nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Taking photos of others is it a crime?

bigdaddymac

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 ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

I've posted this before on boards, but the gist of it is that it comes down to "reasonable expectation to privacy".

An example I always give, even though it's a bit extreme/exaggerated, is a woman living in a house, where a ground floor bathroom faces onto the public footpath. If she decides to stand in the bathroom topless, of an evening, with the light on and no curtains/blinds/etc. then you can photograph away. The person is aware their bathroom opens onto a public area, and is aware that they can be clearly seen.

If the woman closes her blinds, but you, by standing at a very peculiar angle, and bending over and leaning just right, can see her through a gap in the curtain, then you can not photograph her, as she has closed the curtain and now has a reasonable expectation to privacy.

You can take photos of anything/everything in a public place, however, obviously other rules apply to you (trespass, etc). On private property, you can take photos all day long, but you must stop when directed to do so (signage in place is considered directing you to stop). If you go into a shopping centre and take photos, and security ask you to stop, you must stop, however you don't have any obligation to delete anything or surrender your camera.

To give a further example of the public/private thing, If you're taking a photo of someone's house, and they tell you to stop, you must stop taking photos if you're on their property (garden, etc.) but once you're on the public footpath, you can continue to take photos.

GDPR, before everyone starts, is more about publishing than recording the photos. Also, people you photo can request copies of the photos as that's their "personal data" but in real-life this line of enquiry doesn't occur enough to be worth thinking too much about.

In relation to children naked on the public beach, this is not something I've ever come across (no pun intended). Again; you can take these photos from the stance that photography is allowed in a public space. However, I think you end up in the area of being in possession of child pornography if you handle it wrongly. It's at this point, if questioned, you need a really good reason for taking such pictures. A child naked on the beach is not, in itself, pornography, I suppose. If a garda was to take a look at your computer and you've dozens of child porn photos, then you're likely in trouble. However, I would assume that if you had dozens of folders of photos documenting a library of real life/street photos/documenting life etc. you'd likely be okay, as the intended reason for having the photos is very different. I'm genuinely unsure about that one, though.

RobbieMD

cnocbui wrote: »

Lol. If it was a public beach, I doubt it. I have some shocking family photos in that case, taken by some ridiculously upstanding citizens.

So it would be ok for a 50yr old man in a van to take a photograph of a naked 15yr girl changing on a beach?

[Deleted User]

GM228 wrote: »

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy (even when out in public)

No you don't.

Snotty wrote: »

it is not illegal for someone to take your picture in a public area if its not covert

Doesn't matter if it's covert or not.

bobbyss wrote: »

If there are no signs saying eg authorised personnel only, can you go into the car park of a garda station and take photos of garda cars and photo what's inside?

You can take photos on private property unless directed otherwise (by signage or by authorised people/representatives of that property).

cnocbui

RobbieMD wrote: »

An under age child naked in public or private is still child pornography. That the photographer took it from a public place doesn’t change that it’s an offence.

Lol. If it was a public beach, I doubt it. I have some shocking family photos in that case, taken by some ridiculously upstanding citizens.

MrMusician18

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.

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

RobbieMD

cnocbui wrote: »

Such as?

An under age child naked in public or private is still child pornography. That the photographer took it from a public place doesn’t change that it’s an offence.

cnocbui

bobbyss wrote: »

If a car park in a garda station is private property, who would be the owner?

The state - which does not automatically make it public.

bobbyss

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

If a car park in a garda station is private property, who would be the owner?

cnocbui

RobbieMD wrote: »

They can take photos of anything they can see alright, but they may well be committing an offence.

Such as?

RobbieMD

cnocbui wrote: »

So long as a photographer is standing on their own, or public property, they can take photos of anything they can see. It's not unknown for th Guards and police in many countries to imagine they have powers that they don't in relation to photography.

They can take photos of anything they can see alright, but they may well be committing an offence.

[Deleted User]

Snotty wrote: »

To answer the OPs question, no it is not illegal. If your neighbour found out that the pictures where used for some reason like storing information on the family or they were published somewhere, then yes your neighbour could take some recourse, but ignoring all the rubbish posted previously, it is not illegal for someone to take your picture in a public area if its not covert and the pictures are not being used for anything.

They can be used in a newspaper as editorial without permission if the subject is in public place but not as advertising without the person's permission

mrslancaster

Smee_Again wrote: »

In public it’s grand. Mostly.

From behind a bush and into their bedroom, not so legal.

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.

magicbastarder

random aside, but a garda (or anyone else) cannot order you to delete photos from your camera.
anyway, if taking the photos *was* a crime, ordering they be deleted would be destroying the evidence.

cnocbui

So long as a photographer is standing on their own, or public property, they can take photos of anything they can see. It's not unknown for th Guards and police in many countries to imagine they have powers that they don't in relation to photography.

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote: »

If there are no signs saying eg authorised personnel only, can you go into the car park of a garda station and take photos of garda cars and photo what's inside?
If you can't what is the law prohibiting that?

It's a possible offence under the offences against the state act 1939 (as amended) depending on motive.

Snotty

bobbyss wrote: »

If there are no signs saying eg authorised personnel only, can you go into the car park of a garda station and take photos of garda cars and photo what's inside?
If you can't what is the law prohibiting that?

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

bobbyss

If there are no signs saying eg authorised personnel only, can you go into the car park of a garda station and take photos of garda cars and photo what's inside?
If you can't what is the law prohibiting that?

[Deleted User]

Smee_Again wrote: »

In public it’s grand. Mostly.

From behind a bush and into their bedroom, not so legal.

This..

There's no need to complicate it any further. If you want to, gm228 has already put it to bed

Snotty

To answer the OPs question, no it is not illegal. If your neighbour found out that the pictures where used for some reason like storing information on the family or they were published somewhere, then yes your neighbour could take some recourse, but ignoring all the rubbish posted previously, it is not illegal for someone to take your picture in a public area if its not covert and the pictures are not being used for anything.

Claw Hammer

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.

You can't go to the ECHR unless you have exhausted domestic remedies first and even then the ECHR may not take the case if it doesn't meet their criteria for acceptance.

athlone573

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.

Or if they have deep pockets they could bring you to civil court for example if you tried selling the photoes.

MoonUnit75

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.

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.

athlone573

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

The main law governing all those situations is GDPR (an EU regulation) as implemented into Irish law.
What that basically says is that if you collect data (including photographs) which may identify people, those people have certain rights over what you do with the data. Even more so if it is "sensitive" personal data.
There's a lot more to it and companies that process data have policies and training around it.

magicbastarder

the bottle bank near me has a camera trained on it and i was talking to a chap there one day who got done for littering precisely because he was caught on camera.

i do recall an issue at one point with them *releasing* footage of someone fly-tipping, perhaps that's the context you mean?

mrslancaster

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

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.

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.

athlone573

There are a lot of mights and maybes there involving references to the ECHR, all very interesting I'll admit, in a theoretical sense.

As it stands now under Irish law, there is no law against taking photographs of someone in public unless you are harassing them.
It would probly need someone to win a case in Europe for this to change.

GM228

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.

Yes it could potentially be, even of the accused and even when they are subsequently convicted, it came as a big shock to many when we discussed that very question previously:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058108252

mrslancaster

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.