Who can photograph whom, and where?

[Torellian]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WI

Is there any specific laws prohibiting people from photographing someone else's children for any reason at all? That's the basic question.

I have a neighbor who has a 10 year old that is not watched very much at all by their mother, and I have caught this kid many times on my property causing damages that have amounted to $300 that I have had to pay since I had no solid proof that the kid did it; and seeing the kid cause the damage myself wasn't evidence enough. So last night, I caught the kid doing things that could very well cost me alot of money in the future. Since photographic evidence seems to be the only kind that seems to stand up in court, I used my camera to photograph this kid's activies so I would have proof of how the damage was done, and who did it. Well, the kid saw me (in my house taking the photos through my window) and told her mother, who then came over to my house banging on the front door. She was obviously upset, and I wasn't going to get into a heated arguement in the heat of the moment, so I didn't answer the door. I'll let the discussion with her go for another day so I can explain to her what I was doing.

My question here is: Was I doing anything illegal? The pictures were taken from inside my own house, but I understand that the law seems to bend over backwards to protect children, but what if I'm taking pictures to document evidence of damage/crime or other possible wrongdoing? Where does the law stand on this subject?

 

[quincy]

Taking photos from a public vantage point of people in a public place is perfectly legal, even when the people photographed are children.

Taking photos surreptiously, especially of children, is viewed with some suspicion even when legal and, therefore, you may have to defend your reasons for taking such photos of the neighbor child, if there is some concern expressed by the child's parent. This may mean turning your photos over to the police for a review of their content.

The laws on photography tend to concentrate more on the uses of the photos once the photos are taken, than the actual taking of the photos. Although invasion of privacy laws can be involved if photos are taken of a person in a private place (through, perhaps, the use of a telephoto lens) and there are some photos that cannot be taken without permission (say, of government secured sites), usually problems arise when the photos are developed and published in some way.

So, you do not appear to have done anything illegal by taking photos through your window of the 10 year old who was outside and visible from your window. That does not mean, however, that the neighbor will not report your photo-taking to the police.

 

[Torellian]

Taking photos from a public vantage point of people in a public place is perfectly legal, even when the people photographed are children.

Taking photos surreptiously, especially of children, is viewed with some suspicion even when legal and, therefore, you may have to defend your reasons for taking such photos of the neighbor child, if there is some concern expressed by the child's parent. This may mean turning your photos over to the police for a review of their content.

The laws on photography tend to concentrate more on the uses of the photos once the photos are taken, than the actual taking of the photos. Although invasion of privacy laws can be involved if photos are taken of a person in a private place (through, perhaps, the use of a telephoto lens) and there are some photos that cannot be taken without permission (say, of government secured sites), usually problems arise when the photos are developed and published in some way.

So, you do not appear to have done anything illegal by taking photos through your window of the 10 year old who was outside and visible from your window. That does not mean, however, that the neighbor will not report your photo-taking to the police.

Thank you for your response! As it turns out, I was only able to take one photo before the kid ran off, so I don't really have all that much. It is quite possible that the mother called the police on me, but was told that what I was doing was legal. There was no telephoto lens on my camera, as it is only a $100 digital point-and-shoot. Since the houses in my neighborhood are very close together (only a few feet apart in some cases), there wasn't much distance involved.

Would the fact that the child was outdoors still carry the reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the child, or would that be more on my side, since I was inside my own house when taking the photos?

 

[quincy]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when someone is in public view of others, even when someone is in public view on private property (although there are some exceptions to this, as there is with everything in law, but the exceptions mostly apply to the publishing of the photos).

If the boy had been inside his home, then he would and should expect privacy from intruding eyes and cameras, and if he had been engaging in a private activity in a public area that he thought was out of the eyesight or attention of others, he might expect not to be photographed engaging in this private activity (whether his expectations are reasonable or not).

But, for the most part and in the very most general of senses, the law is that if you can easily see it with the naked eye, you can photograph it with a point-and-shoot camera.

You violated no laws, that I can see from what you have posted here, by taking a photograph of someone who was outside while you were behind your window inside.

 

[Torellian]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when someone is in public view of others, even when someone is in public view on private property (although there are some exceptions to this, as there is with everything in law, but the exceptions mostly apply to the publishing of the photos).

If the boy had been inside his home, then he would and should expect privacy from intruding eyes and cameras, and if he had been engaging in a private activity that he could reasonably expect was out of the eyesight of others, he might expect not to be photographed engaging in this private activity (reasonably or not).

But, for the most part and in the most general sense, the law is that if you can easily see it with the naked eye, you can photograph it with a point-and-shoot camera.

You violated no laws, that I can see from what you have posted here, by taking a photograph of someone who was outside while you were behind your window inside.

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I don't have to worry too much about legal consequences, at least. The only thing to hope for now is that the mother isn't telling everyone about the "pervert with the camera" that lives in my house. Gossip is poison. I've experienced that firsthand before.

 

[quincy]

Yes, gossip and rumors can result from the surreptitious photographing of children, even when the taking of the photos is perfectly legal. It may certainly be an effect in your situation.

Although defamation laws can allow you to collect damages when false and reputationally injurious comments are made about you (such as being called a "pervert" for taking a photo of the neighbor boy), the defamation laws are only there for you after defamatory comments have been communicated - and this is when your reputation has already been injured.

So, hopefully, you will have the chance to have a reasoned conversation with the mom of the child soon, before any rumors are spread.

And I guess the upside to all of this is that the child and the mom now know the boy is being watched by you and photographed, which may keep him away from your property and prevent any more damage to it.

 

[Torellian]

Yes, gossip and rumors can result from the surreptitious photographing of children, even when the taking of the photos is perfectly legal. It may certainly be an effect in your situation.

Although defamation laws can allow you to collect damages when false and reputationally injurious comments are made about you (such as being called a "pervert" for taking a photo of the neighbor boy), the defamation laws are only there for you after defamatory comments have been communicated - and this is when your reputation has already been injured.

So, hopefully, you will have the chance to have a reasoned conversation with the mom of the child soon, before any rumors are spread.

And I guess the upside to all of this is that the child and the mom now know the boy is being watched by you and photographed, which may keep him away from your property and prevent any more damage to it.

The problem with the defamation laws helping me only after my reputation has been injured is that oftentimes people will simply keep in mind what they've heard about me and it never gets back to me directly. Things like finding eggs thrown at my house or something like that isn't something I can trace back to a particular person or motive--although I may be starting to get a little paranoid here.

I also forgot to mention that these people living next door are renters and I'm a homeowner. Many people who rent don't care as much about how they affect their neighbors and property. Last summer, I've seen her and her boy playing baseball out in their yard, and the ball always ended up flying in the direction of my house, often hitting it. I had to stand there and watch in case a window got broken. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to tell the police that I know how it happened unless I could say that I saw it happen. But everytime the ball hit my house, they continued playing as they were instead of going somewhere else, as if damaging my house wasn't their concern. I guess this is the price of having neighbors. It makes me want to move out into the country, or otherwise have video surveillance equipment installed outside my house. When neighbors don't care whether or not they're neighborly, society ends up going downhill.

Sorry, I'm off on a rant here!

 

[quincy]

It is true that neighbors need to be mindful of what they do that might infringe on the rights of those who live around them, but when you live near kids, errant baseballs and Frisbees making their way into your yard sort of comes with the territory.

I can also tell you from experience that living in the country comes with its own set of problems - like rogue raccoons and opossums that are impossible to reason with.

 

[Torellian]

It is true that neighbors need to be mindful of what they do that might infringe on the rights of those who live around them, but when you live near kids, errant baseballs and Frisbees making their way into your yard sort of comes with the territory.

I can also tell you from experience that living in the country comes with its own set of problems - like rogue raccoons and opossums that are impossible to reason with.

Oh, they (raccoons and opssums) can be reasoned with if you have a .22 rifle. They are usually quick to agree to your terms when faced with one. When dealing with kids however, well, the same tactic might get a person into a bit more trouble!