Laws regarding photography

phantom_lord · 17-06-2019 1:18pm #1

Hi,

We have an acquaintance who views himself as a journalist documenting "real life", and he regularly is inappropriate regarding when and where he takes photos. He never asks permission and there's been several instances where he's been out of line. At a recent music festival he was told by security to delete photos he taken of someone being violently sick. I won't go into details but he recently upset some of our female friends regarding photos he was seen taking. Several times he has refused to delete photos he has taken.

I'm just wondering if there are any specific laws regarding what's acceptable in public and private spaces, and whether subjects have a rights regarding images of them. Do we have a right to ask him to delete photos from his archives? Can we object if he was to display photos in an exhibition?

Do we just have to rely on hoping he will do the right thing?

Thanks

GBX · 17-06-2019 1:20pm

Some info in here https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/

magicbastarder · 17-06-2019 1:26pm

there is no right in law to force someone to delete photos.
you have a right to ask him to delete photos, but not any right to enforce him to do so.

Thirdfox · 17-06-2019 2:09pm

phantom_lord wrote: »

Hi,

We have an acquaintance who views himself as a journalist documenting "real life", and he regularly is inappropriate regarding when and where he takes photos. He never asks permission and there's been several instances where he's been out of line. At a recent music festival he was told by security to delete photos he taken of someone being violently sick. I won't go into details but he recently upset some of our female friends regarding photos he was seen taking. Several times he has refused to delete photos he has taken.

I'm just wondering if there are any specific laws regarding what's acceptable in public and private spaces, and whether subjects have a rights regarding images of them. Do we have a right to ask him to delete photos from his archives? Can we object if he was to display photos in an exhibition?

Do we just have to rely on hoping he will do the right thing?

Thanks

Before I start off please see signature and I'm definitely not working in privacy/digital media law.

The blog post is quite helpful I think - harassment is one avenue a person can look at - I have heard of harassment being a "continuing action" which means that at least the 1st photo should be ok in all cases when out in public with no expectation to privacy.

On reflection, you may get more information from the legal discussion forum rather than the photography forum.

In a private scenario if it was explicitly mentioned that photography is not allowed (or if he was a criminal trespasser on the land in the first place) then ejection from the premises is possible. It may not be possible to force an individual to delete their photos though in the case of a criminal trespasser the photos would serve as evidence of their wrongdoing and would be in the interest of photographer to be deleted.

Say in a work scenario - even if in public as part of the company during events etc. - if there are harassment guidelines then depending on context and facts the photos may constitute evidence of inappropriate employee behaviour which may have employment sanctions via a company's HR disciplinary procedure. So again sometimes it would be in the best interest of the photographer to delete such photos (or at least not make them public).

So here's the lawyer spiel - while photography (which I enjoy immensely as a hobby) is generally quite free from rules, like free speech - a photographer may not be inured against the consequences of his photography (or speech).

Again I must emphasise that I'm not a lawyer with experience in this field - but this is what has come from the top of my head.

Though don't get me started about the Americans' (and some Irish's) attitude towards taking pictures of children in public - I guess my cultural background just doesn't see what shocks/offends people so much about that (besides the ridiculous suggestion that photographers may be paedophiles in hiding).

edit:
you never actually state what offensive/inappropriate photos he's taken (other than the being sick example) - here's my subjective view of what would be fine and not fine to take:

1. person being violently sick at music festival - fine, as long as festival allows photos to be taken, there may be a T&C about obeying security instructions meaning he may be ejected for non-compliance with instructions (but not for taking the photos).

2. homeless person on the street - fine

3. homeless person on the street aggrevated at him for taking photos - possibly harassment and the gardaí could technically be called, though I understand the photos would still be his to use, potential evidence of harassment however

4. homeless person dying on the street - fine legally

5. taking photos that interfere with paramedics trying to help dying homeless person - I would assume this is not fine legally, but again the photo isn't the issue but rather the obstruction

6. children playing in park - fine

7. woman bent over in short skirt in park so that anyone can see their underwear - getting iffy but possibly still fine - though see harassment example if continuing action.

8. woman bent over in short skirt in work so that anyone can see their underwear - probably not fine due to employee guidelines - the photo-taking may be technically "fine" but HR will probably want to engage disciplinary procedures (or risk a legal action from the person being photographed over the company not adequately protecting their employees on company grounds/while in work).

9. gust of wind blowing woman's skirt up so underwear seen by all - iffy-er but probably still fine legally - I can see why someone wouldn't want to risk mingling with the law over a photo on this though.

10. lurking under a sewer grate to photograph up women's skirts as they walk by - definitely not fine - there's been new upskirting laws introduced in Ireland which criminalises such behaviour. And by the way that example of the sewer grate is based in reality: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1877784/japanese-man-hid-gutter-five-hours-take-pictures-skirts

phantom_lord · 17-06-2019 3:23pm

Takes for the reply.

He took photos of girls in a state of undress. And in the music example he followed the person and ignored their request for him to stop taking photos.

He takes photos on nights out, and generally is looking for situations where someone is vulnerable or not at 100%. I just find it all unsavoury. A number of people have expressed discomfort with his photography but he doesn't take this on board.

ED E · 17-06-2019 4:42pm

He sounds like a total pr1ck, but that in itself isnt a crime.

Stop associating with him. Simple.

phantom_lord · 19-06-2019 8:44pm

Unfortunately tt's not as simple as that to stop associating with someone when it's a large group of people involved. But it may have to come to that. Bit worrying that there's so little protection from someone like that. I don't really fancy seeing an exhibition of photos of all us down the line.

magicbastarder · 20-06-2019 3:47am

I'd simply insult him till he decided not to be in your presence anymore. And carry a small torch and shine it at him every time he has his camera so he can't take photos of you.

20-06-2019 4:06am

The swift answer is that it all boils down to 'expectation to privacy'. In any given situation, simply ask 'would the person being photographed have a reasonable expectation to privacy?' and you'll know your answer.

(for clarity, wanting privacy, and an expectation of privacy are different things).

smurfjed · 20-06-2019 4:30am

@Thirdfox, you appear to know the subject, so a follow on question if I may. If someone takes a photography of me doing my job without my permission, what rights do I have to use those photos online? I do believe that can use them for educational purposes but not commercial reasons.

Del2005 · 20-06-2019 4:56am

Under GDPR you have the right for data controllers to delete any of your personal data that they have if they don't have a valid reason to keep it. Your image is your personal data and he's a data controller with no valid reason to keep your data so has to delete it when you request.

You've no right to privacy in public, so anyone can take your picture, but once they have your data you can request it to be deleted, as there is no valid reason for the majority of them to keep it.

Thirdfox · 20-06-2019 6:49am

smurfjed wrote: »

@Thirdfox, you appear to know the subject, so a follow on question if I may. If someone takes a photography of me doing my job without my permission, what rights do I have to use those photos online? I do believe that can use them for educational purposes but not commercial reasons.

You mean what rights does *he* have to use them? Since copyright of the image resides with the photographer (usually).

For commercial use people generally sign release forms I believe. However this is all "generally" - for example if the photographer is being employed by a company then quite often the copyright resides with the organisation.

Taking an image while doing work - it could be part of your employment contract that your image may be used for commercial purposes etc.

So it's never set in stone what can or cannot happen.

If you do mean you want to use his photos without permission then generally that isn't allowed - you retain your image rights (usually) and he retains copyright of his photo (usually).

But what's strictly legal and what's done are two different things. Moreso when it comes to enforcement of your rights - is it worth your time/money to pursue a civil case if there's disagreement? Unless you or he is rich then no - generally not.

Thirdfox · 20-06-2019 7:03am

Del2005 wrote: »

Under GDPR you have the right for data controllers to delete any of your personal data that they have if they don't have a valid reason to keep it. Your image is your personal data and he's a data controller with no valid reason to keep your data so has to delete it when you request.

You've no right to privacy in public, so anyone can take your picture, but once they have your data you can request it to be deleted, as there is no valid reason for the majority of them to keep it.

I'm not sure that is correct - a data controller in my understanding does not cover an individual pursuing his personal/non-business activities.

Here's a good summary of who GDPR applies to - https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/does-the-gdpr-apply-to-me

Their examples are good thought exercises as otherwise anyone you put in your phone contacts can use GDPR against you which is patently burdensome and not what the legislation is about.

A photographer not engaged in a commercial activity shouldn't be covered by GDPR.

Del2005 · 20-06-2019 8:16am

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm not sure that is correct - a data controller in my understanding does not cover an individual pursuing his personal/non-business activities.

Here's a good summary of who GDPR applies to - https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/does-the-gdpr-apply-to-me

Their examples are good thought exercises as otherwise anyone you put in your phone contacts can use GDPR against you which is patently burdensome and not what the legislation is about.

A photographer not engaged in a commercial activity shouldn't be covered by GDPR.

Then go after wherever he posts the pictures, they will have to remove them.

Glass fused light · 20-06-2019 8:50am

phantom_lord wrote: »

Unfortunately tt's not as simple as that to stop associating with someone when it's a large group of people involved. But it may have to come to that. Bit worrying that there's so little protection from someone like that. I don't really fancy seeing an exhibition of photos of all us down the line.

There is a simple way to stop associating with him but you may end up loosing friends.
When he turns up get up and leave and tell everyone why
"John I don't like the way you behave around other people when taking their photographs, I think that I and other people should be able to relax in the company of friends without you photographing them. I dont like the way you make people uncomfortable and don't respect their wishes to be left alone. Further more I think if someone asks you to delete a photo you should."

With regard to the photos of girls if they were under 18 or look like they were under 18 photographing them in a state of undress could be non-contact child abuse.

harr · 20-06-2019 9:02am

I know the law has changed regarding up-skirting and that is now illegal so unsure if this would fall into that category?
To be honest he sounds like a right prick and pervert . People should be able to have a night out without worrying what photos this lad is taking.
Someone needs to have a word/ threaten him I know if he did it to me the camera would be wrapped around his neck.
No group needs this crap when out and god only knows where else he posting the pictures ...

Any decent Photographer Would have no problem deleting any photos when requested...unfortunately if the photos are taken in a public space legally not much can be done unless of course it’s covered by the new up-skirting law.

Thirdfox · 20-06-2019 9:13am

Del2005 wrote: »

Then go after wherever he posts the pictures, they will have to remove them.

I'm learning a lot about GDPR this morning

Seems like there is a "legitimate interests" provision in GDPR which allows a data controller to keep information without the consent of the party.

https://togsinbusiness.com/gdpr-photographers/#privacy-policy

This website makes an argument that for *serious* photographers (with a capital P) - there may be an argument that the photos are their work/art/IP and thus are legitimate in being necessary to be kept even without the consent of the party photographed.

Of course the website also states don't get into the hassle of keeping photos where people don't want you to generally. If this guy is as bad as the OP makes him out to be I doubt he'll delete photos on request or being told there is no consent under GDPR - I guess the most you could do is scare them with GDPR jargon and hopes he doesn't go reading up about the exceptions to requiring consent.

Glass fused light · 20-06-2019 9:18am

harr wrote: »

I know the law has changed regarding up-skirting and that is now illegal so unsure if this would fall into that category?
To be honest he sounds like a right prick and pervert . People should be able to have a night out without worrying what photos this lad is taking.
Someone needs to have a word/ threaten him I know if he did it to me the camera would be wrapped around his neck.
No group needs this crap when out and god only knows where else he posting the pictures ...

Any decent Photographer Would have no problem deleting any photos when requested...unfortunately if the photos are taken in a public space legally not much can be done unless of course it’s covered by the new up-skirting law.

Attempting to take photographs of the genital region of a minor child would have been previously covered under the laws against the sexual exploitation of children as the act itself is sexually motivated.

Nesta99 · 20-06-2019 9:26am

This is a common issue for people especially with camera phones. Nights out, any incident in public, a car crash, people grab their phones for the camera first not to call for help. I hate the sneaky candid type photos that people take, usually trying to get the worst possible photo and its on Facebook in seconds. Not a lot that can be done it seems than to be direct with the individual which is a lot easier said than done. Most Irish people are not that assertive and will just keep quietly annoyed and maybe give out about it when the culprit isnt about but will tolerate when they are around. Not suggesting it is the case here just in general imo. If he keeps intruding in the manner described he could well get a thump from someone or his camera grabbed and lobbed away even if it end up being a costly thing to do. A person to start avoiding as much as possible! Torch idea is a good one, keep it shining in his face when he lowers the camera in confusion or when he starts get the phone out and get taking pictures of his every movement and see how he reacts.

Glass fused light · 20-06-2019 9:27am

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm learning a lot about GDPR this morning

Seems like there is a "legitimate interests" provision in GDPR which allows a data controller to keep information without the consent of the party.

https://togsinbusiness.com/gdpr-photographers/#privacy-policy

This website makes an argument that for *serious* photographers (with a capital P) - there may be an argument that the photos are their work/art/IP and thus are legitimate in being necessary to be kept even without the consent of the party photographed.

Of course the website also states don't get into the hassle of keeping photos where people don't want you to generally. If this guy is as bad as the OP makes him out to be I doubt he'll delete photos on request or being told there is no consent under GDPR - I guess the most you could do is scare them with GDPR jargon and hopes he doesn't go reading up about the exceptions to requiring consent.

From memory there was a case of a photo appearing in the papers with the "newsworthy" person and a related child. And it was decided that the child had an expectation of privacy in a public place as the only reason the photo was taken was to capture the image of the adult.

Thirdfox · 20-06-2019 9:32am

harr wrote: »

I know the law has changed regarding up-skirting and that is now illegal so unsure if this would fall into that category?
To be honest he sounds like a right prick and pervert . People should be able to have a night out without worrying what photos this lad is taking.
Someone needs to have a word/ threaten him I know if he did it to me the camera would be wrapped around his neck.
No group needs this crap when out and god only knows where else he posting the pictures ...

Any decent Photographer Would have no problem deleting any photos when requested...unfortunately if the photos are taken in a public space legally not much can be done unless of course it’s covered by the new up-skirting law.

And I'm learning more about the harassment amendment bill too...

So apparently the upskirting legislation is not yet law having reached the 3rd stage in the Dáil:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2017/63/

The text of the bill (which may be amended) can be found here:
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2017/63/eng/initiated/b6317d.pdf

The potentially useful sections include:
Section 4 - Distributing, etc., intimate image without consent
(1)A person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—(a)records, distributes or publishes, or threatens to record, distribute or publish, an intimate image of another person without the other person’s consent...on summary conviction to a Class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both,...on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

“intimate image” includes genital organs or anal region or breasts (whether covered by underwear or bare)

and also

Subject to subsection (5), an offence under this section is a sexual offence for the purposes of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 (if person was sentenced to prison).

Maybe send that to the co-worker and let him know the potential legal issues coming down the tracks if he doesn't stop doing what he's doing.

Thirdfox · 20-06-2019 9:38am

Glass fused light wrote: »

From memory there was a case of a photo appearing in the papers with the "newsworthy" person and a related child. And it was decided that the child had an expectation of privacy in a public place as the only reason the photo was taken was to capture the image of the adult.

In that case I would guess that the court might have found that for journalists the legitimate interest was to take a photo of the subject and probably not of the child.

For an "artist" one could argue that the parent and child photo was the art and hence the legitimate interest of the photographer to keep the photo as is even without consent (just playing devil's advocate).

magicbastarder · 20-06-2019 9:42am

as the chap mentioned by the OP does not seem to be a pro, GDPR does not apply.
some comments here (the article is about photography at communions, etc.):

“There is nothing under the GDPR prohibiting people from taking photos in a public place,” (the data protection commissioner) says. “Provided you’re not harassing anyone, taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed.”

But publishing a photo of someone may not be allowed, depending on the audience and the nature of the publication.

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/irish-privacy-watchdog-says-schools-wrong-to-ban-parents-for-taking-photos-at-communions-or-sports-days-because-of-gdpr-38025317.html

Glass fused light · 20-06-2019 9:58am

Thirdfox wrote: »

You mean what rights does *he* have to use them? Since copyright of the image resides with the photographer (usually).

For commercial use people generally sign release forms I believe. However this is all "generally" - for example if the photographer is being employed by a company then quite often the copyright resides with the organisation.

Taking an image while doing work - it could be part of your employment contract that your image may be used for commercial purposes etc.

So it's never set in stone what can or cannot happen.

If you do mean you want to use his photos without permission then generally that isn't allowed - you retain your image rights (usually) and he retains copyright of his photo (usually).

But what's strictly legal and what's done are two different things. Moreso when it comes to enforcement of your rights - is it worth your time/money to pursue a civil case if there's disagreement? Unless you or he is rich then no - generally not.

For an employers point of view they would be foolish to only rely on a minor term of the employment contract to cover the use of a photo taken at work. Unless the employee was directly employed in a media facing role the term would be seen as favouring the employer. The ability to negotiate would be a key factor eg was I the cleaner or the CEO.
So a release and an extra model payment would knock the GDPR options from personal data to work product.

Glass fused light · 20-06-2019 10:06am

Thirdfox wrote: »

In that case I would guess that the court might have found that for journalists the legitimate interest was to take a photo of the subject and probably not of the child.

For an "artist" one could argue that the parent and child photo was the art and hence the legitimate interest of the photographer to keep the photo as is even without consent (just playing devil's advocate).

No I agree it's context based, the artist has the problem when they want to display the work in public.

In real life it's down to what we decide as a society is good manners. Are we happy to hang out with an electronic curtain-twitcher and is it socially acceptable to be a consumer of the product.

BarryD2 · 20-06-2019 10:18am

phantom_lord wrote: »

We have an acquaintance who views himself as a journalist documenting "real life", and he regularly is inappropriate regarding when and where he takes photos.

There's a long and fairly honourable tradition of 'street photography', where photographers document real life in the flesh. There are iconic images captured over many decades that are considered very valuable in cultural terms. We'd be poorer without those images.

So maybe your friend views themselves as a 'street photographer' documenting life about them. I can't pretend to know a lot about the genre and the ins and outs of what's acceptable but I would think that excessive exploitative images of friends and acquaintances is crossing a line. Street photographers are likelier I think to concentrate on anonymous subjects.

phantom_lord · 20-06-2019 11:03am

Thanks for the replies. I had just a general curiosity about what was the law about this, obviously this is something to be settled on a personal level.

And I just had an eye to the future, do we have any protection regarding future publication down the line.

BarryD2 wrote: »

There's a long and fairly honourable tradition of 'street photography', where photographers document real life in the flesh. There are iconic images captured over many decades that are considered very valuable in cultural terms. We'd be poorer without those images.

So maybe your friend views themselves as a 'street photographer' documenting life about them. I can't pretend to know a lot about the genre and the ins and outs of what's acceptable but I would think that excessive exploitative images of friends and acquaintances is crossing a line. Street photographers are likelier I think to concentrate on anonymous subjects.

He does view himself in that regard, and he does do that sort of photographer, but on a night out he thinks he's still on the job. I think it's gone way over the line towards exploitative rather than insightful

magicbastarder wrote: »

as the chap mentioned by the OP does not seem to be a pro, GDPR does not apply.
some comments here (the article is about photography at communions, etc.):

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/irish-privacy-watchdog-says-schools-wrong-to-ban-parents-for-taking-photos-at-communions-or-sports-days-because-of-gdpr-38025317.html

He is actually employed by a media outlet, I guess they don't provide any sort of ethics course. The photos I have an issue with aren't taken in that capacity though.

Glass fused light wrote: »

There is a simple way to stop associating with him but you may end up loosing friends.
When he turns up get up and leave and tell everyone why
"John I don't like the way you behave around other people when taking their photographs, I think that I and other people should be able to relax in the company of friends without you photographing them. I dont like the way you make people uncomfortable and don't respect their wishes to be left alone. Further more I think if someone asks you to delete a photo you should."

With regard to the photos of girls if they were under 18 or look like they were under 18 photographing them in a state of undress could be non-contact child abuse.

We have had those conversations and it hasn't been taken on board. I'd be happy to stop associating but there's a lot more people involved. I'm certainly going to take a hard line when it's on my property, but that's more difficult at something like a music festival.

Glass fused light · 20-06-2019 12:04pm

phantom_lord wrote: »

He is actually employed by a media outlet, I guess they don't provide any sort of ethics course. The photos I have an issue with aren't taken in that capacity though.

Ethical photography in the media was heading out the door long before the Internet was coming in.

phantom_lord wrote: »

We have had those conversations and it hasn't been taken on board. I'd be happy to stop associating but there's a lot more people involved. I'm certainly going to take a hard line when it's on my property, but that's more difficult at something like a music festival.

it's really not.
You tell your other friends that you are not happy with his behaviour and that while you appreciate that they can and may have a different view point you won't be directly socialising with him. You don't allow yourself to be in a position where you have to be in his company. Always have an exit strategy.

Irishphotodesk · 22-06-2019 8:48am

phantom_lord wrote: »

Hi,

We have an acquaintance who views himself as a journalist documenting "real life", and he regularly is inappropriate regarding when and where he takes photos. He never asks permission and there's been several instances where he's been out of line. At a recent music festival he was told by security to delete photos he taken of someone being violently sick. I won't go into details but he recently upset some of our female friends regarding photos he was seen taking. Several times he has refused to delete photos he has taken.

I'm just wondering if there are any specific laws regarding what's acceptable in public and private spaces, and whether subjects have a rights regarding images of them. Do we have a right to ask him to delete photos from his archives? Can we object if he was to display photos in an exhibition?

Do we just have to rely on hoping he will do the right thing?

Thanks

OP, there is a lot of information and people with opinions on this thread, some of which is inaccurate and untrue.

I do not claim to have an answer for you but if this person works for a media outlet, he/she may view themselves as doing their job - even when they are not “working” they are constantly documenting life as they see it.... this can and will result in them loosing friends/associates and the photographer cannot/will not see the line between personal and private lives, many gardai starting off have similar issues (I assume this photographer is also youngish...mid 20s?).

in the case of my Garda friend...it’s possibly best to give an example... 15-20years ago a young Garda qualified and was out socializing with friends in Galway, Cork, Limerick, Dublin, .... no matter where they went this newly qualified Garda would find a way to ruin a night out by reporting someone drug dealing in bathrooms or some other behaviour, and when security were not interested (or threw him out of the premises), he would get local gardai on the scene, this caused a lot of arguments between the friends and ultimately the Garda socialized with people who understood him, the other friends drifted away in favour of hassle free nights out.

With your photographer friend, I would suggest you do similar with his/her behaviour ..... it’s causing you stress to see his/her behaviour, you are unlikely to change this overnight, so in my opinion, talk to your other friends, especially the female ones you said he was upsetting, if a group divides when he arrives others might get the message and ultimately the person themselves might see it’s their behaviour causing it....if you want this person in your life...keep at the photographer to let them know the reason for going elsewhere, but not in an aggressive manner.

Also with this comment:

Glass fused light wrote: »

From memory there was a case of a photo appearing in the papers with the "newsworthy" person and a related child. And it was decided that the child had an expectation of privacy in a public place as the only reason the photo was taken was to capture the image of the adult.

This was possibly one of my images, and if it is what I think to be the scenario, it’s a press council recommendation that minors involved in compensation claims are not identified without permission of the parents, due to the possibility that these minors might be teased/bullied in school after publication in national newspapers, it isn’t a law or anything to do with a child having an expectation of privacy in a public place, no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place, but taking photographs of minors without legitimate reason can have you questioned about your motives by the gardai - if a concerned parent was to complain.

OP, you mentioned that on one occasion the photographer followed girls around despite being told to go away, this behaviour could have had him/her arrested if he didn’t have a legit reason for trying to get the photograph, if it was at a festival the girls could/should report this behaviour to security.
In the past I have chased people down the street...or several streets, in order to get the pic, however, to me these were legitimate targets for news stories (gangland figures, claimants awarded money in the courts etc)

Hopefully your photography friend will come to their senses.

I do like magicbastarders suggestion of a torch, would be interesting if those who have a poor opinion of this photographer would consider doing the torch thing every time he turns up to the group, to let him/her see that there’s more than one person annoyed by his behaviour, if you have a group of 2-3-4 people shining a torch on him at the same time he might reconsider using his camera usage.

phantom_lord · 22-06-2019 10:47am

OP, you mentioned that on one occasion the photographer followed girls around despite being told to go away, this behaviour could have had him/her arrested if he didn’t have a legit reason for trying to get the photograph, if it was at a festival the girls could/should report this behaviour to security.
In the past I have chased people down the street...or several streets, in order to get the pic, however, to me these were legitimate targets for news stories (gangland figures, claimants awarded money in the courts etc)

Thanks for the reply. It wasn't quite that bad. He was following a man that was getting sick at a music festival, despite the subjects requests to stop. Security intervened and got him to delete the photos.

I think your general point about the Garda is very relevant. I brought up my concerns again recently (as I'd previously done several times) and it's quite clear that he sees being invasive as his operational style, he's not going to change. He may start avoiding me with his camera but his general operation isn't going to change.

You tell your other friends that you are not happy with his behaviour and that while you appreciate that they can and may have a different view point you won't be directly socialising with him. You don't allow yourself to be in a position where you have to be in his company. Always have an exit strategy.

This has sort of begun. And as with any long-term large friend group there's backlash, people don't want things rumbled even for good reasons, and raising objections can make you the bad person. I guess it's worth the short term pain.

I'm weary of turning this into a personal issues thread! The photographer in question has disputed taking the photos he was said to be seen taking of the girls. He sent on some photos around the time as a demonstration that that's all he took, and he didn't take anything unsavoury. Now, I don't find that that convincing. He's offered to send the raw photos sequence which are numbered to prove there's nothing missing. Am I being too suspicious in thinking that those numbers could just be doctored?

Irishphotodesk · 22-06-2019 11:53am

Sequence of file numbers could easily be altered, assuming all the images were in sequence also.

This can and will divide friends, and could cause a rift which may never be healed, if you believe this guys behaviour is out of order, the best you can do is do not engage them or when you see them acting up, you explain to others in the group, you are leaving because of his behaviour, tell them it annoys/disgusts you and you feel it’s better to walk away rather then stay and risk a confrontation- others might agree with you and leave also, you will be taking the higher moral ground and (in theory) others will eventually tire of the behaviour or will be the subject of this photographer and their opinion will change.

Laws regarding photography

Comments