An investment company came into my home and stated they were inspectors, taking pictures for their company,but we would not be in the pictures, turns out he was actually videoing and as a result pictures of my kids 2-15years and myself as well as my personal vehicles and property are on the web...
Country relating to Question: United States
State (if USA): California
contacting them as well as the source of the video youtube to have it removed
Hello and thank you for the opportunity to assist you. There may be a slight delay between your follow ups and my replies as I am typing out my answer. Please remember that this is general information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed.I am sorry for your situation. Was this for a private company, or a government agency?This not an answer, but an Information Request. I need this information to answer your question. Please reply, so I can answer your question. I look forward to helping you.
a private company, I believe
Thank you.This goes to what was agreed-upon. In California, the Courts have adopted Prosser's definition of "invasion of privacy" as:1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs.2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff.3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., 187 Cal. App. 3d 1463 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1986.The question here is what exactly did you agree on? This will be the crux of the case. If you feel you can argue by a preponderance of the evidence that you only agreed to photography - and can prove it - then you have a case because arguably, they overstepped the permission that you originally gave them.However, they can argue that you allowed video after all. It would be your word against theirs.If you are successful, aside from requesting specifically that the Court order them to take down the video, you may request punitive damages. The Court of Appeal declared that because the interest involved privacy, the damages flowing from its invasion logically would include an award for mental suffering and anguish. Fairfield v. American Photocopy etc. Co., 138 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1955.Whether or not you feel that this is worth your financial and emotional investment to pursue is your decision, of course. The good news is that a "take down" letter from an attorney threatening to sue may doe the job without even having to resort to litigation. Such a letter normally costs about $150 or so from an attorney.I hope this finds you well. Please click Reply to Expert to keep talking, or rate my answer when we are finished. Kindly rate my answer as one of the top three faces because this is how I get credit for my time with you. Otherwise, reply to chat more until we are finished and you are ready to rate. I work very hard to formulate an informative answer for you; please reciprocate my good faith. (You may always ask follow ups free after rating.)
Actually I just reffered to the original text and it states "the inspector wants to know if you could let him in at 9am this morning to finish the evaluation of the damages to the roof. he will be less than 5mins", then he walks in and pulls out a camera.. I never gave permission, " I said you look nice to be going up in the crawl spac, and he said I an inspector not an appraiser" I was just taken advantage of.. What should I do??
Hello,Thank you for your follow up. The very same applies, except the question will be, "Did you give tacit permission by him pulling out the camera with you standing right there but not objecting?"So still, the very same applies - "is this an invasion of privacy?" It becomes subjective because if this goes to court, you have 12 jurors making this decision for you and often, they go off the official record and decide as much on feeling as they do on logic.But again, a "take down" letter is likely to work here. If it does not, then you would have to sue for invasion of privacy and ask the Court to have them take the video(s) off.I hope this finds you well. Please click Reply to Expert to keep talking, or rate my answer when we are finished. Kindly rate my answer as one of the top three faces because this is how I get credit for my time with you. Otherwise, reply to chat more until we are finished and you are ready to rate. I work very hard to formulate an informative answer for you; please reciprocate my good faith. (You may always ask follow ups free after rating.)
Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).