Photos of my property

[single317dad]

Large sign at the end of the driveway: "A $5.00 fee applies to all uninvited visitors who use the portion of this driveway outside the county right-of-way."

People around my area who post signs on their driveways aren't nearly that nice about it.

Have you contacted the photographer and asked to be removed from the barn tour?

 

[Zigner]

Here is a link to Boring v. Google, an invasion of privacy suit over the street view map of the Boring's private property:

http://www.2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092350np.pdf

The link doesn't seem to work.

 

[quincy]

The link doesn't seem to work.

Sorry. I added an extra period. It should work now.

It is a Pennsylvania case but it covers what is looked at in an invasion of privacy action. The case against Google was dismissed except for the trespass portion. And I think the final result in the case was that Google gave the Borings one dollar in damages.

I haven't had time to look any further than this single case, which I reviewed for a posting on this site a couple of years ago. There may be others that are more appropriate.

As to the copyright, FlyingRon is correct that the photographer owns the rights to the photos and, if the property was viewed from a public place (the road leading to the property), there should be no legal issue with the photographer publishing the photo with the address of the property.

I like Stephan's suggestion to sell coffee and cake. That is probably the best way to make money out of this. There does not seem to be much to support a lawsuit.

 

[justalayman]

Here is a link to Boring v. Google, an invasion of privacy suit over the street view map of the Boring's private property:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092350np.pdf

Google trespassed to obtain the pictures. Unless the photos are from a vantage point that is not legally accessible, it is not comparable.

If the pictures were taken from a vantage point that is not legally accessible, then if nothing else, there is trespass involved.

A quick review of Minnesota's trespass law shows that for it to be trespassing, it must be posted or the trespasser otherwise given notice so...



is there a no trespassing sign they would have had to view and disregard to be able to take the photos?

 

[quincy]

Google trespassed to obtain the pictures. Unless the photos are from a vantage point that is not legally accessible, it is not comparable.

If the pictures were taken from a vantage point that is not legally accessible, then if nothing else, there is trespass involved.

A quick review of Minnesota's trespass law shows that for it to be trespassing, it must be posted or the trespasser otherwise given notice so...



is there a no trespassing sign they would have had to view and disregard to be able to take the photos?

Yes, without any "No Trespassing" signs posted, it appears country girl has little legal recourse. Here is a link to Minnesota's trespass law, 609.605: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

Even with signs up, though, a photographer could still take photographs of country girl's property and barn from the public road, and publish these photographs. The photographer would just have to take care not to trespass onto the property to take a shot.

Minnesota also has an invasion of privacy criminal statute, 609.746, but it does not apply to what has been provided in the way of facts here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.746

Minnesota has recognized since 1998 three of the four invasion of privacy torts: publicity given to private facts, and intrusion into one's seclusion, and misappropriation of one's name or likeness (the other privacy tort - false light - falls under Minnesota's defamation law). The elements of each of these torts mimic the ones outlined in the Pennsylvania Boring v. Google case.

The elements necessary to support an invasion of privacy civil action do not seem to be present with what country girl describes as her situation with the calendar and tour.

country girl's best course of action may be to appeal to the better nature of the photographer/tour guide and request her property address be removed from the tour (although I am still partial to Stephan's suggestion).

 

[LdiJ]

Yes, without any "No Trespassing" signs posted, it appears country girl has little legal recourse. Here is a link to Minnesota's trespass law, 609.605: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

Even with signs up, though, a photographer could still take photographs of country girl's property and barn from the public road, and publish these photographs. The photographer would just have to take care not to trespass onto the property to take a shot.

Minnesota also has an invasion of privacy criminal statute, 609.746, but it does not apply to what has been provided in the way of facts here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.746

Minnesota has recognized since 1998 three of the four invasion of privacy torts: publicity given to private facts, and intrusion into one's seclusion, and misappropriation of one's name or likeness (the other privacy tort - false light - falls under Minnesota's defamation law). The elements of each of these torts mimic the ones outlined in the Pennsylvania Boring v. Google case.

The elements necessary to support an invasion of privacy civil action do not seem to be present with what country girl describes as her situation with the calendar and tour.

country girl's best course of action may be to appeal to the better nature of the photographer/tour guide and request her property address be removed from the tour (although I am still partial to Stephan's suggestion).

It seemed to me that the OP's gripe was not about the pictures as much as it was publishing his name and address with the picture as part of a do it yourself barn tour.

 

[quincy]

It seemed to me that the OP's gripe was not about the pictures as much as it was publishing his name and address with the picture as part of a do it yourself barn tour.

That is probably the gripe a lot of celebrities have, too.

But there does not appear to be anything illegal about the photographs appearing with the address of the property, and there does not appear to be anything illegal about the tour - unless the photographer requires a permit to conduct the tours. I suppose country girl could look into seeing if there is a violation there.

As to privacy, though, we all have very little of it.

 

[You Are Guilty]

It seemed to me that the OP's gripe was not about the pictures as much as it was publishing his name and address with the picture as part of a do it yourself barn tour.

I suppose that means the White Pages was operating illegally all these years then? Name and address are not "private" or "confidential" information. Proof of the contrary: every state requires public access to land records which, surprisingly enough, contain people's names, addresses and even drawings of their property.

This is nothing new. It's about as well settled as is killing a fox while another hunter is chasing it.

 

[LdiJ]

I suppose that means the White Pages was operating illegally all these years then? Name and address are not "private" or "confidential" information. Proof of the contrary: every state requires public access to land records which, surprisingly enough, contain people's names, addresses and even drawings of their property.

This is nothing new. It's about as well settled as is killing a fox while another hunter is chasing it.

The White Pages is not a valid comparison as one has the option of not being included. While I appreciate your argument about public access to land records the bottom line is that you must know something about either the person or the property in order to find that information. In fact, the same applies to the white pages as well. The scenario we are dealing with is nothing like that. This is a scenario where the publication of said information has been done with the express purpose of encouraging people to visit the property in question...as part of their "tour". I have no idea how popular barn viewing is, but I have to assume that the commercial intent is for LOTS of people to visit said property.

People don't move into secluded rural areas unless they want some privacy and space. Sure, anyone can find them if they want to find them, but this isn't that scenario.

 

[justalayman]

The White Pages is not a valid comparison as one has the option of not being included. While I appreciate your argument about public access to land records the bottom line is that you must know something about either the person or the property in order to find that information. In fact, the same applies to the white pages as well. The scenario we are dealing with is nothing like that. This is a scenario where the publication of said information has been done with the express purpose of encouraging people to visit the property in question...as part of their "tour". I have no idea how popular barn viewing is, but I have to assume that the commercial intent is for LOTS of people to visit said property.

People don't move into secluded rural areas unless they want some privacy and space. Sure, anyone can find them if they want to find them, but this isn't that scenario.

Ok the Haines criss cross directory


There are myriad sites on the Internet where I can get your name, phone number, age, relatives names, address, historical address, and tons of other information. It's all public record.

 

[LdiJ]

Ok the Haines criss cross directory


There are myriad sites on the Internet where I can get your name, phone number, age, relatives names, address, historical address, and tons of other information. It's all public record.

I completely agree that there are lots of places to get as much information as one would care to get about another person. However, if you then provide that information to the general public and encourage them to come and visit me, then that's a problem. Its not that you get the information, its what you do with it after you get it. None of the people that are stopping by the OP's property would be doing so if not for his name and address being published as part of a barn tour.

 

[Zigner]

I completely agree that there are lots of places to get as much information as one would care to get about another person. However, if you then provide that information to the general public and encourage them to come and visit me, then that's a problem. Its not that you get the information, its what you do with it after you get it. None of the people that are stopping by the OP's property would be doing so if not for his name and address being published as part of a barn tour.

The problem is that you are confusing legal issues with moral issues. There is nothing ILLEGAL about what is being done. If you care to provide case-law or statutes supporting your position that this is an improper or illegal invasion of privacy, please do so.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I would opt for charging for access to the property. Posted at the drive entrance.

 

[quincy]

I completely agree that there are lots of places to get as much information as one would care to get about another person. However, if you then provide that information to the general public and encourage them to come and visit me, then that's a problem. Its not that you get the information, its what you do with it after you get it. None of the people that are stopping by the OP's property would be doing so if not for his name and address being published as part of a barn tour.

The "privacy" argument is the same one being used by those featured on arrest and mug shot websites. The information is all public information but, in the past, people had to make an effort to locate it by heading down to the charging agency and filing a "freedom of information" request. Few people want to make that effort. Now the information is often compiled online in one place for easy access to all. All that is required is the simple internet search of a name.

Privacy arguments tend to fail unless there is demonstrable harm that comes from the publication of the public information. The publication must be shown as "outrageous." "Outrageous" has been a high bar to jump. The publication must cause harm so extreme that it offends ordinary decencies. With all of the garbage we are exposed to on a daily basis, our ordinary decencies are not easily offended.

The European Union now has a "right to be forgotten" law that can allow for a person to have removed from online searches links to damaging information about them. Although it is possible (not probable) that something similar may be initiated by search engines in the US in the future, in our country the "right to know" is deemed more important in most cases than one's right to privacy.

At any rate, there appears to be little legal recourse for what has been described here. The odds are pretty good that the barn tours will stop before long when public interest fades (as it usually does) and country girl will find her privacy restored.

 

[country girl]

Thank you Quincy for taking the time to look that up and posting the link.
I appreciate all of your input.