Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="piperbarb" data-source="post: 150295" data-attributes="member: 12214">If I am not mistaken, I remember reading something quite a while ago that someone tried to sue a photographer for taking photos of them in their house.&nbsp; The photographer was on the street, the plaintiff did not have his curtains drawn.&nbsp; The court's decision was that the photographer was within his rights because he was on a public street when he took the photo and that the person whose photo was taken was visible from the street.&nbsp; The decision stated that it would have only been an invasion of privacy if the photographer had stepped on the plaintiff's property to take the photo.I remember discussing this years ago with my father, who was a lawyer.&nbsp; Although he was a staunch defender of personal privacy, he agreed with the court's decision.&nbsp; I think that decision is what has given papparatzi (sp?) free rein to photograph famous people in public and those famous people cannot do much about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="piperbarb, post: 150295, member: 12214"] If I am not mistaken, I remember reading something quite a while ago that someone tried to sue a photographer for taking photos of them in their house. The photographer was on the street, the plaintiff did not have his curtains drawn. The court's decision was that the photographer was within his rights because he was on a public street when he took the photo and that the person whose photo was taken was visible from the street. The decision stated that it would have only been an invasion of privacy if the photographer had stepped on the plaintiff's property to take the photo. I remember discussing this years ago with my father, who was a lawyer. Although he was a staunch defender of personal privacy, he agreed with the court's decision. I think that decision is what has given papparatzi (sp?) free rein to photograph famous people in public and those famous people cannot do much about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification