Taking photos of others is it a crime?

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

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

RobbieMD wrote: »

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

Such as?

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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?

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 wrote: »

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?

I do love the age and mode of transport being included. Trying to portray an image. :rolleyes: Why can't it be a 15 year old boy taking a selfie on his phone? It's the same situation either way..

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).

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I do love the age and mode of transport being included. Trying to portray an image. :rolleyes: Why can't it be a 15 year old boy taking a selfie on his phone? It's the same situation either way..

I purposefully went for an extreme example that would invoke disgust to separate it from the portrayed example of a family taking snaps of each other on a beach. The fact that both are the same offence is what matters, i.e. the production of child pornography.
If a 15yr old boy took selfies and sent them on, then that’s distribution of child pornography. The recipient is then in possession of child pornography.

I was addressing the earlier point that people have carte blanche to photo at will in public. I specifically was keeping it to a third party taking a photo in a public place of someone else in a public place. It’s misleading if someone comes onto boards and then assumes they can photo at will. I’ve seen your previous posts and understand you were/are a photographer. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I certainly wouldn’t be confident to correct GM228.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104891606/supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-kaiteriteri-bikinisnapper

RobbieMD wrote: »

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?

I'd say most people would find that behaviour creepy and offensive, but at the same time, as an amateur photographer, I'd say it was legal and should remain so.

Here is how something less extreme played out in NZ:

The Supreme Court has quashed the conviction of a Nelson man who successfully argued taking photos of bikini-clad teenage girls on a beach was not indecent.

Graham Thomas Rowe, 61,was originally convicted for doing an indecent act with intent to insult.

But in quashing the conviction all five Supreme Court justices ruled in favour of Rowe's argument that taking snaps of young girls on Kaiteriteri beach, near Nelson, was not a crime.

While agreeing with Nelson Judge Tony Zohrab's description of Rowe's behaviour as "creepy", Justice William Young said it hadn't constituted an offence.

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.

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'.

bobbyss

cnocbui wrote:

The state - which does not automatically make it public.

Can you expand on that? I thought a garda station was a public place where i am allowed to enter.

cnocbui wrote: »

I'd say most people would find that behaviour creepy and offensive, but at the same time, as an amateur photographer, I'd say it was legal and should remain so.

at what point does this sort of behaviour become upskirting though?

magicbastarder wrote: »

at what point does this sort of behaviour become upskirting though?

When you glue a camera or mirror to your shoe.

If Marilyn Munroe knowingly stands on a grate rigged to blast a powerfull updraft in front of photographers, then that's when it isn't.

bobbyss wrote: »

Can you expand on that? I thought a garda station was a public place where i am allowed to enter.

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.

cnocbui wrote: »

I'd say most people would find that behaviour creepy and offensive, but at the same time, as an amateur photographer, I'd say it was legal and should remain so.

Here is how something less extreme played out in NZ:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104891606/supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-kaiteriteri-bikinisnapper

Your article is of “bikini clad” girls not naked girls. They are not equivalent examples to compare. I’m slightly disturbed that you would think it should be legal though.