How to recover a photo I was forced to delete

In article 2014060515030099169-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
property.

Agreed, but what if you are standing on that private property while
photographing those targets in plain sight. You can shoot at whatever
from public property bordering on that private property if it is in
plain sight, but once you cross that threshold it becomes a different
question. I suspect the OP was on private property, and if he had
continued to take photographs while on that property he could well be
excluded as a trespasser.

the property owner can ask the person to leave and if he doesn't,
that's trespass, however, he was somewhere that was open to the public.
it's not like he wandered into someone's backyard and started taking
photos. he had every right to be at the smog station and in fact, he is
legally required to go there every so often.

Yup!

under no circumstances can they make someone delete anything or even
look at what was photographed. they can certainly ask, and you can (and
should) say 'no'.

Agreed. Unfortunately he deleted the image without a backup.

that was a mistake on his part. he was not required to do that.

There is the other issue that this was at a BAR "referee Station" which
tells me he was having issues with his vehicle passing the smog test,
and he was getting ready to appeal another failure. There is nothing
wrong with that, but I suspect he is going to to be hard pressed to
find a sympathetic ear at Cal BAR and might have costly repair to get
his car to pass smog.

the fact that they 'made' him delete something tells me they want to
hide whatever it was that he saw and because it could turn out bad for
them. otherwise, why would they care?

depending on specifics, it may well be worth hiring an attorney. he
already has a case for forcing him to delete the photos and no doubt
whatever the action is that was contained in those photos.

There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted to do with
my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to take the
picture.

He has no implied right to photograph while he is standing on private
property without the approval of the property owner or proprietor. Move
back onto the public sidewalk, and if his target is still in plain
sight, there is no argument. Then he can shoot to his heart's content.

incorrect.

absent any prohibition, such as a sign that says 'the taking of photos,
with or without flash, are prohibited', as is common in theaters or
museums, then he can take photos (unless it's in the bathroom or
somewhere where people expect privacy).

You would think. However, that is not always true once physically on
private property. A property owner or proprietor can forbid photography
at will, sign or no sign, with a simple, "Hey! Put that camera down,
you can't take photos here on my property".

yes, at which point the person stops.

anything he has taken up until that point is off limits.

What he can't do is
confiscate the photographer's property, such as have him delete the
image files.

correct.

On 2014-06-06 01:57:18 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

What about the right of the individual photographed to decline to wish
to be photographed?

if they're in public where there is no expectation of privacy, then
they do not have that right.

a person can ask to not be photographed the photographer can comply as
a matter of courtesy, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Agreed, in a public setting where there is indeed no expectation of
privacy, and celebrity status is irrelevant. It is their celebrity
however, which makes them a particularly desirable target subject.

When doing street photography, any individual who indicates to me that
they do not want to be photographed is not photographed. If I've
already taken the photograph, and that person asks me to delete it, I
do it. I don't object, I don't argue, I just delete.

It's common courtesy and respect for the other person. The subject
can declare that it's his own personal policy not to be photographed.

it's courteous to do that if asked, but you have the legal right to
photograph even if they say no (outside of where there's an expectation
of privacy like a bathroom).

They have an expectation of privacy inside their homes, or other
sanctuary which might exclude the photographer, not just a bathroom.

*Where* the photograph is taken has nothing to do with it. Public
property, private property...it's all the same to me.

There are conditions under which I would not comply. If the person is
committing a crime or abusing some other person or animal, I would not
afford that person with the courtesy I'd afford someone else.

The OP indicated that the person was doing something "inappropriate",
but that doesn't necessarily mean that the action was so inappropriate
that the subject can't decline to have his photograph taken.

that person doesn't have a choice. he was in plain sight in a place
that is open to the public

On private property, and we don't know what degree of photography was
permitted on that private property. We haven't been definitively
informed of that, all we can do is make assumptions which might, or
might not be true.

and doing something he knew he should not
have been doing, which is why he was mad.

That is an accusation we have assumed by interpreting what the OP
wrote, and remains conjecture on our part. We don't even know that the
employee was the subject of the photograph.

The feeling in this group is that the photographer is always in the
right. That's not really always the case.

nobody said always.

however, the restrictions on photographers are minimal.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-06 01:57:20 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014060515030099169-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

That's not the law in NY. With certain exceptions, I have an absolute
right to photograph anything in plain sight, even if it is on private
property.

Agreed, but what if you are standing on that private property while
photographing those targets in plain sight. You can shoot at whatever
from public property bordering on that private property if it is in
plain sight, but once you cross that threshold it becomes a different
question. I suspect the OP was on private property, and if he had
continued to take photographs while on that property he could well be
excluded as a trespasser.

the property owner can ask the person to leave and if he doesn't,
that's trespass, however, he was somewhere that was open to the public.
it's not like he wandered into someone's backyard and started taking
photos. he had every right to be at the smog station and in fact, he is
legally required to go there every so often.

Yup!

under no circumstances can they make someone delete anything or even
look at what was photographed. they can certainly ask, and you can (and
should) say 'no'.

Agreed. Unfortunately he deleted the image without a backup.

that was a mistake on his part. he was not required to do that.

There is the other issue that this was at a BAR "referee Station" which
tells me he was having issues with his vehicle passing the smog test,
and he was getting ready to appeal another failure. There is nothing
wrong with that, but I suspect he is going to to be hard pressed to
find a sympathetic ear at Cal BAR and might have costly repair to get
his car to pass smog.

the fact that they 'made' him delete something tells me they want to
hide whatever it was that he saw and because it could turn out bad for
them. otherwise, why would they care?

That is conjecture on our part. Regardless the evidence captured in
that photograph is for now unavailable. To my suspicious mind there is
more to this story than the OP is telling us, and I have a feeling he
arrived at the Referee Smog Station with a problem vehicle and an
attitude.

depending on specifics, it may well be worth hiring an attorney. he
already has a case for forcing him to delete the photos and no doubt
whatever the action is that was contained in those photos.

....and that is actually unfortunate for both sides. The OP might well
have been able to support his argument in whatever beef he had with the
smog testing of his vehicle. The Smog station proprietor might easily
be able to explain what was shown in the photograph, and have any
accusation dismissed, but for now neither one has access to the
evidence.

There are definite legal restrictions on what I am permitted to do with
my image. But, that should not be confused with my right to take the
picture.

He has no implied right to photograph while he is standing on private
property without the approval of the property owner or proprietor. Move
back onto the public sidewalk, and if his target is still in plain
sight, there is no argument. Then he can shoot to his heart's content.

incorrect.

absent any prohibition, such as a sign that says 'the taking of photos,
with or without flash, are prohibited', as is common in theaters or
museums, then he can take photos (unless it's in the bathroom or
somewhere where people expect privacy).

You would think. However, that is not always true once physically on
private property. A property owner or proprietor can forbid photography
at will, sign or no sign, with a simple, "Hey! Put that camera down,
you can't take photos here on my property".

yes, at which point the person stops.

anything he has taken up until that point is off limits.

What he can't do is
confiscate the photographer's property, such as have him delete the
image files.

correct.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam wrote, on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:32:11 -0400:

you are under no obligation whatsoever to delete anything. all they can
do is kick you out and tell you never to return.

I needed my car tested for smog because the STAR test only station that
I was forced to go (says so on the registration bill) refused to test
me because I had an oxygen sensor monitor unset.

Even though you can pass smog with unset registers in California, the
Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) apparently reduces the gas station's
STAR scores if they test a car that has unfilled OBDII registers.

http://www.bar.ca.gov/80_BARResource...ct%20Sheet.pdf

nospam wrote, on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:32:11 -0400:

http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/

It doesn't seem to work on Linux???

In article , Silent Knight
wrote:

http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/

It doesn't seem to work on Linux???

do you want the photo or not?

maybe it runs in wine, or just dual boot to windows.

there are linux undelete apps but none as good as photorescue.

In article 2014060519501980817-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

What about the right of the individual photographed to decline to wish
to be photographed?

if they're in public where there is no expectation of privacy, then
they do not have that right.

a person can ask to not be photographed the photographer can comply as
a matter of courtesy, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Agreed, in a public setting where there is indeed no expectation of
privacy, and celebrity status is irrelevant. It is their celebrity
however, which makes them a particularly desirable target subject.

i didn't say anything about celebrities, but they certainly will
attract attention.

When doing street photography, any individual who indicates to me that
they do not want to be photographed is not photographed. If I've
already taken the photograph, and that person asks me to delete it, I
do it. I don't object, I don't argue, I just delete.

It's common courtesy and respect for the other person. The subject
can declare that it's his own personal policy not to be photographed.

it's courteous to do that if asked, but you have the legal right to
photograph even if they say no (outside of where there's an expectation
of privacy like a bathroom).

They have an expectation of privacy inside their homes, or other
sanctuary which might exclude the photographer, not just a bathroom.

it wasn't an exhaustive list.

*Where* the photograph is taken has nothing to do with it. Public
property, private property...it's all the same to me.

There are conditions under which I would not comply. If the person is
committing a crime or abusing some other person or animal, I would not
afford that person with the courtesy I'd afford someone else.

The OP indicated that the person was doing something "inappropriate",
but that doesn't necessarily mean that the action was so inappropriate
that the subject can't decline to have his photograph taken.

that person doesn't have a choice. he was in plain sight in a place
that is open to the public

On private property, and we don't know what degree of photography was
permitted on that private property. We haven't been definitively
informed of that, all we can do is make assumptions which might, or
might not be true.

it's private property open to the public, aka quasi-public, and i've
never seen a no photography sign in any inspection station or auto
mechanic shop, so it's a reasonable assumption that it was not
prohibited.

and doing something he knew he should not
have been doing, which is why he was mad.

That is an accusation we have assumed by interpreting what the OP
wrote, and remains conjecture on our part. We don't even know that the
employee was the subject of the photograph.

it's speculation but there obviously was something that they didn't
want him to have a permanent record of.

if it was legitimate, why would they care?

In article , Silent Knight
wrote:

I needed my car tested for smog because the STAR test only station that
I was forced to go (says so on the registration bill) refused to test
me because I had an oxygen sensor monitor unset.

do you mean the emissions readiness monitors?

Even though you can pass smog with unset registers in California, the
Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) apparently reduces the gas station's
STAR scores if they test a car that has unfilled OBDII registers.

no surprise there. they want to line each others pockets. bar & carb
are among the most corrupt in the state.

anyway, what did they say when you said one readiness monitor is
insufficient to fail (assuming that's what you meant)?

http://www.bar.ca.gov/80_BARResource...ct%20Sheet.pdf

that doesn't say much of anything.

http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/80_BARRe...e/RegulatoryAc
tions/BAR_Laws_and_Regulations.pdf

§3340.42.2. Pass/Fail Criteria for On-Board Diagnostic System
Readiness Monitors.

(b) On and after January 1, 2010, model-year 1996 through 2000
vehicles having more than two (2) incomplete emissions related
readiness monitors, and vehicle model-years 2001 and newer having
more than one (1) incomplete emissions related readiness monitor
shall fail the OBDII portion of the inspection. Until this subsection
is implemented, all vehicle model-years 1996 and newer having more
than two (2) incomplete emissions related readiness monitors shall
fail the OBDII portion of the inspection.

On 2014-06-06 06:11:45 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 20:00:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

the fact that they 'made' him delete something tells me they want to
hide whatever it was that he saw and because it could turn out bad for
them. otherwise, why would they care?

That is conjecture on our part. Regardless the evidence captured in
that photograph is for now unavailable. To my suspicious mind there is
more to this story than the OP is telling us, and I have a feeling he
arrived at the Referee Smog Station with a problem vehicle and an
attitude.

My guess too: attitude. One of those incidents escalated by
attitude.

What he can't do is
confiscate the photographer's property, such as have him delete the
image files.

correct.

Nothing was confiscated. Confiscation requires the seizing of
property and retaining it.


Well, he was deprived of use of his property, the image file.
Technically not confiscation, but forced destruction.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014060523254171393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

What he can't do is
confiscate the photographer's property, such as have him delete the
image files.

correct.

Nothing was confiscated. Confiscation requires the seizing of
property and retaining it.

Well, he was deprived of use of his property, the image file.
Technically not confiscation, but forced destruction.

yep.