Photographs

SarahS2013

So I was walking in front of the Four Courts today on the way back to the office after running an errand. This photographer standing outside the dome of the Four Courts was snapping every single person walking past like they were Kim Kardashian. Out of instinct I turned my head away from him but this seemed to just make him worse. Seeing red, I confronted him and asked him what he was taking my picture for, to which he replied "It's a free country".

I understand they are there to get pictures of people involved in court cases but I find it really intrusive that I can't even walk past the Four Courts minding my own business without some photographer taking dozens of pictures of me/others. It feels very very wrong that some randomer now has pictures of me on his camera and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it?

Are you within your right to ask them to delete the pictures?

Esel

You can ask, but afaik they don't have to comply. Public place and all that.

rucksack

SarahS2013 wrote: »

So I was walking in front of the Four Courts today on the way back to the office after running an errand. This photographer standing outside the dome of the Four Courts was snapping every single person walking past like they were Kim Kardashian. Out of instinct I turned my head away from him but this seemed to just make him worse. Seeing red, I confronted him and asked him what he was taking my picture for, to which he replied "It's a free country".

I understand they are there to get pictures of people involved in court cases but I find it really intrusive that I can't even walk past the Four Courts minding my own business without some photographer taking dozens of pictures of me/others. It feels very very wrong that some randomer now has pictures of me on his camera and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it?

Are you within your right to ask them to delete the pictures?

No. If in a public place you can be photographed.If they followed you around it may be harrassment. Why would he take dozens of pictures of you? Are you in a court case or in the news?Or are you in the background when some news person is photographed? If so you could just walk on the other side of the street or turn away as you did

SarahS2013

That's so infuriating. You could understand him snapping people who are actually going in or out of the entrances but he was just snapping EVERYONE walking along Inns Quay

rucksack

SarahS2013 wrote: »

That's so infuriating. You could understand him snapping people who are actually going in or out of the entrances but he was just snapping EVERYONE walking along Inns Quay

Google
digital rights photographers and you get an idea of the law

SarahS2013

rucksack wrote: »

No. If in a public place you can be photographed.If they followed you around it may be harrassment. Why would he take dozens of pictures of you? Are you in a court case or in the news?Or are you in the background when some news person is photographed? If so you could just walk on the other side of the street or turn away as you did

lol I am an absolute nobody! I work in an office down by Heuston and had walked down to the bank on Capel St and was walking back to work again! He did the same to the person who was walking about 20m in front of me too. The fact that I turned my head away actually made the clicking worse!

I just thought it was completely OTT. I most certainly will cross over the other side of the road in future however shouldn't have to!

rucksack

SarahS2013 wrote: »

lol I am an absolute nobody! I work in an office down by Heuston and had walked down to the bank on Capel St and was walking back to work again! He did the same to the person who was walking about 20m in front of me too. The fact that I turned my head away actually made the clicking worse!

I just thought it was completely OTT. I most certainly will cross over the other side of the road in future however shouldn't have to!

my friend from the junk mail thread says you should get a camera and start taking pictures of him.....

SarahS2013

rucksack wrote: »

my friend from the junk mail thread says you should get a camera and start taking pictures of him.....

Haha! Good plan!

rucksack

SarahS2013 wrote: »

Haha! Good plan!

you might sell some if he is a well known photographer and you shoot him shooting the news

Canadel

He probably won't publish your photo.

He may use it for his own private pleasure though.

SarahS2013

Canadel wrote: »

He probably won't publish your photo.

He may use it for his own private pleasure though.

Doubtful, I'd a face like thunder on me after the displeasure of dealing with AIB. Your man and his camera just topped it off! :rolleyes:

hullaballoo

I think he's just a WUM, tbh. He's looking for a reaction so he can assert his right to do what he does.

I avoid that entrance to the Four Courts like the plague. Unfortunately, they sometimes appear at the other entrances too. It has gotten a lot better since the criminal courts moved to Parkgate Street.

niavd

That is so wrong. if that was my partner he probably would have grabbed his camera and threw it in the liffey!!

MarkAnthony

niavd wrote: »

That is so wrong. if that was my partner he probably would have grabbed his camera and threw it in the liffey!!

Hasn't got far to go for the criminal damage and assault case he'd face.

It's a public place, I hate people smoking, spitting, scratching their balls, playing music etc. but there isn't much I can do about it. It's hardly the worst thing in the world, they'll no doubt be deleted a couple of days later.

Mrs OBumble

OP, do you have any idea how many CCTV camera are around any city? Your picture is being taken probably a few times each minute when you are walking around.

Canadel

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's a public place, I hate people smoking, spitting, scratching their balls, playing music etc. but there isn't much I can do about it. It's hardly the worst thing in the world, they'll no doubt be deleted a couple of days later.

True.

Though one would think a person owns the image rights to their own body in the same way a photographer owns the image rights to their own photos. I presume the photo would not be allowed to be published if it's clearly just a photo of the Op?

brian_t

Canadel wrote: »

I presume the photo would not be allowed to be published if it's clearly just a photo of the Op?

They publish photos of people on trial going to and from the courts all the time.
I presume their permission is not sought.
What's the difference.

rucksack

Canadel wrote: »

True.

Though one would think a person owns the image rights to their own body in the same way a photographer owns the image rights to their own photos.

One may be wrong

Canadel wrote: »

I presume the photo would not be allowed to be published if it's clearly just a photo of the Op?

why not?

MarkAnthony

Canadel wrote: »

True.

Though one would think a person owns the image rights to their own body in the same way a photographer owns the image rights to their own photos. I presume the photo would not be allowed to be published if it's clearly just a photo of the Op?

Photos seem to have this vaunted status in copyright. They don't seem to meet the standards required of other work, certainly not the type that is the result of someone standing there snapping passers by. I'm not sure why there would be a corollary in the light being reflected off/absorbed by my body as I walk off the street.

Canadel

rucksack wrote: »

One may be wrong

why not?

brian_t wrote: »

They publish photos of people on trial going to and from the courts all the time.
I presume their permission is not sought.
What's the difference.

Ok. I'm happy to be proved wrong on that in a way.

Does that also mean that my photo can be used in an ad or in a campaign for pretty much anything by private companies?

And I imagine if I were to take and publish a photo of say, Denis O'Brien, I'd probably still receive some kind of letter from his solicitor fairly swiftly should they see it.

Cathmandooo

Op was it a short skinny fella? Tight haircut, dark hair? Some weirdo with a camera took my photo this morning on parnell Street at around 8.30, there were about 5 women around me, he was taking photos of all of us. It was very intrusive, I could see it rattled younger ladies in front of me, I didn't like it either.

Paulw

Canadel wrote: »

Does that also mean that my photo can be used in an ad or in a campaign for pretty much anything by private companies?

Advertising and such would be a different matter. That would usually require a release.

Canadel wrote: »

And I imagine if I were to take and publish a photo of say, Denis O'Brien, I'd probably still receive some kind of letter from his solicitor fairly swiftly should they see it.

For editorial use (newspapers, news websites, etc), nope, they can use away without permission, with the usual stipulations.

Canadel

Paulw wrote: »

For editorial use (newspapers, news websites, etc), nope, they can use away without permission, with the usual stipulations.

Except of course if you have the money to take legal action.

I really don't like the idea that a photo of a person can be published alongside something they may disagree entirely with.

SarahS2013

Cathmandooo wrote: »

Op was it a short skinny fella? Tight haircut, dark hair? Some weirdo with a camera took my photo this morning on parnell Street at around 8.30, there were about 5 women around me, he was taking photos of all of us. It was very intrusive, I could see it rattled younger ladies in front of me, I didn't like it either.

No he was an older guy with grey hair...

rucksack

Recently a lot of people who are nearby when alleged criminals are photographed are blurred http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/defiant-freddie-kinahan-mobster-showing-off-after-cartel-homes-raided-34612678.html