what public purpose is fulfilled in many of the photos we take?

I agree taking a photo of a person in the home is different even if the photographer is not on private property when doing it

In terms of viewing the interior or occupants of a car, that is not how US courts have looked at it. If something within a private space is visible through a window in plain view from a public place, or a place where the person has a right to be, then there is not an expectation of privacy in that thing being viewed.

For example, if a police officer is walking down an alley and sees a marijuana plant sitting inside on a window sill, he can go into the house and seize it. (Assuming this is a jurisdiction where possession of said plant is a crime).

And as for vehicles, courts have consistently held that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle compared to a residence.

yet I have a right to go into a store to buy something but can I then take photos?

there may be a very thin and weak line we are tip toeing across here

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 08-11-2017 at 07:31 AM.

[bm75]

For example, if a police officer is walking down an alley and sees a marijuana plant sitting inside on a window sill, he can go into the house and seize it. (Assuming this is a jurisdiction where possession of said plant is a crime).

In Italy there is no privacy policy applying to police in criminal facts. Police have the right (more so: the DUTY) to make its work. Obviously there's a strict regulation for police activity inside private houses: police has always to refer to the public minister and if there's not urgency, has to wait for the P.M. orders and authorization.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

yet I have a right to go into a store to buy something but can I then take photos?

there may be a very thin and weak line we are tip toeing across here

Not really. It would not fit the voyeurism statute because it is not a residence or a place where people disrobe.

But if you are on private property doing something that the property owner/manager does not want you to do, such as taking photos in a store space, then they can ask you to leave. If you refuse then it becomes trespassing, and that is when they would call the police.

Perhaps this applies to the act of simple "looking" but this does not apply when the person is the subject of a photo and there's no public purpose for making the photo. I mean: what if someone takes a picture of my family at my home window? what is the purpose for doing that? What kind of subject could it be? And what if I saw the picture posted, in which my family is fully recognizable in its family occupation? I have the right to bring a lawsuit to the photographer and ask for the photo to be deleted. Actually I would call the police and check who the photographer is; these days people do crazy things....
BTW, according to the Italian law, the simple act of making photos in public is not prohibited. Making photo to a single person and using those photos is a completely different thing.

You are mixing multiple issues. The question was not about using somebody's image without their consent. It was whether you are legally allowed to take the photo. And in the case of somebody seen in a car on a public street, it seems pretty clear that it is okay.

As far as somebody taking a photo of your family through a window of your home, that might very well be criminal. It would depend on the full circumstances. And police discretion and/or prosecutorial discretion would likely come into play depending on how much of a gray-area is involved.

If they later published the images without your consent, then you could sue them in civil court.

[bm75]

what public purpose is fulfilled in many of the photos we take?

I'm not referring to "general photography". I mean that if someone takes pictures to private individuals in their house or private activities, what's the photo worth? There's a public purpose (police activity in public inquiry; information rights of newspapers; lawsuit investigation...so on) or there's simply the voyeurism of an individual who takes care of peeking other's private life from their window for its own satisfaction? It could be done by asking the permission of the people involved, say, for artistic purposes. Otherwise it's something in the dark area between explicit illegal and inappropriate.

[twilhelm]

In the U.S. it is perfectly legal as there is no "expectation of privacy" while sitting in your vehicle, regardless of tint. Where you could have a serious legal issue would be if you photographed a minor in that vehicle.

[DeadJohn]

The OP is from Australia. My post is from a USA perspective, and laws and cultural norms will vary.

Taking a photo into a car in the USA is generally legal. A car is sort of public, in terms of no expectation of privacy, but not so public to let me sit on someone else's parked car like I would a park bench. Police are allowed to look into a car without a search warrant. That's how they catch distracted drivers. It's legal to stand on an overpass and look down into passing cars for texting drivers.

Americans are overly protective and aggressive when it comes to cars. Being the subject of a photo can trigger road rage.

Drifting from the original topic:
1) Using handheld electronic devices while driving is prohibited in many States, even if the light is red or during stopped traffic. If the car is in a travel lane you are "driving" even when not moving.
2) Passengers are usually free to snap away. There are exceptions over some bridges where the law states you must obey posted signs, and the bridge agency posts a sign that no photography is allowed. Even passengers aren't supposed to take photos. Security theater.

[monochrome]

You might likely be legally permitted to photograph someone picking his nose while sitting at a red light. Posting such a photo might be questionable. Selling prints of such photo without a model release (unless such person is a public figure) is likely an actionable offense.

[DougieD]

My best guess (and it's just a guess) is that it's a public place when the car is on a public road. But I wouldn't shoot the interior of a stranger's car while it was occupied unless there were extraordinary circumstances. For me, aesthetic reasons wouldn't be good enough. Sometimes there's a difference between the legal status and the popular public opinion of these matters.

I wouldn't like it if someone did it to me.

[mee]

Is anyone here a lawyer and have the means to issue an actual response on the legality? I mean let's say you (OP) take the photos as you want and then they call the police. Do you tell the police you read on pentax forums that it was legal to take these photos? hahah


I think you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction to answer this question definitively. Only we can offer are best guesses and opinions on it... provided we actually don't have a lawyer from your location here responding.

[mee]

I wouldn't like it if someone did it to me.

It would creep me out too if some dude suddenly picked up a camera and started snapping photos of me at a stoplight... legal or not.

[twilhelm]

Is anyone here a lawyer and have the means to issue an actual response on the legality? I mean let's say you (OP) take the photos as you want and then they call the police. Do you tell the police you read on pentax forums that it was legal to take these photos? hahah


I think you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction to answer this question definitively. Only we can offer are best guesses and opinions on it... provided we actually don't have a lawyer from your location here responding.

Not a lawyer, but Law Enforcement working in an area overrun with tourists. Yes this issue comes up frequently, and that was the basis of my post. There are all kinds of circumstances that can arise that change everything, but legally there is no expectation of privacy in a vehicle in the USA, as far as what is visible.

[bm75]

In the U.S. it is perfectly legal as there is no "expectation of privacy" while sitting in your vehicle, regardless of tint.

In Italy it isn't if you don't explicit the fact that you're photographing, filming and so on. Also Police can't collect photos and videos until those are an evidence for some kind of admin. violation or crime. so, to sum up (in Italy)
PUBLIC PLACES -- allowed
PEOPLE (not individuals; in public places) ------allowed until the single individual is not recognizable; if recognizable permission requested
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ------ by permission, filming/photogr. advertised
USE OF THE PHOTOS: allowed witout permission only for places and people(copyrights involved), not allowed for private individuals (permission requested).