Someone invites you into their house. You take pictures of the inside of said house.

[Ns1]

You did not ask whether or not you can take pictures. Can you legally post said pictures online?

JW

 

[midwestfisherman]

No! You'll be sue for everything you own.

 

[MongGrel]

But you can legally suck their blood from their neck in some universes.

 

[Cattlegod]

more backstory

 

[mmntech]

Technically no. You're not allowed to film on private property without the owner's permission. Though if you're snapping shots at a party, nobody's going to care. However, if you're documenting the contents of their house, that's well into creeper territory.

 

[IronWing]

Yes. <waves at mmntech> If the owner did not specifically tell you not to photograph either verbally or through the placement of signs then shoot away. If the owner did tell you not to shoot and you took photos anyway then their recourse is to throw you out. You can still post the photos you took before getting tossed.

The content of your photos may carry legal restrictions (children, nekidity, etc.).

 

[MongGrel]

Casing the joint ?

J/K

 

[Ns1]

Technically no. You're not allowed to film on private property without the owner's permission. Though if you're snapping shots at a party, nobody's going to care. However, if you're documenting the contents of their house, that's well into creeper territory.

more backstory

Yes. <waves at mmntech> If the owner did not specifically tell you not to photograph either verbally or through the placement of signs then shoot away. If the owner did tell you not to shoot and you took photos anyway then their recourse is to throw you out. You can still post the photos you took before getting tossed.

The content of your photos may carry legal restrictions (children, nekidity, etc.).

The owner invited "someone" to their house while they were away. The conditions were absolutely deplorable and pictures were taken as proof "just in case". The owner was not home when these pictures were taken. There was no sign or verbal instruction to not photograph.

SO if those pictures somehow found their way online, would that be a legal issue?

 

[Sword-of-Kings]

The owner invited "someone" to their house while they were away. The conditions were absolutely deplorable and pictures were taken as proof "just in case". The owner was not home when these pictures were taken. There was no sign or verbal instruction to not photograph.

SO if those pictures somehow found their way online, would that be a legal issue?

Yes. You're screwed. The police will be kicking your door down any minute now.

 

[Puppies04]

The owner invited "someone" to their house while they were away. The conditions were absolutely deplorable and pictures were taken as proof "just in case". The owner was not home when these pictures were taken. There was no sign or verbal instruction to not photograph.

SO if those pictures somehow found their way online, would that be a legal issue?

Exactly how many dead prostitutes are in the pictures?

 

[mizzou]

I think it's only an issue if you do it for personal gain

someone could get pissed if you post a photo of their house and get $$$ for it by giving it to a magazine

 

[IronWing]

If the intent of posting the pictures is to cause harm to the owner of the house then there may be legal recourse for the house owner. This is a separate issue from whether or not the pics were permitted in the first place.

 

[Ns1]

If the intent of posting the pictures is to cause harm to the owner of the house then there may be legal recourse for the house owner. This is a separate issue from whether or not the pics were permitted in the first place.

Define "harm"

 

[IronWing]

Define "harm"

I'm only a wikipedia lawyer. If you have to ask...

 

[Ns1]

I'm only a wikipedia lawyer. If you have to ask...

No harm per se, but the homeowner would (or should) definitely feel shamed if the house ever got tied back to the owner. the objective would be to not tie the house back to the owner. It would be an informational picture, if you will.

 

[boomerang]

So somebody took pictures of my sister-in-laws house, eh? She left the front door open a number of years ago so that my wife and I could get inside a few hours before a family get-together so that I could do some work on her computer beforehand.

There was a path through the place with stuff piled everyplace. Clothing strewn everywhere, the bathrooms were worse than gas station bathrooms. The kitchen, which had virtually nothing in it that had anything to do with food prep, had plates, glasses and silverware stacked up everywhere. All of them dirty with dried rotting food on them. The place was indescribable. My description here does not even begin to describe what it looked like.

I told my wife that social services would take away her sister's kids if they knew the conditions the kids were living in. This wasn't a few days worth of mess, this wasn't a few weeks, this was months and months and months of neglect.

 

[Ns1]

So somebody took pictures of my sister-in-laws house, eh?

this basically describes it.

 

[bearxor]

Opinion from a former news photog.

If the owner had been home, I'd think it would be fine as long as the owner or management of the property did not forbid filming/shooting.

However, if I'm reading this post correctly, the owner was not home. Also, presumably, the owner of the property allowed the "photographer" on to the premises unantennded to perform a specific task that, presumably, didn't include photographing the premises.

So I would think that the owner could seek recourse from the photographer since their reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated.

But the owner would also have to prove damages.

 

[HeXen]

The paparazzi get away with it all the time.

 

[Ns1]

However, if I'm reading this post correctly, the owner was not home. Also, presumably, the owner of the property allowed the "photographer" on to the premises unantennded to perform a specific task that, presumably, didn't include photographing the premises.

So I would think that the owner could seek recourse from the photographer since their reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated.

But the owner would also have to prove damages.

this is correct.

 

[Sluggo]

Are you the same one who posted here a couple of years ago about tenants,or some landlord tiff, and you were creeping around in the house taking pictures?

EDIT: No, that wasn't you.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2196596

You were the one who didn't tell the landlord you were bringing in a pet.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=206683

 

[surfsatwerk]

Next thread, "Is it ok to steal a lock of someone's hair so I don't have to sneak in during the middle of the night to smell it while they're sleeping."

 

[Vdubchaos]

I don't see why not.....

from a moral perspective, that would be messed up

 

[Markbnj]

Next thread, "Is it ok to steal a lock of someone's hair so I don't have to sneak in during the middle of the night to smell it while they're sleeping."

I laughed.

 

[Phoenix86]

Scrub the exif data, post online under a throw away account from a public computer.

IANAL
Even if you tie the pics to you, or someone else a cease and desist letter is the most likely outcome. However no judge will really enforce it, you can't put the genie back into the bottle.

You'd have to seriously slander the persons reputation to have an actionable case, but anyone can sue anyone for anything.......