I am amazed that someone has the nerve to come on here and ask for advice about whether he can legally bait someone. :rolleyes: I hope they report him to Twitter and he gets his account removed!
restriction on photography was initially given (verbally one assumes), and has since been rescinded. if no written approval has been given, the OP would be hard pushed to prove that permission was indeed given at all.
It doesn't really matter. The property owner might have the right to decide whether or not to allow visitors to take photos, but it's too late to change their mind once the pictures have been taken - they don't have any rights over the photos.
(assuming there wasn't some more elaborate agreement entered into e.g. "you can take photos for non-commercial purposes" etc)
It doesn't really matter. The property owner might have the right to decide whether or not to allow visitors to take photos, but it's too late to change their mind once the pictures have been taken - they don't have any rights over the photos.
(assuming there wasn't some more elaborate agreement entered into e.g. "you can take photos for non-commercial purposes" etc)
i'll repeat what i previously said though (and others agree).
regardless of law, in this instance it would be the ethical thing to do to remove the photo from public viewing.
in this instance the OP has admitted that the photo is there to bait the other person.
Comments
no thats the point. if you take a picture of someone in the steeet, they dont have any say.
thats how papers do their "mystery shopper" type pictures.
in this instance, the photo was not taken in a public area but rather in the house of the person that is revoking permission.
It doesn't really matter. The property owner might have the right to decide whether or not to allow visitors to take photos, but it's too late to change their mind once the pictures have been taken - they don't have any rights over the photos.
(assuming there wasn't some more elaborate agreement entered into e.g. "you can take photos for non-commercial purposes" etc)
i'll repeat what i previously said though (and others agree).
regardless of law, in this instance it would be the ethical thing to do to remove the photo from public viewing.
in this instance the OP has admitted that the photo is there to bait the other person.