In general the rule is Caveat Emptor - or buyer beware. It is up to the buyer of the goods to ensure that the seller is the legitimate owner of the property being sold. A thief cannot convey good title.

Your hypothetical Craig's lister would be in possession of stolen goods.

In fact, having photos of the person improperly in possession of your property and not making any effort to identify that person could be perceived as being complicit in the arrangement.

(However IANAL...)

Not trying to shoot you down, as despite your IANAL disclaimer the general reasoning is sound, but:

You are conflating two distinct legal principles:

Caveat Emptor, the principle that the BUYER of property takes the risk of defects in that property (except in the case of fraud/misrepresentation on the part of the SELLER); and

A thief cannot convey good title, which is actually a fallacy. If you honestly purchase goods from a thief, for market value, without knowing that the goods are stolen, your interest in those goods actually trumps those of the original owner. Counter-intuitive huh?

The original owner has recourse only against the thief, as you are effectively an innocent party to the transaction.

Caveat emptor protects the seller against a careless purchase followed by buyer's remorse.

Merely possessing goods which are stolen is not a crime in any jurisdiction i'm aware of (and for good reason), this offence almost always implies a mental element of knowledge or at least suspicion as to the source of the goods.

It is certainly the case in the UK that a stolen car remains the property of the original owner even when purchased by someone who has no knowledge of the theft.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/2753701/Motorists-u...

My understanding was that the due diligence one is expected to conduct under caveat emptor would include ensuring the buyer had the legal title of the goods to be purchased, but this might be a regional variation or I could just be wrong.

>For instance, maybe he bought it from the thief off craigslist.

Could be but one could also speculate the other direction. What if the robbery occurred in a very short time span, and the photo of him driving away was taken (assuming it was time and location stamped) during that time and in the immediate vicinity of the crime?

This would make it unlikely that a third party transaction had occurred.

Which is precisely why modern civilized societies have a judicial system. To reach a verdict based on actual facts and evidence. Not some "what ifs". [edited for typos]

So the current facts are that:

  a) the guy owns a laptop
  b) he took pictures using it

Sounds like he's in the clear to post them anywhere he likes then?

I own a netbook - its quite small and could be easily hidden behind a sofa or something, lets say I leave it somewhere private - maybe a hidden corner of someone's house (a friends house, I didn't break in). I take some photos with it it.

Does it sound like I'm in the clear to post them anywhere I like?

The law hinges entirely on the term "expectation of privacy" so what you do you mean by "somewhere private"? You mention a sofa so if your friend invited you in somewhere like the living room (ie. no bathrooms, weren't filming his naked kids, etc.), my understanding is you would be fine. Your friend might not like it, but legally similar situations happen daily, it's called Facebook.

Imagine taking a picture at a party with intoxicated people in it, do you get everyone's consent before snapping the pic? What about being filmed on security cam driving past an ATM? So those are two examples of where although you might not actively expect to be filmed, they are still protected filming locations.

edit: typos