Man Photographed in Court Building and Photo Published Online ?

Electronic Writer

Evening All,


Recently I was reading a well known newspaper website when I saw a picture of a man who was inside the doorway of the district court and he was walking towards the outside. Another 3 steps and he would have been there.



A story was written by a newspaper reporter about what had happened in court and he used the photograph to identify the person.


Were any rights within the court building that the person is entitled to violated?


Electronic Writer. Any opinions much appreciated.

Peregrinus

You're not allowed to take photographs of court proceedings, which generally translates into a ban on photographs in any room while court proceedings are being conducted in that room.

This doesn't extent to the whole building in which the courtroom is situated. SFAIK there is no general ban on photography in the corridors, lobbies, etc.

hullaballoo

I'm not sure about that. The Four Courts do operate a ban within the gates on photography, with dispensation for when barristers are called to the bar (outer/inner) and judges appointed.

No other photography allowed and that's why the newspaper photographers take up their posts at the main entrance, the Chancery Street side and the entrance at Áras Uí Dhálaigh.

Admittedly I have never looked into the legal basis for the ban but it is enforced there at least and it would make sense if it was not limited to the Four Courts alone.

I would imagine it's a building security issue. They don't want photos of inside the building taken

Peregrinus

The Four Courts building is of considerable architectural and historical significance and there are numberous publicly-available photgraphs of the interior and, indeed, floor plans. So that's unlikely to be it.

It could be that it would be an annoyance to the primary users of the courts - litigants and their legal advisers - to be photographed as they go about their business. People going into or coming out of court may be stressed, anxious or emotional, there are quite often sensitive negotiations going on, etc, etc. Having the place full of paparazzi couldn't make the experience any easier on people.

Whatever the reason for the ban, it doesn't appear to be statutory. I expect the basis of the ban is the the Courts Service, as occupier of the premises, has a right to control the terms on which visitors and invitees are admitted, and they impose a "no photographs" condition of entry.

And, if that's the case, their authority stops at the boundary of the premises; they can't stop someone in the street who haven't entered the premises photographing what can be seen from the street. If you don't want photographers in the street photographing people in the hallway, shut the door.

Electronic Writer

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you don't want photographers in the street photographing people in the hallway, shut the door.

But, if the you in question is the person who is just about to exit the premises the person has no choice of whether to shut the door.

ohnonotgmail

Electronic Writer wrote: »

But, if the you in question is the person who is just about to exit the premises the person has no choice of whether to shut the door.

if you can be seen from a public place you are fair game.

coylemj

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you can be seen from a public place you are fair game.

+1 It would appear from the description provided by the OP that the photographer was not inside the building when the photo was taken so he or she would not have been subject to any of the rules imposed by whoever owns or operates the premises.

Victor

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I would imagine it's a building security issue. They don't want photos of inside the building taken

If that was the issue, then smartphones would be banned.

CCJ bans cameras completely, but not smartphones.

I suspect it is down to (a) maintaining some level of privacy and (b) decorum.

bobbyy gee

Your rights
https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/

Irishphotodesk

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Evening All,
Recently I was reading a well known newspaper website when I saw a picture of a man who was inside the doorway of the district court and he was walking towards the outside. Another 3 steps and he would have been there.

A story was written by a newspaper reporter about what had happened in court and he used the photograph to identify the person.

Were any rights within the court building that the person is entitled to violated?


Electronic Writer. Any opinions much appreciated.

As someone who used to take these images there is nothing illegal in taking the image - the person is in a public place.

I assume you're talking about images from the CCJ in Dublin taken through the glass door.

No law was broken, I and others that I work/worked with have been doing photography at the courts for over 15years, one guy had been doing it for 22yrs but his office retired him recently.

There has been at least one photographer at the CCJ since it opened (there was 2 until Christmas 2018 and one since then) and the four courts has been covered by photography for the past 24/25yrs.

Through the years I have been threatened, spat at, called numerous names , headbutted, kicked, punched, screamed at, told it was a breach of gdpr, it's immoral, a mortal sin, it's wrong etc etc, if I could find another job paying me the same or more, I would jump at the opportunity, my income level dropped in 2008/2009 by nearly 70% and with current work arrangements I'm earning 90% less than in 2008/2009, financially I'm fu*ked but hoping something will pop up soon or mortgage payments and other debts may not be serviced....but others have lost their lives due to covid and that hasn't happened to any of my family/friends so ... I'm grateful for that and life goes on.

Irishphotodesk

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. The Four Courts do operate a ban within the gates on photography, with dispensation for when barristers are called to the bar (outer/inner) and judges appointed.

No other photography allowed and that's why the newspaper photographers take up their posts at the main entrance, the Chancery Street side and the entrance at Áras Uí Dhálaigh.

Admittedly I have never looked into the legal basis for the ban but it is enforced there at least and it would make sense if it was not limited to the Four Courts alone.

There was a time when photography was done in the yards at the four courts, have a look online for some of the Catherine Nevin trial pics.
I believe the media were asked to do photographs from outside shortly after that trial, I have images as far back as 2004 and they are all either perp walk or arrival pics.

Having spoken to various judges through the years on the subject, it is legal to photograph inside during a court case with the permission of the judge - however this has not ever been applied for to my knowledge.

Personally I think if my role was removed and upon conviction an image is distributed to the media (no matter what the crime) I believe that would be a fairer system, at present it's not possible to photograph a person in custody which I feel isn't right.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you can be seen from a public place you are fair game.

Record your neighbors inside their private home, see how it works out

Irishphotodesk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Record your neighbors inside their private home, see how it works out

Completely different scenario, a publicly accessible building with glass entrance versus a private dwelling.

Irishphotodesk

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Completely different scenario, a publicly accessible building with glass entrance versus a private dwelling.

What did I reply to?

Irishphotodesk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What did I reply to?

You replied to a comment which was referring to a picture taken at/before a door at a district court (I'm assuming based on the description that it's the CCJ, so a glass door) .

Your comment takes the previous comment out of context and tries to put it into a different situation...maybe you didn't read the thread and just saw the comment and gave your opinion based on the comment on its own ...which can happen.

Irishphotodesk

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

You replied to a comment which was referring to a picture taken at/before a door at a district court (I'm assuming based on the description that it's the CCJ, so a glass door) .

Your comment takes the previous comment out of context and tries to put it into a different situation...maybe you didn't read the thread and just saw the comment and gave your opinion based on the comment on its own ...which can happen.

It's very very clear what was said. I can quote it if you like. The statement was overly simplistic and therefore incorrect.

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Completely different scenario, a publicly accessible building with glass entrance versus a private dwelling.

OP , the original doorway was opened , the person was going through the area between the inner and outer doors , there was no glass between the photographer and the person . If an experienced photographer tells me that that area is an area in which a person can be photographed by a person from outside , I'll now hold that view until , if ever , convinced differently .

Irishphotodesk

Electronic Writer wrote: »

OP , the original doorway was opened , the person was going through the area between the inner and outer doors , there was no glass between the photographer and the person . If an experienced photographer tells me that that area is an area in which a person can be photographed by a person from outside , I'll now hold that view until , if ever , convinced differently .

It could be argued for both sides legally speaking, it would be very difficult to prove either side is correct, however, if the person photographed was of public interest (ie a newsworthy story) I would be confident that if challenged on privacy that the photographer would win.

The person is visible and the photographer can take the shot.

The fact that the person photographed is of public interest would be (in my opinion) the deciding factor, I have photographed through windows in the past and many of my colleagues have (stags head pub on chapel street, Shane lowry, Dublin GAA team celebrating at silly o clock in the morning , slab Murphy on his release from special criminal court went into a pub on capel street and was photographed having a pint if my memory is correct)

There's a thin line between an invasion of someone's privacy/civil liberties and the public interest, I'm sure if any of the hotel guests took pics while golfgate happened the media would have no problem publishing them.

There would be no expectation of privacy (in my opinion) if a person was deliberately entering a building to hide from photographers, they know the photographers are trying to get a pic (ie public interest) so in this scenario if they were to peek out of a window or be photographed through a window I would see no reason why the photo couldn't be used.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Record your neighbors inside their private home, see how it works out

apart from the two sets of circumstances being completely different you are correct.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

apart from the two sets of circumstances being completely different you are correct.

I agree they are different but the comment that once the photographer is in public, all is fair game has been trotted out far too much

Irishphotodesk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I agree they are different but the comment that once the photographer is in public, all is fair game has been trotted out far too much

As with many situations there are always exceptions to the rule, in ireland we often have more loopholes than laws.

Just because someone makes a commonly used phrase doesn’t mean it should be taken literally or needs to be called to task on it, sometimes it’s simply just a throw away comment.

Irishphotodesk

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

As with many situations there are always exceptions to the rule, in ireland we often have more loopholes than laws.

Just because someone makes a commonly used phrase doesn’t mean it should be taken literally or needs to be called to task on it, sometimes it’s simply just a throw away comment.

When it's wrong, it's wrong and this is the legal section not ah

Irishphotodesk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

When it's wrong, it's wrong and this is the legal section not ah

and in law (there are many interpretations of the law/rule) - we have differing opinions and its pointless debating the issue when you can't accept that sometimes a comment on an internet forum is simply a comment - doesn't have to be factually correct for it to be posted.

ohnonotgmail

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

and in law (there are many interpretations of the law/rule) - we have differing opinions and its pointless debating the issue when you can't accept that sometimes a comment on an internet forum is simply a comment - doesn't have to be factually correct for it to be posted.

well now, my comment correct in the context in which it was posted. the context being a person leaving court who is approaching the threshold of the court.

Irishphotodesk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well now, my comment correct in the context in which it was posted. the context being a person leaving court who is approaching the threshold of the court.

I mentioned that earlier but Niner_leprechan (he/she) appears to not accept that your comment was in context of someone leaving the CCJ - they are entitled to their opinion, even when they are wrong !

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. The Four Courts do operate a ban within the gates on photography, with dispensation for when barristers are called to the bar (outer/inner) and judges appointed.

No other photography allowed and that's why the newspaper photographers take up their posts at the main entrance, the Chancery Street side and the entrance at Áras Uí Dhálaigh.

Admittedly I have never looked into the legal basis for the ban but it is enforced there at least and it would make sense if it was not limited to the Four Courts alone.

It is a CS rule, no case law backing per se but brought about as a result of the issues raised in the DPP vs Davis [2001] 1 IR 146 and DPP vs Nevin [2003] 3 IR 321 cases I believe. Obviously this applies to outside the courtroom but within the building itself as there are specific Orders dealing with within a courtroom.

Electronic Writer

So, there seems to be 2 questions ,

Is it okay to make a photograph of a person who is in the court building ?

Can a person outside the court make a photograph of what can be seen from their point of view ?

I'm led to ponder,

Do the court authorities have any responsibility to prevent a picture of a person who is inside the court building being made ?

I'm also pondering,

Am I going in circles ?

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

I'm fu*ked but hoping something will pop up soon

Now , Golfgate information freedom enthusiasts wish someone would tell them who was at that "do" in Galway.



It could have probably made a nice centre fold.

Irishphotodesk

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Now , Golfgate information freedom enthusiasts wish someone would tell them who was at that "do" in Galway.

It could have probably made a nice centre fold.

Not sure I understand your reference, the names of most of the attendees at golfgate are available and have been published as far as I'm aware.... I have screenshots of a video from Twitter showing the table plan.

With regards to the photography/legal issue.... A person could claim to have a reasonable expectation of privacy if they are within a building and photographed from outside where it would not be expected for them to be seen by the public, in the case of the CCJ , it could be argued that the person would be in the annex of the building and not in the building itself, also, the person being visible directly to the photographer would imply that he/she is also visible to other members of the public and therefore not expectant of a reasonable expectation of privacy (but I'm not legally trained so someone else might be better positioned to give a legalistic view on it)

A side note from an earlier piece that I had written in response but something happened and I lost most of the reply.
In my experience, I have been told many times that it's an invasion of privacy (99.9% of my images the person is in a public place) - through the years I have asked people to explain how it's an invasion of their privacy, most grumble and walk away, when I try to explain to people they usually don't want to listen, on the rare occasion that someone is genuinely interested in the answer, they usually can see it from my perspective.
People only seem to have an issue when there's a person visible to complain to, on any day if you walk around Dublin you are monitored by thousands of CCTV cameras.

On some occasions people will claim it's a breach of gdpr, I ask them how ..what is the breach, most don't know how to answer my question or claim that their image is protected under gdpr,

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

other members of the public

What would you say if I were to put it to you that , I'd suggest , and I'm not legally trained either , that if a person is working , that person is not a member of the public , but works on behalf of a private entity such as a business.

ohnonotgmail

Electronic Writer wrote: »

What would you say if I were to put it to you that , I'd suggest , and I'm not legally trained either , that if a person is working , that person is not a member of the public , but works on behalf of a private entity such as a business.

working for a private entity does not stop one being a member of the public. we are all members of the public. our job status doesn't change that

Electronic Writer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

working for a private entity does not stop one being a member of the public. we are all members of the public. our job status doesn't change that

I'll put it to you this way.

A man is working for a carpentry firm and is standing on the side of the road with a bag full of tools. He decides to get a public transport bus to move his tools a stop down the road so he doesn't have to carry them to his van.

Is the bus driver justified in giving him access to the bus service given he is working for a private business and also he is quite different from a man carrying 3 bags of shopping ?

GarIT

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Record your neighbors inside their private home, see how it works out

I've complained about CCTV on a building site looking in my bedroom window. the local council and Gardaí have said it's perfectly legal.

GM228

GarIT wrote: »

I've complained about CCTV on a building site looking in my bedroom window. the local council and Gardaí have said it's perfectly legal.

CCTV must be strictly necessary and pass a three stage test (purpose, necessity the balancing tests), best of luck trying to pass those tests if CCTV is looking in your window!

GarIT

GM228 wrote: »

CCTV must be strictly necessary and pass a three stage test (purpose, necessity the balancing tests), best of luck trying to pass those tests if CCTV is looking in your window!

It's looking at machinery they park past the end of my garden, back of my house just happens to be caught on it. They claim it only has a 25m range and it's 30m away seems a bit nonsense to me, surely it can still see it even if it's in the distance.

My point was they didn't see any issue recording what is in private property. But if there are any points to use to get rid of it I'd love to hear them.

ohnonotgmail

Electronic Writer wrote: »

I'll put it to you this way.

A man is working for a carpentry firm and is standing on the side of the road with a bag full of tools. He decides to get a public transport bus to move his tools a stop down the road so he doesn't have to carry them to his van.

Is the bus driver justified in giving him access to the bus service given he is working for a private business and also he is quite different from a man carrying 3 bags of shopping ?

Are there any CIE regulations that relate to the carriage of a workman carrying tools? i'm not aware of any and neither am i aware of any reason they might exist. I think you are seeing differences where none exist and i also cannot see the relevance to the thread.

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

the person being visible directly to the photographer would imply that he/she is also visible to other members of the public and therefore not expectant of a reasonable expectation of privacy (but I'm not legally trained so someone else might be better positioned to give a legalistic view on it)

Here is the relevancy to the thread.

Irishphotodesk says he is another member of the public. Is he ?

He is obviously working when he is outside the court taking photographs and working implies he is doing so for a business, whether it be his or not.

I interpret the quote above as possibly meaning that there could be a difference in the expectation of privacy given to a person walking through the doorway of a court building by a member of the public and those who are not members of the public.

The difference in expectation of privacy from members of the public and from non-members of the public could of course have been the next question , could we have opinionated Irishphotodesk is possibly a non-member of the public.

Irishphotodesk would then lead us , no doubt , to further topical discussion.

Mods may like to shut threads down like dictatorships, their defence is that us mere members of the public have no say over a private business website.

Irishphotodesk

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Here is the relevancy to the thread.

Irishphotodesk says he is another member of the public. Is he ?

He is obviously working when he is outside the court taking photographs and working implies he is doing so for a business, whether it be his or not.

I interpret the quote above as possibly meaning that there could be a difference in the expectation of privacy given to a person walking through the doorway of a court building by a member of the public and those who are not members of the public.

The difference in expectation of privacy from members of the public and from non-members of the public could of course have been the next question , could we have opinionated Irishphotodesk is possibly a non-member of the public.

Irishphotodesk would then lead us , no doubt , to further topical discussion.

Mods may like to shut threads down like dictatorships, their defence is that us mere members of the public have no say over a private business website.

Your interpretation has confused me, if I can clarify what I meant.

If a person is leaving the court (CCJ) and a member of the public can visibly see them while they are inside the glass partition part, the person leaving court cannot assume they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are visible to any member of the public who can see them.

This would be my logic behind the reason a photographer can take a photo of a person through glass or through an open doorway, directly facing the person.

Electronic Writer

I understand you Irishphotodesk, as far as you are concerned you or any photographer is able to take the photo I originally described .

And, thanks.

Victor

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Irishphotodesk says he is another member of the public. Is he ?

They aren't connected to either the person being photographed or the Courts Service or any other state agency, so yes, the are a member of the public.

You might get more mileage along the lines of them being a particular class of member of the public.

GM228

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

the person leaving court cannot assume they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are visible to any member of the public who can see them.

Just on this point, in general any person in public must be able to enjoy a legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life even in when they are in a public place and even for example if they are well known to the public, for example you can be out walking in public or in a restaurant and this is considered part of your private life.

Irishphotodesk

GM228 wrote: »

Just on this point, in general any person in public must be able to enjoy a legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life even in when they are in a public place and even for example if they are well known to the public, for example you can be out walking in public or in a restaurant and this is considered part of your private life.

I fail to understand your point in the context of a person exiting a court (specifically the CCJ), can you explain what this sentence means please....and maybe give an example. "legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life "

In regards to away from the court, anyone can enjoy life, but anyone can be photographed in a public space also (there are exceptions etc but in the general context of someone out and about the place, which is what I take from your post)

GM228

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

I fail to understand your point in the context of a person exiting a court (specifically the CCJ), can you explain what this sentence means please....and maybe give an example. "legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life "

In regards to away from the court, anyone can enjoy life, but anyone can be photographed in a public space also (there are exceptions etc but in the general context of someone out and about the place, which is what I take from your post)

Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

See this thread:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058081297

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

See this thread:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058081297

Might there be a difference between the taking of the photo and its use afterwards?

GM228

Victor wrote: »

Might there be a difference between the taking of the photo and its use afterwards?

No, the ECtHR has confirmed the protection extends beyond just publication and covers giving permission to record your image also.

Irishphotodesk

GM228 wrote: »

Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

See this thread:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058081297

Strange that you say it’s a long held position of the European courts yet, we have people being photographed and recorded on cctvs throughout cities, towns etc in ALL of Europe on a daily basis, if it’s such a long held position WHY do we not have multiple stories about businesses brought to court over the fact that members of the public going about their private business in a public space are recorded by their cameras....invading their privacy !

I know for my work it would be covered under journalism exemptions, but if you are correct then you are saying street photography is illegal, this is done in pretty much every country as far as I’m aware. You may not remember it but there was a guy on o Connell bridge many moons ago, he would take photos and try sell them to you later, per your assertion, this is now an illegal act.

https://www.thejournal.ie/street-photography-dublin-5195499-Sep2020/

Here’s an interesting piece about street photography and the law which you may want to view
https://www.diyphotography.net/this-video-answers-the-most-common-questions-on-law-and-ethics-of-street-photography/

Robbo

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Here’s an interesting piece about street photography and the law which you may want to view
https://www.diyphotography.net/this-video-answers-the-most-common-questions-on-law-and-ethics-of-street-photography/

Interesting in that it's hilariously wrong.

Just to pick one example...

GDPR stands for General Data Protection Regulation, and many street photographers wonder if it has an impact on their photography. Nick explains that, for a photo of a person to be classified as personal data, it needs to be accompanied by some other form of personal data. A photo of a human without the description or tags that give any clue of their identity simply shows an anonymous person.

Nick has no idea what personal data or quite possibly what a human face is.

If you have given money to Nick for any form of professional representation or expertise on these matters, you should ask for it back.

hullaballoo

Not even a passing familiarity with the law or human faces. Quite the broad-ranging lack of knowledge that.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

Though, in the context of the present thread, I think we're talking about someone being photographed while entering or leaving court proceedings that he was involved in, either as a party or a witness. Court proceedings are a public function, held in public, and are a matter of legitimate public interest, so I think it might be hard to argue that someone's involvement in them was protected by his "reasonable expectation to privacy . . . for daily activities". It's not on the same level as being photographed while walking your dog or playing in the park with your children.

(Obviously, in particular court proceedings - especially family law matters, and certain criminal matters - there may be court rules or orders to protect the identity of the parties, and taking or at any rate publishing a photograph might well violate those rules or orders, but that's a different matter.)

GM228

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Strange that you say it’s a long held position of the European courts yet, we have people being photographed and recorded on cctvs throughout cities, towns etc in ALL of Europe on a daily basis, if it’s such a long held position WHY do we not have multiple stories about businesses brought to court over the fact that members of the public going about their private business in a public space are recorded by their cameras....invading their privacy !

I know for my work it would be covered under journalism exemptions, but if you are correct then you are saying street photography is illegal, this is done in pretty much every country as far as I’m aware. You may not remember it but there was a guy on o Connell bridge many moons ago, he would take photos and try sell them to you later, per your assertion, this is now an illegal act.

https://www.thejournal.ie/street-photography-dublin-5195499-Sep2020/

Here’s an interesting piece about street photography and the law which you may want to view
https://www.diyphotography.net/this-video-answers-the-most-common-questions-on-law-and-ethics-of-street-photography/

I didn't make any assertion of it being illegal. Illegal and a breach of potential rights are not the same.

There are competing rights at play, but the premise that you can take a photo of anything, anywhere, anytime in public is simply wrong, there is a lot of case law from both the ECtHR and the ECJ that debunks what is claimed in your link.

There has been case law on both purely private activities in public aswell as dealing with court cases and the outcomes of those cases often don't go hand in hand with photographers (or the media in general) claims of fact.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Though, in the context of the present thread

Note the context of the discussion to which I replied though:-

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

In regards to away from the court, anyone can enjoy life[/u[, but anyone can be photographed in a public space also (there are exceptions etc but in the general context of someone out and about the place, which is what I take from your post)

I did start my post with "just on this point" though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think we're talking about someone being photographed while entering or leaving court proceedings that he was involved in, either as a party or a witness.  Court proceedings are a public function, held in public, and are a matter of legitimate public interest, so I think it might be hard to argue that someone's involvement in them was protected by his "reasonable expectation to privacy . . . for daily activities".  It's not on the same level as being photographed while walking your dog or playing in the park with your children.

(Obviously, in particular court proceedings - especially family law matters, and certain criminal matters - there may be court rules or orders to protect the identity of the parties, and taking or at any rate publishing a photograph might well violate those rules or orders, but that's a different matter.)

Not that hard actually, there has been a few ECtHR cases on just this very point such as the PBild GmbH & Co. KG and Axel Springer vs Germany (No. 62721/13) ECHR 2018, Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH vs German (No 51405/12) ECHR 2017 or the Egeland and Hanseid vs Norway (No. 34438/04) ECHR 2009 cases.

All concerned the issue being discussed and the competing rights at play (privacy of the individual vs freedom of expression of the media in legal proceedings), and interestingly the media failed in all three cases! Take the Egeland and Henseid case for example, the person concerned wasn't just on trial or a witness, they had been convicted and awaiting sentence, so what did the ECtHR say:-

In conclusion, the Court found that both reasons relied on in the Supreme Court’s judgment, that is to say protection of B’s privacy and the fair administration of justice, had been sufficient to justify the restriction on the applicant editors’ right to freedom of expression. Moreover, the interest in restricting publication of the photographs had outweighed those of the press in informing the public on a matter of public concern. Given also that the fines imposed on the applicants had not been particularly severe, the Court held that there had therefore been no violation of Article 10.

Obviously when competing rights are at play each case will be decided based on the individual facts, public policy, national laws and any pressing needs whilst taking into account the margin of appreciation principle, but the various cases all show that the opinion that anything in public and in particular a court case held in public is fair game is far from correct.

Several states actually ban (and in some cases make it a criminal offence) to photograph anyone involved in criminal proceedings via their national laws and the ECtHR has held this to be compatible with the ECHR (in particular freedom of expression).

And just to go back to the point of permission to photo as previously raised versus publication, the ECtHR has held that your face is protected under the principal of personal development an you are entitled to control over the use of any image of your face, the Reklos and Davourlis vs Greece (Case 1234/05) ECHR 2009 sums it up nicely:-

A person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential components of personal development and presupposes the right to control the use of that image. Whilst in most cases the right to control such use involves the possibility for an individual to refuse publication of his or her image, it also covers the individual’s right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image by another person. As a person’s image is one of the characteristics attached to his or her personality, its effective protection presupposes, in principle and in circumstances such as those of the present case (see paragraph 37 above), obtaining the consent of the person concerned at the time the picture is taken and not simply if and when it is published. Otherwise an essential attribute of personality would be retained in the hands of a third party and the person concerned would have no control over any subsequent use of the image.