Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Man Photographed in Court Building and Photo Published Online ?

  • 27-08-2020 07:38PM
    #1
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭


    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.


«13

Comments

  • #2
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #3
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭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.


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


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


  • #5
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #6
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #8
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,816 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #9
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,738 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #10
    bobbyy gee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭bobbyy gee


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


  • #11
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #14
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    Completely different scenario, a publicly accessible building with glass entrance versus a private dwelling.

    What did I reply to?


  • #16
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #18
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭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 .


  • #19
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #20
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #23
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #24
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #25
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #26
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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 !


  • #27
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭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.


  • #28
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭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 ?


  • #29
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭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.


  • #30
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭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,


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭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.


Advertisement