(1) You SEEM to agree that it was perfectly legal and Ringo Kamens was within his constitutional rights to photograph the scene and the car from the open sidewalk, but
(2) because of “commercial law” and the expense that the commercial photographers and/or car owners went to in obtaining permits and closing the street, it should be obvious that they would object to someone else photographing the car and would obviously have the police (who generally don’t understand either commercial law or constitutional rights) harass anyone taking photos of their car, so therefore
(3) Ringo Kamens should not have photographed the car or else he should not have been surprised and upset, nor complained, when the cops did, in fact, harass him by trying to keep him from exercising his constitutional rights.

Is this your viewpoint? If not then I again say please clarify, because this is what you seem to be saying, and from reading the other comments on here, it seems others have interpreted your viewpoint similarly.

Photographers’ Guide to Privacy says “A photograph may intrude into a persons seclusion without being published. Intrusion can occur as soon as the image is taken.”

Reviewing the appellate decisions on that site for California and New York confirmed that photography while intruding or trespassing was not necessarily illegal.

I also recall reading another attorney who wrote that if you are on private property that is normally freely open to the public (such as a mall), the owners may eject you from their property because of your photography, but may not stop or confiscate your pictures that you took or are taking as you leave.

Since you are the only one arguing that we do not have the right to take a picture from public property then you need to prove that position. Aside from prohibitions against taking pictures of subjects that have an expectation of privacy (such as upskirting) and certain military facilities there are no federal or state laws that regulate photography from public space. There are several photo attorney sites that support our position. Prove yours. I’m calling your bluff – show your cards or fold ‘em…

Meanwhile I am sure you have seen this site but in case you haven’t the relevant section reads:

Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations.

I am not talking about publishing the photo – only the right to take it.

Well, no, that is NOT what you said.

So this guy wants us to believe he found 3 witnesses, gave them his parents name and number but didn’t get their names and numbers?

I have to agree with Carlos, though it hurts, screw that company, if they don’t want people taking pictures of their crappy car they should do a better job of concealing it from view.

Unless the company is paying me, they have no authority as to whether or not I take photos of whatever they happen to be doing.

As for attitude, I was very patient with lazy, obtuse ignorance that refused to learn or research and expected me to be the answer person for no other reason than to provide an basis for arguing without facts to support their position.

If you are in a public place and take a photograph of someone else in a public place but in a manner that violates their reasonable expectation of privacy, I believe that is illegal. Shooting up-skirt comes to mind.

In some circumstances, mere possession of pornographic photographs may be illegal, so if one were to take a pornographic photograph in public in such circumstances, that maybe illegal.

I cannot think of any reason that taking pictures in Ringo’s case would be illegal.

First of all get off your ATTITUDE and learn how to talk to people.

You are the one confusing apples with oranges. The issue here was not even publishing. If it can be seen from public property then it can be photographed – it does not matter if it is a product, a vehicle, an animal, a building, or a person. As long as it is not some military secret hidden behind the fence at Area 51 – it can be photographed! While you may argue that if the photographer crosses into the area cordoned off for the photo shoot that he has “trespassed” in fact NO TRESPASS has occurred while standing on the publicly accessible side of the yellow tape or whatever it is they use to demarcate the zone.

Commercial law may limit my ability to use the photo but it certainly does not and cannot limit my ability to TAKE the picture from PUBLIC PROPERTY.