23
   

Is taking his picture legal?

 
 
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 05:57 pm
Hello, I am an international student in the U.S. and I'm not familiar with
the legal system here. Any suggestion/reminder is highly appreciated.

My good friend from home country recently contacted me and asked
me to do her a favor. Basically, her parents are going to file for divorce and
they probably will do it through the court because they could not reach an
agreement on how to split their assets.

Her dad moved to the U.S. alone 5+ years ago. Although he still has contact
with my friend and her mom, he never visited them back home since he
moved.He recently initiated the topic of divorce and suggested to split their
assets in home country by 50/50, without mentioning his assets here in the U.S..

My friend is a decent person and I believe in a conflict between parents, a
daughter is always a fair judge to begin with. She felt strongly that this is unfair to her mom, however found helpless since they have very little information concerning her dad's situation here because he has always avoided these topics. They suspect that he has a mistress here as well, which will probably change the court's rule on asset split. However, they could not come here to see for themselves without her dad's help to get them visas.

Although I have no intention in intervening her dad's decision, I do think my friend and her mom deserve to know the truth. My question is: Is it legal to take her dad's picture (possibly with the mistress) for example in front of his apartment? I very much want to help my friend, but certainly I want to do it legally.

Any suggestion is highly appreciated. Thank you!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 23 • Views: 24,995 • Replies: 44

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:06 pm
@aquestion,
Taking pictures is not illegal in the US, but the person being photographed can react in violent ways.

If they're interested in getting a "fair" deal on the division of assets, they need to hire a good attorney who understands the legal aspects of divorce. If they suspect he has a mistress, that is information that can be shared with the attorney, and let him/her pursue it if necessary.



joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:45 pm
There's no law against taking someone's photo in a public place.

If your friends want something more substantial than a photo, they might want to contact a private investigator. Or else this TV show.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:50 pm
@aquestion,
Interesting question. I can understand both parents, but hate to see wife at home just get skunked. I've no legal smarts, quite the opposite, so will be quiet and listen on this.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:25 pm
"Public space" can get pretty sketchy. A lot of places considered "public" are actually private when it comes to photography.

For example - a train station is usually considered public but if you haven't bought a ticket it's actually private and you can get in trouble for taking photos in there.

If you're taking photos on the street you should be okay though.

Note: I was in photo school many years ago and this was the law as we were taught it. Things might have changed since then. I would still be careful shooting in the interior of any building even if you consider it to be public.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:34 pm
@boomerang,
I remember it not being ok to take a phote of (sorry, it's late and I'm tired) the big bean thing by Anish Kapoor in Chicago. I was told later in a post by JoefromChicago that I was mistaken, or at least that it was ok, but I remember the first part, whether or not it only lasted x number of hours.

I'm near wild about being able to photo in public space. I don't give a flying fig about security concerns or copyright of blooming art. I'll go to the mat on this.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:53 pm
@aquestion,
Photos, or even motion pictures, are perfectly legal in any public place as said above. Interestingly though; you cannot record any sounds without permission.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:03 pm
Taking pictures of anything or anybody in a public place is legal at least in most states. Using somebody's picture for commercial purposes may require a signed release from such person but for your own use there should be no problem.

If you are dealing with potentially violent people, however, it can indeed be very dangerous to get caught taking their photo, especially if they suspect you are up to something.

Recordings without knowledge of all parties involved is not allowed in some states. In New Mexico and some other states only one person in a conversation must know that the conversation is being recorded.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:05 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Sounds good, but...

is that a really?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  6  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:06 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
... Interestingly though; you cannot record any sounds without permission.

Sez who?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:18 pm
@Ticomaya,
I intended my previous comment re recordings to relate to recordings that are used in Court or for other legal purposes.

But in my former profession, I recorded many many conversations without the other person's knowledge purely for my own protection. I'm reasonably certain that every conversation I had with an opposing attorney was also recorded though I was never advised of that.
0 Replies
 
Izzie
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 06:11 am
@aquestion,
I'm a little confused... so will ask a question here.

What does having a mistress / girlfriend - got to do with division of financial assets? My belief - and understanding from the UK - is that division of assets within the marriage has no relevance as to the reasons for divorce.

Maybe I am just reading the question wrongly here.

I don't quite understand why obtaining photographic of evidence of adultery would come into play for what the wife is legally entitled to. If it were photographic evidence that the husband was buying boats and cars and condos etc..... then those are financial assets....

how would a photograph of the husband being with a girlfriend make a difference to the division of the financial assets - other than to prove adultery - but if it's been 5 years then is it not the case in the US that the divorce could go uncontested anyway? If the husband and wife have been living apart for 5 years in difference countries.... I would imagine the divorce would be uncontested. If agreements can't be reached, or children are involved - then lawyers would need to get involved to ensure that each party receives what they are entitled too.

Photographic evidence to prove financial assets - yep, could see how that works.

Including the mistress in the photo???? I'm not sure I see how that is relevant at all??? After 5 years and living in different countries.....

Look forward to hearing replies to this too - thanks.



(I only think this because when my brother and his ex wife were divorced, she was going on lots of holidays etc and having a high life, whilst claiming poverty etc.... the lawyers who acted for my brother said that "the rich boyfriend" could pay for and take her anywhere she wanted and her lifestyle had nothing to do with division of assets - even if my brother couldn't make ends meet at the time. Therefore, whatever was financially gained in the marriage was divided up based on length of marriage / child /what was brought into the marriage / and ability for both parties to be able to "financially" live. (you can't take what someone hasn't got). The reasons for the divorce (uncontested adultery), or what went on during the marriage, were neither here not there. Absolutely nothing to do with financial split.)
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 06:55 am
@Izzie,
Izzie wrote:

I'm a little confused... so will ask a question here.

What does having a mistress / girlfriend - got to do with division of financial assets? My belief - and understanding from the UK - is that division of assets within the marriage has no relevance as to the reasons for divorce.

That may be true in the US and the UK, but, as I understood the initial query, the divorce is proceeding in the friend's "home country" (wherever that is). In that country, an aggrieved spouse may still receive financial compensation for the other spouse's infidelity.
Izzie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 07:45 am
@joefromchicago,
ahhhhhhhh... thanku Joe.... that would explain it then. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:59 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
... Interestingly though; you cannot record any sounds without permission.

Sez who?
I learned this while shopping for video surveilance cameras, remember? Do you know something to the contrary? A quick google search confirmed my memory:
I found this Here.

Quote:
Legal information regarding audio and video recording

This information is general and should not be considered as legal advice.

Do your products have microphones?

Our covert cameras DO NOT have microphones.

Our non-covert cameras may have microphones depending on the model.

In general, most video only recordings are legal weather you inform the persons you are recording them or not.

Recording audio without the persons permission is almost always illegal,
that's why our covert cameras don't have microphones.

If your situation requires audio recording and you will be using the equipment in a legal manner, there are wired and wireless microphones available for purchase at any Radio Shack that may be used with any of our cameras and other equipment. These will function much better that the standard "built-in" microphones that are found in other cameras.

How can you know for sure if it's ok to record video or audio in your situation?
Always check with an attorney before recording to make sure it is legal where you live.

Surreptitious recording laws are separated into different categories for video and audio recording.

Video Recording
Most video recordings are legal with or without consent.
There are very few laws which prohibit video recording of any kind, but there are laws in some areas dealing with areas of expected privacy. These include areas such as bathrooms, locker rooms, changing/dressing rooms, adult bedrooms, and other areas where a person should expect a high level of personal privacy.
The majority of the laws dealing with video recording privacy issues tend to allow surreptitious recording and monitoring of video activity under most circumstances without notification of any of the parties involved.

So far, the courts have allowed video recordings of nannies, elder care employees, and other types of video recordings made with covert cameras without the subjects consent.

Audio Recording
Most audio recordings without consent of one or all parties are illegal.
Recording audio is very different from video, there are definite federal and state laws prohibiting surreptitious recording and monitoring of audio conversations. These laws are taken very seriously by authorities and failure to abide by them could result in severe consequences.
There are two types of defined recording situations for audio recording. They are usually referred to as "One Party Consent" and "Two Party Consent".

"One Party Consent" means that only the person doing the recording has to give consent and does not have to notify the other party or parties that the conversation is being recorded.

"Two Party Consent" means the person recording the conversation must notify all of the other parties that the recording is taking place and they must consent to the recording.

Federal Law requires "One Party Consent" for audio recording.
Here is a list of state requirements regarding audio consent:

Here is a list of state requirements regarding audio consent:
Note: Laws change constantly, please check your states current laws before engaging in recording.
If you know of a change or error, please inform us.



States with "One party Consent" for audio recording

Alabama - One Party
Alaska - One Party
Arizona - One Party
Arkansas - One Party
Colorado - One Party
District of Columbia - One Party
Georgia - One Party
Idaho - One Party
Indiana - One Party
Iowa - One Party
Kentucky - One Party
Louisiana - One Party
Maine - One Party
Minnesota - One Party
Mississippi - One Party
Missouri - One Party
Minnesota - One Party
Nebraska - One Party
New Jersey - One Party
New Mexico - One Party
New York - One Party
North Carolina - One Party
North Dakota - One Party
Oklahoma - One Party
Oregon - One Party
Ohio - One Party
Rhode Island - One Party
South Carolina - One Party
South Dakota - One Party
Tennessee - One Party
Texas - One Party
Vermont - One Party
Virginia - One Party
West Virginia - One Party
Wisconsin - One Party
Wyoming - One Party

States with "Two party Consent" for audio recording

California - Two Party
Connecticut - Two Party
Delaware - Two Party
Florida - Two Party
Hawaii - Two Party
Illinois - Two Party
Kansas - Two Party
Maryland - Two Party
Massachusetts - Two Party
Michigan - Two Party
Montana - Two Party
Nevada - Two Party
New Hampshire - Two Party
Pennsylvania - Two Party
Utah - Two Party
Washington - Two Party
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 09:40 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
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.

Quote:
Here is a list of state requirements regarding audio consent:
Note: Laws change constantly, please check your states current laws before engaging in recording.
If you know of a change or error, please inform us. ...

I see an error. Last I was aware, Kansas was a "one party consent" state.
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 09:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Izzie wrote:

I'm a little confused... so will ask a question here.

What does having a mistress / girlfriend - got to do with division of financial assets? My belief - and understanding from the UK - is that division of assets within the marriage has no relevance as to the reasons for divorce.

That may be true in the US and the UK, but, as I understood the initial query, the divorce is proceeding in the friend's "home country" (wherever that is). In that country, an aggrieved spouse may still receive financial compensation for the other spouse's infidelity.

And in the US, some states -- even "no fault" divorce states -- can look at fault in determining an equitable division of property.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 11:46 pm
@Ticomaya,
I believe that all states have a "no-fault" divorce option. Some states, however, retain a "fault" divorce option (I'm pretty sure that New York is one of them). But the "no-fault" option is so much easier that the overwhelming majority of couples opts for that.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 11:55 pm
@joefromchicago,
Yes, I'm sure you are right.

I'm not sure which states factor in marital misconduct when dividing assets, but I know some do and some don't.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 12:11 am
Quote:
Her dad moved to the U.S. alone 5+ years ago.
...snip
He recently initiated the topic of divorce and suggested to split their assets in home country by 50/50, without mentioning his assets here in the U.S..


Surely assests gained after the split would be quarantined from proceedings?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is taking his picture legal?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/12/2018 at 12:20:01