Taking photos of others is it a crime?

RobbieMD · 26-06-2021 10:54PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

if a photographer is specifically taking photos of a naked child, it's a very different scenario to a naked child being captured in the background of a family shot on the beach.

but again, if the answer to the question 'can i take photos freely in public?' is 'no, you cannot, lest you be taking photos of naked children' means that the 'no' in the answer is disingenous.

it's like someone asking 'is it legal to use a hammer?' and the answer given being 'no you cannot, lest you be assaulting someone with it'.

It’s not a simple yes/no black/white answer. There is context and circumstance. It’s not that it’s disingenous, it’s that context matters. Someone said that you’re fine to photograph someone as long as you’re in public. That’s disingenous and misleading. People may come onto boards and despite the legal discussion disclaimer, may take it as legal advice. I wanted to point out that there is no absolute right to photo someone in public merely because they’re in public.

PalLimerick · 26-06-2021 10:57PM

GM228 wrote: »

As others have correctly stated it is not illegal (an offence) to take a photograph of someone (either in public or in private), however, the story does not end there.

It is a very commonly held belief that anyone in public for example can be photographed, that it is fair game and often the freedom of expression/freedom of the press is used as a just excuse, that could not be further from the truth.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy (even when out in public) and there has been many cases where peoples rights have been breached, not just in a private setting, but also where photographs have been taken of them in public, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and protection of your private life (this includes when in a public place and even if for example you are famous and in the public eye), in other words your right to privacy (even in public) will often trump any claimed freedom of expression or public interest, even when your well known.

Where does it state this law? You are wrong.

bobbyss · 26-06-2021 10:57PM

magicbastarder wrote:

it's a narrower answer than the one you're posing, but just because the state owns a property does not make it public. i'd hazard a guess that the majority of property owned by the state is not publically accessible.

Thanks.
That may well be true. I simply don't know.
But i am referring to state property which is publically accessible eg garda stations, libraries and council buildings. There are parts of those buildings that the public are allowed to enter.
Would I be allowed to use a camera in those areas. If i am allowed to be there surely i should be allowed to record anything i can see. After all, i am being recorded by CCTV in those places.

cnocbui · 26-06-2021 11:00PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

It’s not a simple yes/no black/white answer. There is context and circumstance. It’s not that it’s disingenous, it’s that context matters. Someone said that you’re fine to photograph someone as long as you’re in public. That’s disingenous and misleading. People may come onto boards and despite the legal discussion disclaimer, may take it as legal advice. I wanted to point out that there is no absolute right to photo someone in public merely because they’re in public.

You are attempting to assert that something legal, isn't. Can you point to any legal cases in Ireland that support your assertion?

RobbieMD · 26-06-2021 11:01PM

cnocbui wrote: »

You are attempting to assert that something legal, isn't. Can you point to any legal cases in Ireland that support your assertion?

What am I saying that’s legal, isnt?

GerardKeating · 26-06-2021 11:01PM

PalLimerick wrote: »

It's legal. You can photograph anybody or anything in public or that can be seen from public property.

Is that 100% correct, If I am standing on a public road, and I notice a hole in a wall, surley i cannot point my camera in the hole and take pictures.

26-06-2021 11:02PM

What I am getting from this thread.

It tis and it tisn’t.

PalLimerick · 26-06-2021 11:04PM

mrslancaster wrote: »

I don't think I'd be ok if someone was taking photos at the school. That's a public place & I know parks & beaches etc are public too. TBF its a bit odd for anyone to be taking photos of people they don't know.

What you would be okay with doesn't come in to it. Its perfectly legal to take photos of a school. I wouldn't take them but its not illegal.

cnocbui · 26-06-2021 11:05PM

bobbyss wrote: »

Thanks.
That may well be true. I simply don't know.
But i am referring to state property which is publically accessible eg garda stations, libraries and council buildings. There are parts of those buildings that the public are allowed to enter.
Would I be allowed to use a camera in those areas. If i am allowed to be there surely i should be allowed to record anything i can see. After all, i am being recorded by CCTV in those places.

Your being allowed access does not make it public property. Your access is governed by conditions. Think of the security sections of airports where there are usually signs forbidding the taking of photos or videos. You and the public are allowed there, but you have to follow rules that don't apply to public places.

PalLimerick · 26-06-2021 11:08PM

GerardKeating wrote: »

Is that 100% correct, If I am standing on a public road, and I notice a hole in a wall, surley i cannot point my camera in the hole and take pictures.

100% you can photograph anything or any person in public or that can be seen from public property. About the hole in the wall scenario, the wall could and would most likely be private property so you could be interfering with private property.

magicbastarder · 26-06-2021 11:10PM

PalLimerick wrote: »

100% you can photograph anything or any person in public or that can be seen from public property.

are you stating that there are no circumstances in which the gardai can legally stop you (or even arrest you) from taking photos as long as you're in a public place?

cnocbui · 26-06-2021 11:12PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

It’s not a simple yes/no black/white answer. There is context and circumstance. It’s not that it’s disingenous, it’s that context matters. Someone said that you’re fine to photograph someone as long as you’re in public. That’s disingenous and misleading. People may come onto boards and despite the legal discussion disclaimer, may take it as legal advice. I wanted to point out that there is no absolute right to photo someone in public merely because they’re in public.

RobbieMD wrote: »

What am I saying that’s legal, isnt?

You were asserting that something which is perfectly legal, isn't legal. Taking photos of the 15 year old girl who was naked in a public place, is legal. A judge might well disagree with me and rule otherwise, but until one does, it's my understanding it's legal.

RobbieMD · 26-06-2021 11:21PM

cnocbui wrote: »

You were asserting that something which is perfectly legal, isn't legal. Taking photos of the 15 year old girl who was naked in a public place, is legal. A judge might well disagree with me and rule otherwise, but until one does, it's my understanding it's legal.

You haven’t heard of child pornography?

bobbyss · 26-06-2021 11:26PM

cnocbui wrote:

Your being allowed access does not make it public property. Your access is governed by conditions. Think of the security sections of airports where there are usually signs forbidding the taking of photos or videos. You and the public are allowed there, but you have to follow rules that don't apply to public places.

Thank you.
This scenario..
If there was no notice or no written rule banning photography/ video in a garda station or city council reception area for example, would you have to stop if asked?

I suppose what i am trying to get at in the case of rules at libraries and other public places is what law would be broken?

GerardKeating · 26-06-2021 11:27PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you stating that there are no circumstances in which the gardai can legally stop you (or even arrest you) from taking photos as long as you're in a public place?

I remember (I think) that NI has an offence about gather infomation that would be of use to a terrorist organisation, so photos of cash delivery vans might fall under that.

Obviously if there was a specific court injunction in place that could provide a legal route to an arrest.

Did they ever introduce "exclusion zones" around maternity hospitals to deter anti-abortion protests, if there was, taking photos in this zone might be covered.

RobbieMD · 26-06-2021 11:30PM

GerardKeating wrote: »

I remember (I think) that NI has an offence about gather infomation that would be of use to a terrorist organisation, so photos of cash delivery vans might fall under that.

Obviously if there was a specific court injunction in place that could provide a legal route to an arrest.

Did they ever introduce "exclusion zones" around maternity hospitals to deter anti-abortion protests, if there was, taking photos in this zone might be covered.

There’s a similar provision here too. Niner Leprechaun mentioned it earlier. It’s to do with activity related to a proscribed organisation under the OASA. If I remember correctly two men were arrested for photographing/surveilling a garda building.

Strumms · 26-06-2021 11:36PM

cnocbui wrote: »

Your being allowed access does not make it public property. Your access is governed by conditions. Think of the security sections of airports where there are usually signs forbidding the taking of photos or videos. You and the public are allowed there, but you have to follow rules that don't apply to public places.

They can forbid it but it’s not going to be illegal if you do take one...from memory there are signs forbidding phone use and cameras in the security screening areas in Dublin airport but I’d imagine that’s more to deter the likes of bloggers and dopey fûckwits from holding up the Q for others...

I just had a look at the airport by-laws and there is only permission required for commercial filming.

Sam Quentin · 26-06-2021 11:42PM

It has to be legal.. shirrrrr doesn't loads a peeps take videos and photos of Gardaī. No one seems to have an answer, if it was illegal we'd all know by now!?

RobbieMD · 26-06-2021 11:50PM

Strumms wrote: »

They can forbid it but it’s not going to be illegal if you do take one...from memory there are signs forbidding phone use and cameras in the security screening areas in Dublin airport but I’d imagine that’s more to deter the likes of bloggers and dopey fûckwits from holding up the Q for others...

I just had a look at the airport by-laws and there is only permission required for commercial filming.

It’s forbidden alright. Have a look at Part Two Bye law 32, it’s on page 8. Airport police have fairly wide ranging powers.
https://www.dublinairport.com/docs/default-source/at-the-airport/airport-bye-laws.pdf?sfvrsn=d6b1f108_2

27-06-2021 12:06AM

mrslancaster wrote: »

I don't think I'd be ok if someone was taking photos at the school. That's a public place & I know parks & beaches etc are public too. TBF its a bit odd for anyone to be taking photos of people they don't know.

Think the same it’s well odd and bad manners. Unless you know the person. It’s the downside of cameras on phones, everyone snapping and no etiquette behind it, next thing you know you’re on social media without permission. Happened elderly couple I know.

MoonUnit75 · 27-06-2021 12:49AM

fvp4 wrote: »

What I am getting from this thread.

It tis and it tisn’t.

I think the thing to take away from it is that someone arriving into a garda station to make a complaint that someone took a photograph of them in a public place would get nowhere, unless their actions also fall under stalking or harassment or the photographs were obscene in some way.

You could go to a solicitor, spend a lot of money and time and likely get nothing out of it in the end. Ironically in fact, your picture would probably end up on the front page of a newspaper for taking an oddball test case.

Strumms · 27-06-2021 01:26AM

RobbieMD wrote: »

It’s forbidden alright. Have a look at Part Two Bye law 32, it’s on page 8. Airport police have fairly wide ranging powers.
https://www.dublinairport.com/docs/default-source/at-the-airport/airport-bye-laws.pdf?sfvrsn=d6b1f108_2

“using a camera, mobile telephone or similar handheld or other mobile device other than in accordance with signs or directions given by the airport authority or an authorised officer or in a manner which in the opinion of the airport authority or of an authorised officer is likely to be contrary to the interests of security or safety at the airport or the comfort of airport users where.......”

If using a camera / phone would be causing a security or safety issue, fine, if it’s a challenge to comfort and safety of others, same...

For shîts and giggles and not liking it ? No

27-06-2021 02:08AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, just a final note before I leave the thread.. having dealt with the Gardai numerous times over the years, they haven't a notion about the law and photography. You really have to explain it in simple terms (which is fair enough, they can't be expected to be encyclopedias of knowledge, but i've even had them contact the station and get someone's advice, who presumably has access to some kind of rule book, and they still haven't a clue).

Good man yourself, we should do coffee

RobbieMD wrote: »

There’s a similar provision here too. Niner Leprechaun mentioned it earlier. It’s to do with activity related to a proscribed organisation under the OASA. If I remember correctly two men were arrested for photographing/surveilling a garda building.

Indeed. It's related too recording the movement and activity of military / Gardai with intent.

It's all about the intent as so many matters are.

There is, as mentioned, restrictions within the airport and courts and other facilities.

While it's a grand general rule to say, "public place is fair game" there's always limits and exemptions.

Kvv above spoke about a woman in her own room, the suggestion being the as the curtain is open, it's fair game. It's not. It's within a private home and there's a number of cases searchable online not too mention the data protection commissioners website.

The examine I give regarding privacy is summertime standing on the footpath tanning pictures of your in your sitting room compared to sometime casually glancing in as they walk past.

It was also suggested that private property unless told otherwise, is fair game but as above, that's not always the case

Sam Quentin wrote: »

It has to be legal.. shirrrrr doesn't loads a peeps take videos and photos of Gardaī. No one seems to have an answer, if it was illegal we'd all know by now!?

Intent plays a part.

Read section 8, offences against the state (amendment) act 1998 regarding Gardai.

27-06-2021 02:32AM

cnocbui wrote: »

You were asserting that something which is perfectly legal, isn't legal. Taking photos of the 15 year old girl who was naked in a public place, is legal. A judge might well disagree with me and rule otherwise, but until one does, it's my understanding it's legal.

While it's theoretically true, Under the child porn act 1998 the definition includes

"whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,"

Good luck convincing the parents, witnesses, Gardai and judge that you were photographing a naked teenage girl for innocent reasons.

Garibaldi? · 27-06-2021 11:33AM

I witnessed an argument between a man taking photos in a local park and another man who objected because his children were playing nearby .The man with the camera said he was photographing the park and that if the other fellow didn't like it he could take his offspring elsewhere! The father was of the loud macho frequently ill-informed tribe. The other person was deliberately provoking him. Choice entertainment for the onlookers.&#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;

27-06-2021 12:44PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Good man yourself, we should do coffee
Indeed. It's related too recording the movement and activity of military / Gardai with intent.
It's all about the intent as so many matters are.
There is, as mentioned, restrictions within the airport and courts and other facilities.
While it's a grand general rule to say, "public place is fair game" there's always limits and exemptions.
Kvv above spoke about a woman in her own room, the suggestion being the as the curtain is open, it's fair game. It's not. It's within a private home and there's a number of cases searchable online not too mention the data protection commissioners website.
The examine I give regarding privacy is summertime standing on the footpath tanning pictures of your in your sitting room compared to sometime casually glancing in as they walk past.
It was also suggested that private property unless told otherwise, is fair game but as above, that's not always the case

With all due respect, that's further re-enforced my line of opinion that Gardai do not know the law in relation to photography. I've been a pro photographer for about a decade now (including many years as a photojournalist).

GM228 · 27-06-2021 03:47PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

No reasonable expectation of privacy exists in a street though. Otherwise CCTV would be largely illegal.

Deleted User wrote: »

No you don't.

PalLimerick wrote: »

Where does it state this law? You are wrong.

PalLimerick wrote: »

100% you can photograph anything or any person in public or that can be seen from public property.

It's obvious that some have not read the links provided or the cases mentioned and quoted, it is long held by the ECtHR that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy - even when in a public place, and that taking your photograph without your permission can be a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, there are competing rights at play, the right to privacy vs the right of freedom of expression.

And for those who think there is no Irish authority on the issue, there is at least one, the Sinnott vs Carlow Nationalist (High Court, unreported July 2008) which involved photos taken in a public place (a GAA match) amounting to a breach of privacy under the ECHR and the Constitution, the plaintiff won the case.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been a pro photographer for about a decade now (including many years as a photojournalist).

I'll just reiterate my previous point made:-

GM228 wrote: »

the point being that the assertion that you can just take anyone's photo in public is incorrect, the mere fact you photograph someone without their permission can amount to a breach of their rights, it's not so clear cut as people/photographers think it is.

27-06-2021 04:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With all due respect, that's further re-enforced my line of opinion that Gardai do not know the law in relation to photography. I've been a pro photographer for about a decade now (including many years as a photojournalist).

So what? That doesn't mean you know anything about privacy laws.

I have been a Garda for 20 years. So I win I guess

Educated people on this thread have disagreed with you. Gm228 damn well schooled you

cnocbui · 27-06-2021 05:52PM

GM228 wrote: »

It's obvious that some have not read the links provided or the cases mentioned and quoted, it is long held by the ECtHR that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy - even when in a public place, and that taking your photograph without your permission can be a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, there are competing rights at play, the right to privacy vs the right of freedom of expression.

And for those who think there is no Irish authority on the issue, there is at least one, the Sinnott vs Carlow Nationalist (High Court, unreported July 2008) which involved photos taken in a public place (a GAA match) amounting to a breach of privacy under the ECHR and the Constitution, the plaintiff won the case.

I'll just reiterate my previous point made:-

As far as I have been able to determine, Herrity -v- Associated Newspapers is about an illegal telephone intercept, and can find no mention of photography in a public place.

Looks like you have realised your error and edited that out of your original post...

Herrity -v- Associated Newspapers [Ireland] Ltd, [2008] IEHC 249, the High Court awarded €90,000 damages against Ireland on Sunday in respect of the newspaper’s articles about a woman’s relationship with a priest. The articles were based on information obtained by illegally tapping her phone and in turn, listening to her phone conversations.

Sinnott vs Carlow Nationalist - the Carlow Nationalist was seeking to refer this to the Supreme Court, but I have been unable to find any further on it.

cnocbui · 27-06-2021 05:58PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So what? That doesn't mean you know anything about privacy laws.

I have been a Garda for 20 years. So I win I guess

Educated people on this thread have disagreed with you. Gm228 damn well schooled you

I wouldn't say confusing phone tapping with photography counts as 'schooling'.

The sinnott judgement was stupid. Members of the public at the match were able to see what he had to offer. He lost any issue over privacy when members of the public witnessed the 'even'. Widening the audience doesn't change anything.

But this is a country where it's legally possible to libel the dead, so anything goes in terms of illogicality and the legal system.

Taking photos of others is it a crime?

Comments