1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 12:17 am
Ticomaya wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do you know something to the contrary? A quick google search confirmed my memory:

I was specifically referring to the "One Party Consent" laws.

I would think the recording of audio on a video camera would be analyzed under the same law as pertain to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Thus, in Kansas and Arizona, it would be permissible so long as one party was aware of the recording. Of course don't record where a party has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Huh? How would that be a meaningful distinction, if the party doing the recording wasn't planning on being among those recorded... which the covert nature of the question would imply? I don't see how a "One Party Consent" law would apply, since the questioner doesn't seem to be planning on being among those recorded. I doubt any of the "One Party Consent" laws are written to mean that only the party doing the recording need consent to his own deed... that would render the law utterly useless, wouldn't it?
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 12:34 am
We've moved past the initial question on this thread, O'Bill. The poster was only talking about taking pictures. I've no idea if they intend video, but if so, it doesn't sound like it would be catching any audio if it were "covert".

That being said, I've no idea what you mean by it not being a meaningful distinction. The legality of recording of audio falls under the wiretapping and eavesdropping laws of the state where it's being recorded, as I said. I don't see why it would be different if the audio is being picked up by a video recorder. But if you believe I'm incorrect, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 02:58 am
Ticomaya wrote:

We've moved past the initial question on this thread, O'Bill.
No, we haven't . You responded to my response to the opening question... so that remains the context.

Ticomaya wrote:
The poster was only talking about taking pictures. I've no idea if they intend video, but if so, it doesn't sound like it would be catching any audio if it were "covert".
Questioner inquired whether (presumably) covert pictures would be legal. I answered yes, volunteered that a movie would also be, but audio would not. From what you've posted so far, I'll continue to assume I was correct.

Ticomaya wrote:
That being said, I've no idea what you mean by it not being a meaningful distinction. The legality of recording of audio falls under the wiretapping and eavesdropping laws of the state where it's being recorded, as I said. I don't see why it would be different if the audio is being picked up by a video recorder. But if you believe I'm incorrect, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
That wasn't the distinction I found meaningless. Meaningless is the difference between 1 and 2 party consent laws when the person doing the recording isn't one of the persons being recorded, as explained.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:05 pm
wrong..the law in USA prohibits the taking of a recognizable photo of someone without a model release.
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:03 pm
Ragman wrote:

wrong..the law in USA prohibits the taking of a recognizable photo of someone without a model release.

Which law might that be?
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:06 pm
That would also be news to all the popperatzi.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:10 pm
In my opinion is is legal to take pictures in any public place in which photo taking is not expressly prohibited.

There was a time when you could not use the recognizable photo of a person taken in a private setting for commercial purposes--i.e. in a magazine or tabloid--without getting a signed release, but there is no guarantee of privacy in anybody's putlic activities.

I am not a lawyer, however, and some of our legal eagles might have a better grasp on current law.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:16 pm
I have a semi-related question: Is it legal to take a picture from your apartment of someone in their apartment if they are hot, naked, and changing in front of their window, and your window happens to look right into their window from across the way?
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:36 pm
By all means; sounds like exhibitionists to me! LOL
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 03:58 pm
I'd have to see the photos before I could offer my considered legal opinion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Stupid Laws Thread - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Under duress - Discussion by LordoftheLeftHand
biological father comes back - Question by infodrive
Teenage Girl: Sex Offender? - Discussion by Debra Law
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.34 seconds on 11/24/2009 at 04:03:34 Top End