Taking photos of others is it a crime?

GM228

cnocbui wrote: »

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...



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.

Yes, I had the Herrity case in my head for another reason (there were family photographs used in this case, but that was not the issue of the case), but removed reference to it - it was the test case which allowed an individual sue another individual for breach of privacy and was relevant to the Sinnott case.

The Carlow Nationalist wanted the judge to refer a point of law to the SC regarding the imposition of damages, not the merits of the case.

GM228

cnocbui wrote: »

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

I didn't make any such confusion, see my previous post.

cnocbui wrote: »

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.

The courts disagreed!

cnocbui wrote: »

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.

You can't defame (libel was abolished years ago) the dead in this country, not to be confused with a cause of action surviving a death for the benefit of an estate.

The protections afforded by the ECHR are afforded in 47 different countries, not just Ireland - it's not something where you point to things you don't agree with in this country. Decisions of the ECtHR must be judicially noticed here and so taken as fact by the courts, the only problem here is Irish Courts have yet to give us a case specifically applying the principles of the ECtHR - the UK has done that quite some time ago with the Naomi Campbell, Michael Douglas and Paul Weller cases for example.

The J Stands for Jay

Snotty wrote: »

That would be private property.
And obviously if taking pictures of the insides of garda cars would aid with some crime you could be charge with perverting the course of justice, but I'm not entirely sure why someone would photograph garda cars anyway

The wall, despite having a hole in it, would give the person/property behind the wall an expectation of privacy meaning you couldn't take pictures through the hole.

magicbastarder

GM228 wrote: »

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.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/court-increases-payout-to-gaa-player-over-photo-1.947718

A NEWSPAPER has been ordered by a High Court judge to increase to €11,000 its payment of damages to a young GAA footballer over publication of a photograph in which his private parts were exposed.

emphasis mine. the case was not about the *taking* of the photograph, the case was about the *publication* of the photograph in a newspaper. again, these are very different things.

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/court-increases-payout-to-gaa-player-over-photo-1.947718

emphasis mine. the case was not about the *taking* of the photograph, the case was about the *publication* of the photograph in a newspaper. again, these are very different things.

The point being the player was in a public place at a public match and the photographs amounted to a breach of his privacy despite there being 1000s of spectators, posters are saying that you can photograph anyone, anywhere because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, that is incorrect, aside from the point made that Article 8 of the ECHR affords you a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public place, failure to gain consent for a photograph can also amount to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, this has been held by the ECtHR.

ED E

GM228 wrote: »

The point being the player was in a public place at a public match and the photographs amounted to a breach of his privacy, posters are saying that you can photograph anyone, anywhere because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, that is incorrect, aside from the point made that Article 8 of the ECHR affords you a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public place, failure to gain consent for a photograph can also amount to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, this has been held by the ECtHR.

Grasping at straws here GM.

athlone573

I think GM is right that it may be a breach of someone's civil rights, however its not a crime (and won't be anytime soon as we're not a police state) to take photos of someone in public... Which was the original question asked. Unless in very limited circumstances as mentioned.

magicbastarder

in that article, it's repeated over and over that the issue being ruled on related to the publication. 'publication' or 'publishing' is repeated 12 or 13 times.

in fact:

He refused to certify, for determination by the Supreme Court, a point of law in the case relating to the imposition of damages for breach of a constitutional right to privacy arising from a negligent action.

GM228

ED E wrote: »

Grasping at straws here GM.

There's none to grasp onto, all the nescient red herrings have taken the straws.

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

emphasis mine. the case was not about the *taking* of the photograph, the case was about the *publication* of the photograph in a newspaper. again, these are very different things.

magicbastarder wrote: »

in that article, it's repeated over and over that the issue being ruled on related to the publication. 'publication' or 'publishing' is repeated 12 or 13 times.

in fact:

Indeed, but the point being made is you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public place, if not how can a picture published of an activity ever successfully be considered a breach of privacy when the event happens in front of 1000s of people?

This right is afforded under Article 8 of the ECHR, that protection under Article 8 extends to the taking of photographs, not just their publication, the Reklos and Davourlis vs Greece (Case 1234/05) ECHR 2009 case sums it up:-

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.

cnocbui

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, but the point being made is you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public place, if not how can a picture published of an activity ever successfully be considered a breach of privacy when the event happens in front of 1000s of people?

This right is afforded under Article 8 of the ECHR, that protection under Article 8 extends to the taking of photographs, not just their publication, the Reklos and Davourlis vs Greece (Case 1234/05) ECHR 2009 case sums it up:-

That Reklos case is a very bad example. The photography did not take place in a public place. I very much doubt the court would have ruled as they did, had the photo been taken in a public place by an amateur photographer taking pics in the park.

In Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, a baby Anastasios Reklos was put into a sterile unit when he was born. While in the sterile unit, his photograph was taken without the permission of his parents by the Hospital as part of its commercial services. The baby’s parents objected and their request for the negatives was refused by the Hospital.

https://infusionlawyers.com/former-mohits-stars-or-former-cultists-unauthorized-publication-of-pictures-image-rights-and-nigerian-law/

Furthermore, the court ruling, had it applied to a public place, would have invalidated the use of all CCTV cameras covering public areas due to this bit:

it also covers the individual’s right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image

magicbastarder

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, but the point being made is you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy

how can you say that or reach that conclusion when the verdict in the case was very specifically about *publication*?
and the judge seems to have explicitly avoided any determination on a right to privacy?

if you are (from what i can see) misreading this court case so badly, whatever credence i previously had in your comments relating to the ECHR ruling is completely shot now.

GM228

cnocbui wrote: »

That Reklos case is a very bad example. The photography did not take place in a public place. I very much doubt the court would have ruled as they did, had the photo been taken in a public place by an amateur photographer taking pics in the park.

https://infusionlawyers.com/former-mohits-stars-or-former-cultists-unauthorized-publication-of-pictures-image-rights-and-nigerian-law/

Furthermore, the court ruling, had it applied to a public place, would have invalidated the use of all CCTV cameras covering public areas due to this bit:

The ruling of the ECtHR concerned the general principles of Article 8 (the requirement for consent has also been tested in Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG vs Austria (Case 34315/96) ECHR 2002 for example IIRC), the requirement for consent is a general principle of Article 8 of the ECHR, it is not just limited to the facts of the Reklos case, find the actual case and read it!

By the way there is an ECtHR case that holds CCTV can be a breach of Article 8 (depending on it's use - Peck vs The United Kingdom (Case 44647/98) ECHR 2003). Like every right there are legitimate interests and competing rights at play.

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

how can you say that or reach that conclusion when the verdict in the case was very specifically about *publication*?
and the judge seems to have explicitly avoided any determination on a right to privacy?

if you are (from what i can see) misreading this court case so badly, whatever credence i previously had in your comments relating to the ECHR ruling is completely shot now.

My conclusion as already outlined is based on the settled case law of the ECtHR - it's Strasbourg's conclusion, not mine.

A breach of privacy was held to be the case based on any available media coverage, this is one of those cases where there is no written judgement so we only have media reports to rely on, but it is well accepted in the legal world that the case was a breach of privacy case, it has been mentioned in a few well respected legal publications.

The J Stands for Jay

GM228 wrote: »

The ruling of the ECtHR concerned the general principles of Article 8 (the requirement for consent has also been tested in Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG vs Austria (Case 34315/96) ECHR 2002 for example IIRC), the requirement for consent is a general principle of Article 8 of the ECHR, it is not just limited to the facts of the Reklos case, find the actual case and read it!

By the way there is an ECtHR case that holds CCTV can be a breach of Article 8 (depending on it's use). Like every right there are legitimate interests and competing rights at play.

"In view of a person’s position as a politician, there was no doubt that he had entered the public arena
and had to bear the consequences. There was, therefore, no valid reason why the applicant should have
been prevented from publishing his picture."

GM228

The J Stands for Jay wrote: »

"In view of a person’s position as a politician, there was no doubt that he had entered the public arena
and had to bear the consequences. There was, therefore, no valid reason why the applicant should have
been prevented from publishing his picture."

The part in bold is key, the Schüssel vs Austria (Case 42409/98) ECHR 2002 and Hachette Filipacchi Associés vs France (Case 40454/07) ECHR 2014 cases for example have specifically dealt with political figures and balanced Article 10 (freedom of expression) in favour of Article 8.

From the Lingens vs Austria (Case 9815/82) ECHR 1986 case which sums it up nicely:-

the limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

"damn well schooled" me? Other than that being a very childish way to word your posts, all he did was disagreed with me? And I still believe that he's wrong.. so.. not sure what that achieved..?

GM228 wrote: »

The protections afforded by the ECHR are afforded in 47 different countries... the only problem here is Irish Courts have yet to give us a case specifically applying the principles of the ECtHR - the UK has done that quite some time ago with the Naomi Campbell, Michael Douglas and Paul Weller cases for example.

I don't know who all three of those are, but I am familiar with the Naomi Campbell one (assuming you're referring to her being at an AA-style meeting about drugs (Narcotics Anonymous).

Just wanted to mention that the ruling in that instance didn't say that the photographs weren't allowed to be taken. That wasn't the issue, and nothing came up to say she was afforded any privacy in a public place, from my memory of it (in a similar thread to this, it was discussed in depth before, too).

I'm not sure off the top of my head who the other the other two are, or what their issues were, though.

In the world of celebrities, one story that I do remember (probably going back a while here) was Kate Midleton being photographed naked sunbathing. My memory here is hazy, so i could be getting details wrong, but in this instance, she was on an outdoor, albeit private, beach.

A photographer used a mega-mega-mega zoom lens to get a photo of her. His stance was that he was in a public place when he took the picture.

However, I believe he was wrong in this instance as it was said (rightly so) that due to the distance involved, and the photographer having to make such a concentrated effort, and due to the otherwise private nature of the area Kate was (not overlooked, or within reasonable distance of the public where she could expect to be seen), she did have a reasonable expectation to privacy.

(which brings me back to my earlier example in the thread, of a woman whose bathroom overlooks the street).

BenjiZ

It depends on the circumstances (harassment/intimidation etc.). But if this doesn't apply, then it is perfectly legal. The person could argue that they were testing out a new camera or anything under the sun. On private property, it differs

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

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.

That was an appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court. There is no further appeal from the High Court in such cases.

olestoepoke

John_Rambo wrote: »

I was assigned to photograph a kids GAA match and almost had my camera (with my most expensive long lens) knocked out of my hand before the over zealous coach was apprehended by the member that hired me.

The coach was walking quietly behind me, never said a word but when I bought the camera up to my face to see how fast I could shoot in the light he lunged. He could have just asked me who I was.

It is legal to photograph kids in a public place, but when it's a camera and not a phone people see red, or decide to be a hero.

I'm involved in schoolboy soccer, we often have a parent who is an amateur photographer take photos for the Facebook page. That said they always go around the parents of the team we are playing and ask if its ok. Did you have the same awareness?

cnocbui

ecoli3136 wrote: »

That was an appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court. There is no further appeal from the High Court in such cases.

However, the High Court proceedings are still ongoing before Mr Justice Budd, and, on Monday, the Nationalist asked Budd J to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. According to newspaper reports on Tuesday (Irish Independent | Irish Times), he adjourned to February 12th next the issue of whether he will refer such issues to the Supreme Court for determination. He should. Although the amount of damages under appeal is relatively small (at only €6,500), the issues of principle involved are of the highest importance.

http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/sinnott-v-carlow-nationalist-for-the-supreme-court/

Refer/appeal - whatever.

Claw Hammer

ecoli3136 wrote: »

That was an appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court. There is no further appeal from the High Court in such cases.

There can be a case stated from the High Court (at that time, now it is to the Court of Appeal).

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/sinnott-v-carlow-nationalist-for-the-supreme-court/

Refer/appeal - whatever.

Yeah. I mean, sorry no.


The Circuit Court used to be able to refer points of law direct to the Supreme Court on a case stated. There was no appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court on a Circuit appeal.

Under the "new" rules (28 October 2014) cases stated by the Circuit Court go to the Court of Appeal.

I can't remember if you can appeal the Court of Appeal decision on a case stated like that.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There can be a case stated from the High Court (at that time, now it is to the Court of Appeal).

There can be an appeal direct to Supreme Court from the High Court, in a case of general public importance and where the interests of justice apply in favour of allowing the appeal to go direct ("leapfrogging" the Court of Appeal).


Still no "refer/appeal - whatever" from a High Court decision on a circuit appeal though.

Claw Hammer

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Yeah. I mean, sorry no.


The Circuit Court used to be able to refer points of law direct to the Supreme Court on a case stated. There was no appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court on a Circuit appeal.

Under the "new" rules (28 October 2014) cases stated by the Circuit Court go to the Court of Appeal.

I can't remember if you can appeal the Court of Appeal decision on a case stated like that.






There can be an appeal direct to Supreme Court from the High Court, in a case of general public importance and where the interests of justice apply in favour of allowing the appeal to go direct ("leapfrogging" the Court of Appeal).


Still no "refer/appeal - whatever" from a High Court decision on a circuit appeal though.

The High Court can state a case to the Court of Appeal on a Circuit Appeal. Eg Permanent TSB v Langan, which was itself appealed to the Supreme Court.

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/277a793e-9390-4abc-af58-45b5a308ce34/2017_IESC_71_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The High Court can state a case to the Court of Appeal on a Circuit Appeal. Eg Permanent TSB v Langan, which was itself appealed to the Supreme Court.

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/277a793e-9390-4abc-af58-45b5a308ce34/2017_IESC_71_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

That is true but that's a consultative case stated, which has to be done by the trial judge prior to determining the case before them.

Claw Hammer

ecoli3136 wrote: »

That is true but that's a consultative case stated, which has to be done by the trial judge prior to determining the case before them.

Who said anything else?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who said anything else?

Eh, this is getting weird, so good luck to you. I don't think this is the forum for me.

GM228

Deleted User wrote: »

"damn well schooled" me? Other than that being a very childish way to word your posts, all he did was disagreed with me? And I still believe that he's wrong.. so.. not sure what that achieved..?

Is the ECtHR wrong also?

This is not just some oul opinion I’m floating, it’s long settled case law!

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know who all three of those are, but I am familiar with the Naomi Campbell one (assuming you're referring to her being at an AA-style meeting about drugs (Narcotics Anonymous).

That’s the one. The other cases were similar – infringements of Article 8 and the right to privacy (even in a public place).

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wanted to mention that the ruling in that instance didn't say that the photographs weren't allowed to be taken.

I didn’t say the ruling did, that position is a ECtHR position, though in an earlier UKHC case, the (R) Ford vs Press Complaints Commission [2001] EWHC 683 case it was noted that a couple was denied the opportunity to give their consent to being photographed.

Deleted User wrote: »

That wasn't the issue, and nothing came up to say she was afforded any privacy in a public place, from my memory of it (in a similar thread to this, it was discussed in depth before, too).

Yes it did, the action was for a breach of confidence and/or unlawful invasion of privacy – the very test for establishing such a breach of confidence was to establish that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the information (such as the AA meetings, the photos in public etc) under the circumstances, known as “the reasonable expectation of privacy test”, if she didn’t establish she had a reasonable expectation to privacy then the case would have failed and the Mirror would have won, but, guess what, the photos were taken of her in a public place sitting down outside a café in public, how did he satisfy the test if the court didn’t hold there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy? The reasonable expectation of privacy test is discussed in the UKHL judgement, the subsequent ECtHR case and plenty of UK and UKtHR case law.

The majority verdict of the UKHL held the photos (amongst other things) were a breach of her right to privacy, the photos may have been taken covertly, but, they were nevertheless taken in public. Her case was originally a Data Protection case, but ended up as a violation of Article 8 ECHR case.

Few are aware (probably because it isn’t reported much) that the UKHL case was not the end of the matter, the Mirror having exhausted the UK courts took the case to the ECtHR, and guess what – they lost again. The ECtHR noted when it comes to taking photos and freedom of expression that publication of the photographs and articles (the sole purpose of which is to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of a public figure's private life), cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general interest to society despite the person being known to the public. In such conditions freedom of expression calls for a narrower interpretation, although freedom of expression also extends to the publication of photographs, this is an area in which the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular importance. Photographs appearing in the media are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life - that's what happened.

The facts of the Hannover case were decided after the Campbell UKHL case, but the ECtHR applied them to their Campbell case.

So, if you still think there can't be any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place explain to me how there have been successful cases for an invasion of privacy for photos taken in a public place?

The Law Reform Commissions 1998 "Report on Privacy" even noted a reasonable expectation for privacy even in a public place here (published well before the definitive ECtHR cases):-

Privacy is important for all these reasons and is therefore indispensable to the full flourishing of the human personality in a free society. We stress that while personal space is at its most visible in “private places” or on private property, it is not premised on, nor is it limited to, conceptions of property. Indeed, the chief deficiency of much existing law is that it tends to protect privacy – if at all – through property and through legal tools that protect property interests. Considering the values honoured by privacy, as set out above, one may have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in many different contexts. It follows, in our view, that there may well be a residuum of privacy or a “reasonable expectation” of privacy even in a public place. This view accords with the overall approach being adopted by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights in interpreting Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Since we view privacy as a personal right and one that follows the personal space of the person it follows that a “reasonable expectation” of privacy may even exist in public places.

A person's right to freedom from surveillance is at its highest, and comes closest to being absolute, when he or she is at home. There is logically also a heightened right to such privacy for a person on other kinds of private premises. Yet even at home, a person may so behave (e.g. before the window of a lighted room at night without drawing the curtains or in the garden of a dwellinghouse which is open to public view from the street) that persons in neighbouring premises or casual bypassers (without snooping or resorting to visual or aural surveillance equipment) cannot fail to see or hear what is going on. In some such cases the dweller may even intend to be seen or photographed and clearly there is no invasion of privacy in such a case.

By contrast with the home, a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is greatly reduced when that person is in a public place. Persons who are in public places must accept that they are subject to the ordinary and natural incidences of everyday communal living. Thus, the taking of casual photographs in a public place should not normally be held to be an invasion of the privacy of a person who happens to be captured by such a photograph merely because he or she is present in that place at the relevant time.

On the other hand a reduced expectation of privacy is not the same as denying the public any right to adequate safeguards (e.g. adequate notification or limits on the use of footage) against the abuse of overt street surveillance.

Furthermore, the targeting of a particular individual either surreptitiously or against his or her will in a public place, particularly with a view to publication of that person's photograph, could well, depending on the circumstances, be held to be an invasion of that person's privacy. The deliberate following (whether surreptitious or otherwise) of a person from place to place with a view to observing his or her movements could, it is suggested, be so categorized.

Also, consider this from the ECtHR-

The concept of private life extends to aspects relating to personal identity, such as a person’s name, or a person’s picture.

Furthermore, private life......includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity; the guarantee afforded by Article 8 of the Convention is primarily intended to ensure the development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings. There is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life”

The fact you are out in public does not take away the fact that you may have privacy rights under the ECHR, it can still be considered part of your private life, that's now long settled and accepted jurisprudence of the ECtHR, where it gets grey is when competing rights and legitimate reasons come into play.

And for further consideration from the prominent Peck vs The United Kingdom (Case 44647/98) ECHR 2003 case:-

The monitoring of the actions of an individual in a public place by the use of photographic equipment which does not record the visual data does not, as such, give rise to an interference with the individual's private life. On the other hand, the recording of the data and the systematic or permanent nature of the record may give rise to such considerations

Generally, everyday street photos will not fall foul of Article 8 (something both the LRC and ECtHR have agreed on), but, photographs taken specifically of you, even in public can fall foul of Article 8 and your reasonable expectation of privacy (again both the LRC and the ECtHR have agreed on this).

Finally, a quote from the Kennedy vs Ireland [1987] IR 587 High Court case:-

nature of the right to privacy must be such as to ensure the dignity and freedom of an individual in the type of society envisaged by the Constitution, namely, a sovereign, independent and democratic society.

And how the LRC read that in conjunction with Article 8:-

This points to a personal right of privacy that exists no matter the context (albeit affected by the context) and regardless of whether privacy is already indirectly protected e.g. through property or the inviolability of a dwelling. It gives rise to a “reasonable expectation of privacy” even in public places.

Perhaps the LRC is also wrong?

sheesh

bigdaddymac wrote: »

Neighbour of mine told me that recently another man appeared to take photos of my neighbour and two of of his kids. Reasons unknown but apparently this picture esc taken in a public street

So my neighbour is obviously not impressed but the question remains is the illegal or legal ?

Legal? I think it is. My understanding from various photography courses is there can be no expection of privacy on the public street, it is public. Also it is legal to photograph something on private property that is viewable from a public area. people have reasonable expectation of privacy in their back garden but is is complicated if it is viewable from a public area.

Ages ago Kate Middleton of the british royal family was photographed topless while on holiday in france by a paparazzi she was on an estate and the photographer took the shot from about a mile away on a public road he got in trouble because a court found that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy where they were.

If you are upset about it I would approach the photographer and calmly ask "why are you taking a picture of my children". it is a very simple question. if they can answer it and sound like a normal person you're fine. If they get defensive and talking about freedom of the press ask to see nuj card. you might be dealing with a nut or someone who has just bought a new lens and wanted to try it out. It's a broad church.

GM228

sheesh wrote: »

My understanding from various photography courses is there can be no expection of privacy on the public street, it is public.

Did you read the thread?