How to recover a photo I was forced to delete

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060513221695524-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-05 20:18:57 +0000, Savageduck
said:

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.

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.

BTW: having to delete they image is another issue and he should not have
had to do that. In the worst case scenario email it to yourself first.

There's an app for that, but not to email. Every photo or video I take with
my phone gets uploaded to my Google account on the cloud. "Cloudsync" like
nospam mentioned.

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:18:57 -0700, 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.

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.

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

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.

*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.

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

+1. This is the difference between what it legal and what is "ethical", if
I may use that word. You're talking about a matter of civility and
courtesy. Perhaps I've grown cynical over the years but I would say that
civility and courtesy are not in evidence as they used to be. Many are just
too selfish to consider anyone else's feeling or wishes.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060518011678302-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-05 23:58:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:20:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-05 21:48:32 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:18:57 -0700, 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.

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.

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

That is a different issue. That sort of brings us to the paparazzi
issue of shooting celebrities at home with long lenses.

But that's not the same at all. There are different rules for public
figures.

When that public figure is behind the walls and gates of their home/estate
they have as much expectation against invasion of privacy by opportunistic
photographers as any other citizen.

Not that I think that the paparazzi should not be reined in, but if
celebrity is going to place themselves deliberately in the public eye
and benefit from that financially, then they are subject to a
different set of rules.

Outside the refuge of their home they are fair game, but once they are
behind those hedges, fences, walls and gates of their homes, they have an
expectation of privacy and not to have to concern themselves that some
asshole with a long lens is shooting photos of them at their pool side.

I agree. A also think celebrities deserve some privacy when they are in
public. As of Memorial Day, the influx of the "Hamptonites" in my
neighborhood has begun. They travel the Long Island Expressway and the exit
they get off is the same one I do to get home, about 1 1/2 miles away from
that point. There is a shopping center, 7-11, and a McDonald's on the road
right after the exit. At the McDonald's, I've seen a fair number of
celebrities there - Billy Joel, Michael J. Fox, Katie Couric, the late Peter
Boyle, and more. It's the "bathroom" stop for a lot of people. I've seen
people swarm around theses celebrities and they react pretty graciously. I
prefer to leave them alone, they deserve to be left alone sometimes.

On 2014-06-06 13:26:49 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060513221695524-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-05 20:18:57 +0000, Savageduck
said:

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.

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.

BTW: having to delete they image is another issue and he should not have
had to do that. In the worst case scenario email it to yourself first.

There's an app for that, but not to email. Every photo or video I take with
my phone gets uploaded to my Google account on the cloud. "Cloudsync" like
nospam mentioned.

Yup! I should have thought of that for Google, Dropbox, etc.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 05/06/2014 22:03, PeterN wrote:
On 6/5/2014 4:26 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

Plant smugglers need to earn a living too.

On 6/5/2014 5:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

if the person is recognizable yes.

for a crowd shot, no.

but this wasn't about an ad. it was an inappropriate action that
clearly was inappropriate or they wouldn't have 'made' him delete it.


Since you have so much in depth knowledge of the law, there is no point
in anyone trying to educate you. You also ignore that the law is very
different in different jurisdictions. You don't even tell us which
jurisdiction you are talking about.

--
PeterN

On 6/6/2014 8:33 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
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.

In most US States, the law is the same.


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.

Me too. I went to a gambling casino, and asked about their policy
photographs. The told me photographers were welcome any place but on the
casino floor. It was OK to take pictures of the floor while standing
outside the floor. (the divider was a wall about less than 4' high.)
However, if someone is excited about winning a jackpot, you can take
their picture while on the floor. In that event they request that you
give them a copy, but the request in not mandatory.

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.


I have been involved in enough international transactions and
negotiations to know that many countries have rules that seem strange to
folks not from that country.


--
PeterN

On 6/6/2014 9:34 AM, PAS wrote:

snip


+1. This is the difference between what it legal and what is "ethical", if
I may use that word. You're talking about a matter of civility and
courtesy. Perhaps I've grown cynical over the years but I would say that
civility and courtesy are not in evidence as they used to be. Many are just
too selfish to consider anyone else's feeling or wishes.



You and i have total agreement on that concept. On those occasional
where I have taken an image without permission, explicit or implicit, I
have never shown a recognizable image. Most people will give consent, if
approached properly. I have sometimes sent a copy of the image to my
subject.

--
PeterN

On 6/5/2014 6:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-05 21:48:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:


snip

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

That is a different issue. That sort of brings us to the paparazzi issue
of shooting celebrities at home with long lenses.

Many who are not celebrities do not wish to be photographed. Their
reasons are not important. Indeed they don't need a reason.



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.

As would I.

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.

Agreed.

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

That is your particular principle, and should be the principle of any
photographer with a sense of decency.

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.

Different circumstances which might lead to you having to physically
having to defend your property. (...and perhaps yourself.)

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.

The OP hasn't made it clear whether he was taking a shot of the smog
station employee or something else about the test procedure. Perhaps the
way some equipment was connected. Regardless, there may well have been
some sort of restriction to photograph on the smog station property.

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

We are an arrogant bunch of intrusive asses at times.



--
PeterN

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:54:33 +0000 (UTC), Silent Knight wrote:

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

Again: try TestDisk. It works under Linux.

http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Step_By_Step

Or, since it's images you want to recover: PhotoRec.

http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec

It's very similar to TestDisk. I've used TestDisk under Xubuntu to
recover 1,5TB of data. It works and it's free.

--
s|b