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 ?
SmartinMartin wrote: » So can you point to a law/statute that says that, or are you just making stuff up?
athlone573 wrote: » A useful summary from the photographer perspective here :https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/ Re the post 2 up I would be interested to see any references to rights to privacy in public places.
GM228 wrote: » Regularly gets quoted around here, it's old, inaccurate, and interestingly lacks anything to back it up.
GM228 wrote: » 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,
GM228 wrote: » Everyone has a reasonable expectation to privacy, even in a public place, long held by the ECtHR, the Von Hannover vs Germany (No. 59320/00) ECHR 2004 is a good starting point for anyone who wants to go Goggling, but read through the links provided on previous discussions of this matter and you will see the various cases and principles and plenty of quoting of case law to digest.
magicbastarder wrote: » also, people often conflate the issues of the legality of *taking* the photos, and of the subsequent use. for example, one of the cases mentioned in a thread linked above was the doonbeg resort using photos of children in a brochure. this is clearly not allowed, as it's commercial use of someone's likeness without their consent; but that's a separate issue to the actual image capture in the first place.
Snotty wrote: » How is commercial publication of a famous person's pictures in anyway related to the topic of a random person taking pictures of a family in public, which is the topic here, for which you have provided completely irrelevant responses to?
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 . . , 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
GM228 wrote: » It has also long been held by the ECtHR that simply taking a photograph without someones permission is a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The Hannover case deals with "everyone", not just famous people, it reiterates the point that everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy even in public, the Reklos and Davourlis vs Greece (No. 1234/05) ECHR 2009 case is also a good read which concerns taking of photographs which are not necessarily going to be published. Now of course any potential case will very much depend on the facts of the case, but 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 be a breach of their rights, it's not so clear cut as people/photographers think it is.
mrslancaster wrote: » Does that mean that photographers or news cameras outside a court for example are breaching the rights of suspects/convicted individuals? We see photos & newsreels of people going in & out of courthouses every day. also how can rte report stuff e.g. the brawls in South William street recently.
GM228 wrote: » Now of course any potential case will very much depend on the facts of the case, but 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.
mrslancaster wrote: » What's the difference taking photos of people around a court & say a photographer taking photos outside an lgbt bar or a place of worship of different faiths or at an airport seeing who is coming & going? is the first seen as ok because court cases are heard in public? I read somewhere that local councils can't use CCTV to deter flytipping as it's a breach of gdpr. Are people only entitled to privacy in certain situations or places
magicbastarder wrote: » getting back to the OP, this is key; however it's not 100% clear what the OP meant - 'the photographer appeared to take photos of my neighbour and his kids' could mean 'the photographer appeared, with the purpose of taking the photos' but i suspect it meant 'it seemed the photographer was taking photos of my neighbour and his kids'; and if someone you don't know starts taking photos specifically of you, you've every right to ask them to stop and if they don't, that could constitute harrassment which is already covered by law (AFAIK! IANAL). however, what a lot of people would be considering in relation to this law is them standing on grafton street say, and taking a photo of the street, in which a lot of faces would be visible and identifiable. or taking their camera to their kid's football match and taking photos of them playing, etc.; given the eye watering number of photos being taken around the country every day, which capture people's likenesses intentionally or incidentally, the ECHR ruling has very little bearing on 99.999999% of photos taken, i'd expect.
MoonUnit75 wrote: » I think that's the crux of the matter, the person whose photo was taken could possibly take you to the ECHR but that course of action is so extreme it is practically unenforceable in 99% of cases. Imagine 60,000,000 requests to prosecute or fine people for taking another person's photograph in public.
