The ubiquity of concealable camera phones and the popularity of DSLRs with telephoto lenses often poses the question "What am I allowed to photograph legally?"

The Right to Photograph:

In general you may take a photograph of whatever subject you want when you are in a public place or you have express permission. In general You don't need consent to photograph somebody unless they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" examples including dressing rooms, public bathrooms, in their homes, etc. Other limits may include military and nuclear sites. Permissible subjects include: law enforcement officers (but you may not interfere with law enforcement activity, investigations or risk officer safety) children, airports and more.

Alot of great photos are captured when the subejects aren't aware that a camera is around. It captures people in their natural state.

Nobody can confiscate your film/photographic data without a court order or warrant or a law enforcement officer that has arrested you. If an individual threatens or 'detains' you, you may have a case for legal action against them.

A great resource on the subject is "Legal Handbok for Photgraphers" By Bert P. Krages and his "Pocket Guide" (PDF)

Next time you take a photo and the subject asks to see the photo to check if they blinked, or they "look funny" and demand you delete it, you can assert your rights

Next weeks photography law post will discuss copyrights and sharing licenses.

UPDATE: My photographer friend asked me about commercial uses of photographs. There is a disctinction between Publisher and Photographer, but they can often be the same individual. Most often if you publish a photograph with a person (model) and the predominant purpose is for monetary gain,(Ex.advertisements) then you must get a release from the model. News articles and non-monetary uses don't require a release.

This post is not legal advise and does not establish an attorney/client relationship. For specific fact situations consult with an attorney. Read our DISCLAIMER

A Beaumont couple has filed suit against their real estate agent, his wife and two other corporations, alleging the agent moved into the couple's home but failed to pay for it.

Todd and Dawn Senters claim they entered into a listing agreement with agent Christopher Magliochetti on April 27, 2007, to sell their home at 14403 Red Tailed Hawn Lane in Houston.

According to the complaint filed Aug. 21 in Jefferson County District Court, the Senters were asking $190,500 for the house, but amended the listing to $185,000 on July 26, 2007, after Magliochetti and his wife Kimber signed a contract to purchase the home themselves.

The Magliochettis were supposed to make an earnest money deposit of $1,000, but the Senters claim they never received the money from defendant First American Title Co. Later, they discovered that the Magliochettis had never paid the earnest money deposit, according to the complaint.

In addition, closing papers were signed, but the Senters never received any money for the sale of their house, the complaint says.

The Washington Post

Organized cyber gangs in Eastern Europe are increasingly preying on small and midsize companies in the United States, setting off a multimillion-dollar online crime wave that has begun to worry the nation's largest financial institutions.       A task force representing the financial industry sent out an alert Friday outlining the problem and urging its members to start using many of the precautions that detect consumer bank and credit card fraud.       "In the past six months, financial institutions, security companies, the media and law enforcement agencies are all reporting a significant increase in funds transfer fraud involving the exploitation of valid banking credentials belonging to small and medium-sized businesses," reads the confidential alert sent to members of the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center, an industry group created to share data about critical threats to the financial sector.       The group is operated and funded by such financial heavyweights as American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup, Fannie Mae and Morgan Stanley.       Because the targets tend to be smaller, the attacks have attracted little of the notoriety that has followed larger-scale breaches at big retailers and government agencies. But the industry group said some companies have suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in losses.

(Full Article)

The National Law Journal   August 25, 2009

Legal fights over loan modifications, appraisals and foreclosures drove a 54 percent second-quarter spike in mortgage-related lawsuits, according to a joint analysis by MortgageDaily.com and Washington-based law firm Patton Boggs. The organizations' joint Second Quarter "2009 Mortgage Litigation Report" tracked 125 active state and federal cases filed by regulators and private parties, compared to 81 active cases during the first quarter. This year's first and second quarter activity totaled 206 cases, nearly matching last year's 207 cases. Litigation spiked during the third quarter last year with 74 active cases, compared to case counts in the low-to-mid 40s range during the other three quarters. Lawsuits against mortgage modification firms, filed primarily by regulators, surfaced for the first time during the second quarter, with 22 cases compared to none during the first quarter or in 2008.

(SOURCE)

By Paul A. Romer
Published: August 23, 2009

BELTON - The rest stop on Interstate 35 just south of Salado is one of the nicest in Texas, and in the future it may become a symbol people bring up when discussing the rights a landowner has to the groundwater under his property.In legal circles there are differences of opinions about the case involving the rest stop that netted 7KX Investments a $5.88 million verdict against the state in a trial that ended on June 30. Some attorneys believe the case has the potential to be precedent setting in futurs eminent domain cases involving underground water rights. 7KX, for instance, at first lost underground water rights when its property was condemned by the state, but eventually regained the rights. Unfortunately, it lost access to the water. Others believe the law applied in this case already was in place and that by condemning 27.7 acres of 7KX property the state simply provided the right set of circumstances toapply the law for the first time.