Anti-gunners say...

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If they’re gonna stand out there streaming 24/7, nothing says you can’t pull up a chair and keep them company.

And you could bring friends and make it a watch party.

 

[Creedmoor]

Actually, it probably is legal. Anything you can see from public property/RoW is fair game. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Now, if you have a privacy fence, they may not record over the fence.

Unless somebody does a test case on the constant video angle, I think at this time it would be legal based on case law for being photographed in public.

Though I guess you could stand in front of your picture window naked to retaliate. That's legal too. (unfortunately?)

You might want to read Indiana's State Laws.

 

[KLB]

Actually, it probably is legal. Anything you can see from public property/RoW is fair game. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Now, if you have a privacy fence, they may not record over the fence.

Unless somebody does a test case on the constant video angle, I think at this time it would be legal based on case law for being photographed in public.

Though I guess you could stand in front of your picture window naked to retaliate. That's legal too. (unfortunately?)

From what I can see, they would be OK with doing your front yard, but not your house. It would probably be a civil issue though.

 

[Cameramonkey]

From what I can see, they would be OK with doing your front yard, but not your house. It would probably be a civil issue though.

ANYTHING visible from the street is fair game. ANYTHING. it doesnt magically stop when it gets to the far side of the grass where the walls or chain link fences start.

If it can be seen from the street, it can be photographed and presumably videoed. So if you wanted to post up on the sidewalk, or to be safer on the sidewalk across the street and stream this view, I can find no law against it that contradicts existing case law about photographing things in public.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

And to clarify, that view would be cool. But if I put up a drone, or a camera on a mast, I could NOT lawfully photograph/video anything behind that privacy fence.

 

[KLB]

ANYTHING visible from the street is fair game. ANYTHING. it doesnt magically stop when it gets to the far side of the grass where the walls or chain link fences start.

If it can be seen from the street, it can be photographed and presumably videoed. So if you wanted to post up on the sidewalk, or to be safer on the sidewalk across the street and stream this view, I can find no law against it that contradicts existing case law about photographing things in public.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

And to clarify, that view would be cool. But if I put up a drone, or a camera on a mast, I could NOT lawfully photograph/video anything behind that privacy fence.

If you say so. As I said, from what I read, you might be wrong.

 

[Cameramonkey]

If you say so. As I said, from what I read, you might be wrong.

Show your work?

As a recovering photographer, with a nasty habit, I’ve studied laws on photography in public for decades.

But if you can enlighten me with legislation, that says otherwise, I’m all ears.

 

[wcd]

Show your work?

As a recovering photographer, with a nasty habit, I’ve studied laws on photography in public for decades.

But if you can enlighten me with legislation, that says otherwise, I’m all ears.

Just wondering where the release may be needed? Would that only apply if you were marketing the images?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Just wondering where the release may be needed? Would that only apply if you were marketing the images?

Releases are only needed if you are the focus of the photos. But if I take a photo of a shopping mall for instance, I dont need to get a release signed by all 75 people in frame.

Now if I see an interesting looking individual and zoom in on them and want to publish it in some way, I need to get a release from that individual(s).

Now, in the scenario we are talking about, its possible they could argue the issue, but its not a slam dunk that will cause a cop to force you to stop.

 

[MuttX7]

Apple and Google do not get releases signed for their camera cars.

 

[marvin02]

If they’re gonna stand out there streaming 24/7, nothing says you can’t pull up a chair and keep them company.

Might be a good time to have an INGO open carry meet & eat in your yard. Be even better if in addition to evil guns you could get some members with evil motorcycles to attend.

 

[KLB]

Show your work?

As a recovering photographer, with a nasty habit, I’ve studied laws on photography in public for decades.

But if you can enlighten me with legislation, that says otherwise, I’m all ears.

I'm not going to go find all the websites I was reading again. It revolved around privacy and nuisance. Video that could see into a home and purposefully live streaming someone's home without permission looked like they could cross lines. We weren't talking about just happening to get someone's house in a picture. We were discussing someone setting up a camera and live streaming your home 24x7.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'm not going to go find all the websites I was reading again. It revolved around privacy and nuisance. Video that could see into a home and purposefully live streaming someone's home without permission looked like they could cross lines. We weren't talking about just happening to get someone's house in a picture. We were discussing someone setting up a camera and live streaming your home 24x7.

So nothing that outright prohibits it. Just your interpretation of "websites" as opposed ot actual statutes or court cases?

 

[KLB]

So nothing that outright prohibits it. Just your interpretation of "websites" as opposed ot actual statutes or court cases?

How about you go try it and find out.

 

[Hawkeye]

How about you go try it and find out.

How about you are the one saying its illegal but not backing that up.

 

[KellyinAvon]

A lot of different angles to this one. Taking a picture vice using a likeness without permission.

At the NRA Annual Meeting? Getting credentials has the “we can use your image” statement.

 

[KLB]

How about you are the one saying its illegal but not backing that up.

I suggest you go back and read what I actually said. It's all there for you if you do. First, I said probably a civil case, but I'll help.

Nuisance

IC 32-30-6-6
Nuisance described and considered subject to an action
Sec. 6. Whatever is:
(1) injurious to health;
(2) indecent;
(3) offensive to the senses; or
(4) an obstruction to the free use of property;
so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance, and the subject of an action.
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.15.

IC 32-30-6-7
Nuisance actions; plaintiffs; attorney's fees in certain actions
Sec. 7. (a) An action to abate or enjoin a nuisance may be brought by any person whose:
(1) property is injuriously affected; or
(2) personal enjoyment is lessened;
by the nuisance.
(b) A civil action to abate or enjoin a nuisance may also be brought by:
(1) an attorney representing the county in which a nuisance exists; or
(2) the attorney of any city or town in which a nuisance exists.
(c) A county, city, or town that brings a successful action under this section (or IC 34-1-52-2 or IC 34-19-1-2 before their repeal) to abate or enjoin a nuisance caused by the unlawful dumping of solid waste is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees incurred in bringing the action.
(d) A forestry operation that successfully defends an action under this section is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending the action.
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.82-2005, SEC.4.

Privacy could also come into play. That would be up to a lawyer to prove in court.

 

[Hawkeye]

I suggest you go back and read what I actually said. It's all there for you if you do. First, I said probably a civil case, but I'll help.

Nuisance

Privacy could also come into play. That would be up to a lawyer to prove in court.

I suppose that could be stretched to include a video stream of someone's residence form a public street. But that would also be up to a lawyer to prove in court. 'so, you get a big maybe if you want to spend the money to hire a lawyer.

I'm not the one who needs help. You are the one asserting something. Its up to you to support your assertion. That's how these things work.

 

[jamil]

A lot of different angles to this one. Taking a picture vice using a likeness without permission.

At the NRA Annual Meeting? Getting credentials has the “we can use your image” statement.

I just watched an episode of Audit the Auditors where this subject came up. A guy was filming a company from a public easement. Cops were called. Cops told the business, it's too bad. In the video the video narrator brought up relevant court cases.

Bottom line, courts have ruled that photographing from public property, which a public easement is (unless it's purely a utility easement not owned by the public) is allowed as long as there is an expression being made with the photographs. So if your purpose is to photograph for your own amusement then it may not be a protected right.

If it's to make some sort of statement, which some schmuck live-streaming a video of your house to make a statement about guns, clearly, is using the video to make a statement. So it would be protected "speech" as long as it is from a public space. He can't come onto your property and videotape without your permission.

But also, it depends what he's doing in the video. If he's calling on people to come and harm you then that's not protected. I think also states with anti-doxxing laws would prohibit using the video for that purpose.

 

[jamil]

I suppose that could be stretched to include a video stream of someone's residence form a public street. But that would also be up to a lawyer to prove in court. 'so, you get a big maybe if you want to spend the money to hire a lawyer.

I'm not the one who needs help. You are the one asserting something. Its up to you to support your assertion. That's how these things work.

I mean, if it's a civil matter, yer gonna need to get a shyster anyway.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I mean, if it's a civil matter, yer gonna need to get a shyster anyway.

Darrell the Hammer Isaacs seems like a good choice.