How to recover a photo I was forced to delete

On 2014-06-05 21:00:53 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014060513185788780-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.
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.

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

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-05 22:00:28 +0000, The Real Bev said:

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.

That isn't clear in what he said.

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.

....but if you fail that test and any subsequent est post repair, the
only way you will get a smog certificate is at a State designated
Referee station which might well be a private smog test station.

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 :-(

Yup! He was at a California BAR Referee Smog Station, which is a state
designated referee in cases of smog test failures, appeals and special
test summonses. He might well have legitimate issues to complain about
regarding actions at that particular referee, station and a photograph
might, or might not have helped him. He is still going to have to bring
the issue up to the Cal BAR, Cal DMV, some consumer's affairs office,
and possibly arbitration.
If there is as much about this story unspoken as there appears to be, I
suspect the OP is going to be spending more on attorney's fees than the
cost of repairs to bring his car into California smog compliance.

Provoking an assault and alleging sexual assault is something else all
together, and which raises questions regarding your sense of right and
wrong. There are other less provocative options.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 05/06/2014 15:32, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.

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

if they 'made' you, then you can (and should) take legal action.

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?

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

unfortunately, since it's an android device rather than a standard
camera, that memory might have been reused for something else already.

however, if it's still there, the above app *will* find it. there are
other recovery apps but they're not as good.


+1 - Data Rescue is well worth a try.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , RJH
wrote:

Is there a way to get the photo back?

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

unfortunately, since it's an android device rather than a standard
camera, that memory might have been reused for something else already.

however, if it's still there, the above app *will* find it. there are
other recovery apps but they're not as good.

+1 - Data Rescue is well worth a try.

don't confuse the app called data rescue with the company called data
rescue.

data rescue is the company that makes photorescue.

prosoft engineering is the company that makes data rescue, the app.

two very different companies and two very different apps.

data rescue is for recovering hard drives and *much* more expensive. it
can recover photos, but for this case, it's overkill and also not as
good.

photorescue is designed specifically to recover photos and does a
fantastic job.

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:11:15 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article 2014060508002455919-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
: Savageduck 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.
:
: It might be against BAR policy, it might not. Did he actually show you
: that policy in writing?
:
: probably not, because there's no such policy.
:
: Then were you on private property? ...and I suspect you were, on
: private property you have no right to whip out your phone to take
: photographs. If you were standing on public property to take the shot
: you would have less of a problem, other than you were trying to capture
: something occurring on private property, which is something you do not
: necessarily have a right to do.
:
: unless there's a prohibition for photography, you definitely can take
: photos, *especially* if you are on public property and it plainly can
: be seen.
:
: 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.
:
: Complain about what? Something to do with not passing your smog test,
: or having to delete the photograph?
:
: the 'inappropriate action' he mentioned.
:
: I used the default "Camera" app.
: I have Ubuntu linux.
:
: Is there a way to get the photo back?
:
: 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
:
: the options are definitely more limited for linux but linux users
: should be used to that. that's why they dualboot windows and/or use
: wine.

The camera doesn't know he's a Linux user; right? So can't he just find a
Windows machine (at his local public library, for instance) and try to recover
the image using one of the more powerful Windows apps?

Bob

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:36:19 -0400, 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.

And anytime someone tries to force you to do anything, tell him to call the
police. Or just do it yourself, taking advantage of one of the benefits of the
cell phone era.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:


The camera doesn't know he's a Linux user; right? So can't he just find a
Windows machine (at his local public library, for instance) and try to recover
the image using one of the more powerful Windows apps?

that's an option.

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.

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).

*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.

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.