Can you imagine the surprise I got ....
LongRidge;210691 wrote: Isla .... unless you have given the person a Trespass Order (as per the Trespass Act), then that person can walk on your property ..... just as you can walk on their property until they give you a Trespass Order. But I would think that you can photograph ANYTHING on your property. BUT there was a time when the photo developers would not print rude pictures .... if your neighbour was being rude
Actually, that's not quite right - if Isla verbally warned them off, that holds up under court conditions. Convictions for trespass in those circumstances happened several times at my old workplace, usually when colleagues were out on Fair Go stories. While anyone is permitted to walk on to your property for the purposes of knocking on your front door, they can't just wander around with no intent. Also, if Isla saw someone near her property and thought they may be about to come on to her land and she warned them not to, if they did they would lose the right to then walk up to her front door and knock - they would be trespassing the moment they stepped on to her property.
Isla does have the right to photograph anything on her property, however someone could stand on the roadside and photograph things/people on her property. But that's where it gets murky - for example, if they took a photo of the hills, that's ok, but if it showed Isla for example (without her permission) she could argue that it was a breach of privacy.
I just looked at someone a while back and they beetled back off in the other direction. His intent was illegal and he was a wimp. The only people not allowed on my property are those who owe me money - unless they're obviously carrying cash and smiling politely. The only dogs are ... all. I definitely photograph them!  If I have a rifle, I don't necessarily bother with the photos - and I am still referring to dogs here, not the other buggers.[}]
Pumpkingirl;210792 wrote: Actually, that's not quite right - ... Also, if Isla saw someone near her property and thought they may be about to come on to her land and she warned them not to, if they did they would lose the right to then walk up to her front door and knock - they would be trespassing the moment they stepped on to her property.
I think I forgot to smile at that google car. I did ask the permission of some cows recently and they appeared happy enough to model.
Pumpkingirl;210792 wrote: Isla does have the right to photograph anything on her property, however someone could stand on the roadside and photograph things/people on her property. But that's where it gets murky - for example, if they took a photo of the hills, that's ok, but if it showed Isla for example (without her permission) she could argue that it was a breach of privacy.
Can I publish a photo of a person on my property without their permission? Not that I intend to, but may I without their express permission, bearing in mind their location at the time? That would be a bit like publishing photos from security cameras of people "of interest" to the police, wouldn't it? In neither case would the people be strictly trespassing, but their activities would be suspect in both cases.
Can I publish a photo of a person on my property without their permission?
I'm not sure to be honest, but possibly not, as until you inform them they are trespassing, they aren't actually trespassing - the law allows anyone to walk onto a property without permission, if they are genuinely trying to find you. Then again, if you take the picture and later you find out they did commit a crime and you gave the image to police, who then give it to a newspaper to publish, you'd probably be ok. You couldn't on-sell it as a file photo or anything like that, if the person was identifiable and you didn't tell them what you were doing - that would almost certainly be a breach of their privacy, unless they were later shown to be a crim or potential crim and it was a means of identification.
I've had to go onto a couple of my neighbour's properties without permission, to get their permission to be there, if you know what I mean. So I wasn't trespassing, but if they had then told me to leave and given me reasonable time to do so and I didn't, I would be trespassing and could be arrested.
You don't need a trespass notice or a formal bit of paper or a court document to trespass - you are trespassing at that point, and would be convicted, possibly even if your original approach was entirely genuine. It can depend on the police, the complainant and your actions afterward.
There was a precedent-setting case a few years ago, where a tv camera crew tried to get pictures of a dodgy guy - they sat on the street (legal) hidden from view (legal) and got images of the guy through his lounge room window. That was ruled a breach of his privacy because he was in his home and had no idea they were there.
On the other hand, on the occasion (and it's almost always Fair Go!) when a reporter, with a cameraman behind them, walks up to a door and the guy opens it, then sees the camera and slams it, it gets much murkier - can you use the images in that case? Then things like "the public interest" come into it, usually when it involves dodgy roofers ripping off old ladies. While a media outlet can argue in the public interest (and win more often than not), an individual doing a similar thing would have a harder time of it.
These days, I note most "baddies" on consumer tv shows are shown in a public place, where the media don't need anyone's permission to take images or get permission from the people in the images. I'll quickly add, most tv pics these days are either crowd shots, people who have given permission, unidentified shots (ie the anonymous fat behind of a person when they talk about obesity), or on rare occasions, a shot of an individual who is the subject of something distasteful - an arrested person for example, or a dodgy roofer etc. But lawyers check it all.
An interesting issue you've raised, Midge. I hope your situation is resolved to your satisfaction. It's damned annoying when people use photos without even asking if they may! I know we put them out there for people to see, but we do so in good faith for the original purpose and for others to uplift them without regard to that purpose is downright rude at best.
Take a break...while I take care of your home, your block, your pets, your stock!  PM me...
I read that a business having an ad designed for them also have a 'duty of care' to make sure all is legit with the advert before it's run. Is this correct PG or others who know the industry?
I've been ruminating over the lady from the stockfood company retracting that she was told the photo had been used in other ads put together for them by the Timaru Hearld. Any ideas on how I could find out if it was used in the past? I don't think the Stockfood Co, has been in this business for too many years. I'm sure those of you in the Timaru area will have guessed which company it is and may be able to help me with that info. Also, I don't know if they advertise and sell their product in other areas.
Whilst I'm in town tomorrow I'll go to the Library and flick through a few of last weeks Heralds.
Thanks Tigger - despite what I've written above, I'd still like to know what your friends thoughts on the matter are if you get to talking with them
Further to the chat about taking pix of someone elses property; if you intend to offer for sale or publish a photo of something that identifies someones land or building on their land etc, you need to have a signed 'property release' form from them. But I feel it's good manners to go find or phone the owner and ask before taking any pix anyway. 99% of the time when you do this they'll tell you of other interesting animals or things on the farm