Went out of town this weekend. When I got back tonight, there was a note on the door stating that if I posted pics of his kids on the internet without his permission, he would sue me. So dad, I'm not sure if you can sue me or not, I wasn't planning on posting pics, still not planning too. I never even made a comment about your kids other than that they were my neighbors when I saw OP4's signature. And I told a story that you know to be true about them smoking cut up tire pieces. Sorry if I offended you, it just shocked me when I saw the pics of them in OP4's sig.</p>
Tire Smoker Update, their dad reads SPS
- Thread starter MagnoliaHunter
- Start date
Went out of town this weekend. When I got back tonight, there was a note on the door stating that if I posted pics of his kids on the internet without his permission, he would sue me. So dad, I'm not sure if you can sue me or not, I wasn't planning on posting pics, still not planning too. I never even made a comment about your kids other than that they were my neighbors when I saw OP4's signature. And I told a story that you know to be true about them smoking cut up tire pieces. Sorry if I offended you, it just shocked me when I saw the pics of them in OP4's sig.</p>
You can't do anything about pictures taken of people in public. But that's not the point. He should worry more about the kids who will soon be spending their father's days in prison.
J
JimHalpert.nafoom
Guest
http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com?topic=25511
I'm sure you have already seen it, but wanted to include it in this thread. I have a feeling this could get long and thought it belonged for its historical importance.
I'm sure you have already seen it, but wanted to include it in this thread. I have a feeling this could get long and thought it belonged for its historical importance.
Lawdawg will back me up on this. In tort law, it isn't libel if it's true. I won't say there isn't some crackpot attorney out there that wouldn't take his case, but it wouldn't go anywhere, assuming the allegations are true. The rationale is that if it's true, it can't defame you.
Public disclosure of private facts...doesn't matter if the content is true or not. If it would be objectionable for a person's private facts to be publicly disclosed (although this picture seems pretty objectionable to anyone), then it qualifies as an invasion of privacy cause of action and damages could potentially be recovered. Looks like the pic was taken indoors, not in public. Where'd the pic come from, anyway? Defamation would only apply to the statements that the kids chasing mosquito trucks and smoking tires, if that's not true.
Edited to re-word.
He knew who I was because I mentioned the fact about catching his kids smoking pieces of cut up tires in my back yard and I went and told him when I caught the brilliant young Einsteins.
He knew who I was because I mentioned the fact about catching his kids smoking pieces of cut up tires in my back yard and I went and told him when I caught the brilliant young Einsteins.
J
JimHalpert.nafoom
Guest
inside v. outside isn't the whole question, but it does have a lot to do with the answer.
the issue would be whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the picture was taken. for instance, if they have a fenced-in backyard, and you took the picture over their fence, then you probably violated their expectation of privacy, even though they're outside. but usually, if you're outside, you are usually in a public place (on the street or park or wherever), and you can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those places. on the same token, you can be inside, but if you're at a public party or something, you may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (because it's a public function). or, a basketball game is technically inside. so inside/outside isn't necessarily dispositive.
i think the question is easily answered here because the picture is already in the public domain - being found on fark or wherever. now, the kid's dad could try to track down whoever posted the picture on the interwebs first, but he'd probably be disappointed to find that it was the kids themselves.
now, which one of y'all can i bill for this hour?...
ETA: magnolia hunter should definitely take and post some pictures, especially the kids chasing the mosquito truck. that's in the public street, and you'd probably be safe with those. you'd probably also make sixpackremembers. and as far as the stories go, if the statements are true, there's no defamation. also, even if you made up the stories, i doubt their dad could prove damages.
the issue would be whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the picture was taken. for instance, if they have a fenced-in backyard, and you took the picture over their fence, then you probably violated their expectation of privacy, even though they're outside. but usually, if you're outside, you are usually in a public place (on the street or park or wherever), and you can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those places. on the same token, you can be inside, but if you're at a public party or something, you may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (because it's a public function). or, a basketball game is technically inside. so inside/outside isn't necessarily dispositive.
i think the question is easily answered here because the picture is already in the public domain - being found on fark or wherever. now, the kid's dad could try to track down whoever posted the picture on the interwebs first, but he'd probably be disappointed to find that it was the kids themselves.
now, which one of y'all can i bill for this hour?...
ETA: magnolia hunter should definitely take and post some pictures, especially the kids chasing the mosquito truck. that's in the public street, and you'd probably be safe with those. you'd probably also make sixpackremembers. and as far as the stories go, if the statements are true, there's no defamation. also, even if you made up the stories, i doubt their dad could prove damages.
despite the fact the neighbor would probably not have a case against you if you posted pictures of his kids that were taken in public, it's just a very bad idea to do something like that (and I realize the original poster never planned to do that). Trust me on this, you're a lot better off avoiding being a defendent in the first place than you are in successfully defending a lawsuit.
