How to recover a photo I was forced to delete

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

Has a case? He has a "he said/she said" complaint. Did you learn
case law on an airplane flight?

yes, he does have a case.

What do you think an attorney would do for him? Other than charge him
$500 or so? An ethical attorney would decline to take it on.

you might be surprised. i know attorneys who will gladly take such a
case, where someone was forced to delete a photo.

The OP has revealed that the "inappropriate" action was the refusal to
test his car. How could an attorney do anything for him? The BAR
employee need only say he requested that the image be deleted and the
OP volunteered to do so. He said/she said.

in another post he said his car should have passed but they failed him
anyway.

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

What was "confiscated"?

the photo, and you're replying to what savageduck said now.

Asking or even demanding that an image be
deleted is not confiscation of anything.

he no longer has the photo.

Taking the camera and
refusing to return it would be confiscation, and that wasn't done.

not relevant.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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).

Well, we know where you stand on the subject of being courteous to
others.

no, actually you don't know anything about where i stand on that since
i never said anything about what i would or wouldn't do.

but why let that get in the way of another one of your feeble attempts
to turn it into more of your juvenile bashing.

you are just here to argue.

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

Make assumptions much? It was the OP's *opinion* that whatever was
done was inappropriate. We have no way of knowing, from what was
written, if it was actually inappropriate. It could have been just
something the OP didn't like.

it could be, but if so, why would they make him delete it?

if the action was appropriate, why would they care? it's proof they are
doing their job properly.

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

nobody said always.

I did. It's right there in the line above.

You fling that "nobody said" out like a macro. But, you ignore that
nobody said, in the post I made, that the photographer doesn't have a
legal right to take the photograph. You are just here to argue.

wrong as usual. contrary to what you said, the photographer is almost
always in the right when it comes to restrictions against them. absent
a prohibition or an expectation of privacy, they can take photos of
whatever they want.

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

he later said one emissions readiness monitor was not ready which is
not enough to fail. if they still failed him, then he's right and they
(and you) are wrong.

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.

the photo *is* property and you're replying to what savageduck said
now.

anyway, the effect of deleting photos is the same as confiscating film.

once again you're talking out your ass.

On 2014-06-05, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-05 19:36:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
which wrote to the SD card.
http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn


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.

Trespasser? As far as I could read, which is ambiguous I admit, he was
in fact invited onto that property. You cannot trespass when you are
invited in. You cannot treaspass going into a store during opening hours
for example. They probably have the right to ask you to leave, but that
was not what happened. As to restricting your right to take photos,
unless they announce that prominantly (eg in a movie theatre) I doubt
that there is any law under which they could prevent that or allow them
to confiscate your photo.



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

In many western countries, that which is not expressly forbidden is
allowed. Under what law is the photography on private property
forbidden?


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.

On 2014-06-06 07:00:31 +0000, William Unruh said:

On 2014-06-05, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-05 19:36:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
which wrote to the SD card.
http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn


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.

Trespasser? As far as I could read, which is ambiguous I admit, he was
in fact invited onto that property.

I seriously doubt if he had an embossed invitation. He was directed to
this particular BAR Referee Station as a step in his attempt to obtain
a smog certificate.

You cannot trespass when you are invited in.

Again, there was no invitation. He was there to do business.

You cannot treaspass going into a store during opening hours

Actually you can.

for example. They probably have the right to ask you to leave, but that
was not what happened.

Agreed, that did not happen, but we don't know what might have happened
if he had continued to shoot photos in the face of disapproval.

As to restricting your right to take photos,
unless they announce that prominantly (eg in a movie theatre) I doubt
that there is any law under which they could prevent that or allow them
to confiscate your photo.

It's their property, they dictate what can and cannot be done on their
property, and as a work place the State has a few things to say about
that. The Smog station being an automotive workshop licensed by the BAR
and the DMV, I would be surprised if the OP wasn't in the work shop
area when he took that shot, which is a violation of CAL OSHA. They
usually have a pretty prominent *Employees Only* sign in workshop areas.


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

In many western countries, that which is not expressly forbidden is
allowed. Under what law is the photography on private property
forbidden?

It is not forbidden on public property unless stated otherwise, they
requirements for private property depend on the property owner.
Are you telling me that you will be OK with a photographer coming into
your home uninvited to shoot photos of you and your family?

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014060519501980817-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

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.

Hey, Duck, I'm curious--if you (using the generic civilian you, not the
Savage Duck peace officer you) are on private property, see a criminal
act in progress on that private property, and are in a position to
record it but not to intervene, how would that affect the legality of
such recording? Or is that one for the DA?

On 05/06/2014 23:00, The Real Bev wrote:
On 06/05/2014 01:26 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/06/2014 20:36, PeterN wrote:
On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
which wrote to the SD card.
http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn

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. 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.

I think you will find that if you are *stood* on private land (usually
marked with studs in the ground if there is a boundary) then the
landowner gets to make the rules even if he allows the public to walk
over the land or there are rights of way across. The right of way when
it is over private land does not automatically grant you the right to
take a photograph. You have to be quite careful about this in the UK if
you are taking images that might have a commercial value.

All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.

Wasn't the original poster required to be where he was by some legal
entity? I think he was trying to photograph a reading on a machine.

I have no idea. I couldn't translate into English his description of
what he claimed to be taking a photograph of.

In California I am required by law to have my car smog-checked every
other year. I have to take it to a private station to do it, not a
state-operated checkpoint. I would think that I would be entitled to
photograph the readings on the test equipment whether the owner of that
equipment approved or not. I would tell him to call a cop because I
wasn't going to delete anything and if he tried to do it for me I'd have
him arrested for assault and battery. I might even throw in sexual
assault if I felt mean :-(

Actually no the OP isn't entitled to do anything of the sort if he is
stood on private land the landowner can determine the rules absolutely.
But the landowner then can only ask him to leave if he fails to comply.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2014-06-06 10:23:35 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2014060519501980817-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

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.

Hey, Duck, I'm curious--if you (using the generic civilian you, not the
Savage Duck peace officer you) are on private property, see a criminal
act in progress on that private property, and are in a position to
record it but not to intervene, how would that affect the legality of
such recording? Or is that one for the DA?

I would take the shots and offer them to investigating officers and the D.A..
If the D.A. chose to use the shots as evidence in the prosecution's
case, I have no doubt that a good defense attorney would challenge both
me, my right to take photographs of events taking place on private
property, and the admissibility of my photographs in court.
....but my record will show that I have been a good witness in cases I
have been involved with.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 05/06/2014 22:03, PeterN wrote:
On 6/5/2014 4:26 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/06/2014 20:36, PeterN wrote:
On 6/5/2014 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Provided you haven't overwritten or formatted the card, recovery might
be possiblity. A search for photo recovery software will reveal a whole
bunch of options. Your problem is going to be finding one which runs on
Linux. The other is any thing else you might have done with your phone
which wrote to the SD card.
http://bit.ly/1kN95Tn


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. 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.

I think you will find that if you are *stood* on private land (usually
marked with studs in the ground if there is a boundary) then the
landowner gets to make the rules even if he allows the public to walk
over the land or there are rights of way across. The right of way when
it is over private land does not automatically grant you the right to
take a photograph. You have to be quite careful about this in the UK if
you are taking images that might have a commercial value.

All bets are off if you take a photograph on marked private land and
then try to use it in an advertising campaign as Refuge Assurance once
learnt to their cost. Basically an entire campaign had to be shredded
when the rich landowner aggressively enforced his absolute rights.

that is a different altogether. I am not famoiliar with the law in GB.
But in most States in the US, If I take your picture when we are both in
a public place and use it for advertising without your written consent,
I can be subject to civil penalties.

I was talking about taking a picture whilst *stood* on private land (in
this landmark case there were actors sat in a public place). The law of
trespass can be used effectively against such infringements. The people
in the photograph had given their permission but the landowner had
explicitly prohibited public access to the viewpoint on his private
land. Few people are rich or bloody minded enough to persue these claims
but it does happen from time to time. This very memorable one which went
right through up to the High Court was mid 1970's.

The limit of what they can legally do for this sort of trespass is ask
you to leave and I will always comply with this request if challenged.

Germany has some pretty weird privacy laws. There was an edict banning
the publication of images of a bunch of German rare plant smugglers who
were caught red handed in Mexico because it infringed their civil rights
to earn a living as professional plant smugglers!

No other country was prepared to enforce this judgement.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:50:46 +0000, Silent Knight wrote:
I took a picture at the bar referee smog station of what I consider an
inappropriate action but the employee there made me delete it in his
presence because, he said, it's against bar policy.

I want to complain to the California BAR but I want that picture back.
It's an Android 4.3 Samsung Galaxy S3 with an SD card.

I used the default "Camera" app.
I have Ubuntu linux.

Is there a way to get the photo back?

This won't help with getting old photos back, but to prepare for such
situations in the future you could install dropbox or similar cloud
storage app that can send all camera pics to the cloud immediately. So
even if you delete from phone, it's still there in the cloud. By default
the saved camera pics on dropbox are private to the owner (you).

Be careful of using up your data plan if you take a lot of pics though...