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

Legality of taking a photo

Options
  • 26-05-2020 3:53pm
    #1
    coffeyt
    Registered Users Posts: 304 ✭✭


    Can anyone advise the following:
    Is legal to take a picture of a vehicle parked illegally?

    I'm not referring to publishing of it but say a person is trying to build a case to show dangerous parking in an area with a view to getting the garda to enforce the law, can a person take pictures of vehicles that are parked illegally for that use?

    Have been advised there could be a gdpr issue but cannot find anything to confirm this?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    gaz wac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,330 ✭✭✭gaz wac


    good article here: https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/


  • Options
    #3
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,549 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    If the car is in a public place, you should be ok taking the photo, as to if it would be admissble in court, that's a differnt minefield

    If you repeatedly took photos of the same car over a period of time, some might argue that was a form of harresment..


  • Options
    #4
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    coffeyt wrote: »
    say a person is trying to build a case to show dangerous parking in an area with a view to getting the garda to enforce the law, can a person take pictures of vehicles that are parked illegally for that use?

    Yes


  • Options
    #5
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    I done this and was abused by the owner.....


  • Options
    #6
    mick987
    Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭mick987


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    I done this and was abused by the owner.....

    Point on the doll where the nasty man touched you?

    Mod
    Easy now


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    granturismo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭granturismo


    coffeyt wrote: »
    ...
    Have been advised there could be a gdpr issue but cannot find anything to confirm this?

    Tell this person to pursue a GDPR against you and see how far they get. I think GDPR doesnt apply to a private individual your case.


  • Options
    #8
    coffeyt
    Registered Users Posts: 304 ✭✭coffeyt


    Thanks my feeling on it is that it should be ok, we are careful to take picture of vehicle only and not the driver but wanted to check as have had issues with drivers coming back and shouting the odds, of course it's mainly those driving company vehicles so think they are more concerned about being reported to company than anything.


  • Options
    #9
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,560 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    gaz wac wrote: »
    good article here: https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/
    That's not a good article as it's a representation of the law 14 years ago and not a particularly comprehensive one at that.


  • Options
    #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yes, in a public space you can photograph anything and everything you like. Cars, people, children, breastfeeding, garda car chases, etc. because in a public place a person has no reasonable expectation to privacy.

    GDPR is a non-issue as you aren't a commercial entity and it, as a general rule of thumb, doesn't roll over into private individual use. It's also more geared towards the publishing of content rather than the taking of it.

    Harassment is a thing, and if you were to go out of your way to deliberately photograph the same person over and over, they could indeed argue you are harassing them. However, if they are actually illegally parked in a manner that causes concern for you, then their argument kinda falls on it's face (although this would never get to a court room anyway, so it doesn't really matter).

    You might find that some people are just idiots and are oblivious to the issues they cause. Having a quick friendly word can often have a better effect than whipping out the smartphone and pressing record. Many people don't like that, and will take it as an attack on them, and some will likely deliberately park in as obstructive a manner possible just to annoy you in return. A friendly chat, treating everyone like adults always helps.... or let the air out of their tyres. Whatever's handiest. haha.


  • Options
    #11
    coffeyt
    Registered Users Posts: 304 ✭✭coffeyt


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yes, in a public space you can photograph anything and everything you like. Cars, people, children, breastfeeding, garda car chases, etc. because in a public place a person has no reasonable expectation to privacy.

    GDPR is a non-issue as you aren't a commercial entity and it, as a general rule of thumb, doesn't roll over into private individual use. It's also more geared towards the publishing of content rather than the taking of it.

    Harassment is a thing, and if you were to go out of your way to deliberately photograph the same person over and over, they could indeed argue you are harassing them. However, if they are actually illegally parked in a manner that causes concern for you, then their argument kinda falls on it's face (although this would never get to a court room anyway, so it doesn't really matter).

    You might find that some people are just idiots and are oblivious to the issues they cause. Having a quick friendly word can often have a better effect than whipping out the smartphone and pressing record. Many people don't like that, and will take it as an attack on them, and some will likely deliberately park in as obstructive a manner possible just to annoy you in return. A friendly chat, treating everyone like adults always helps.... or let the air out of their tyres. Whatever's handiest. haha.

    Thanks for that, unfortunately the friendly chat route was tried numerous times to no avail so are left with no option but to pursue this way. We were basically told ah I'll only be a few mins kinda attitude which is grand when it's one but it's nearly all day every day, one after another!

    It's a case mainly of trucks parking on double yellow lines above the property entrance which means coming out of the property you are faced with pulling out blind onto a very busy road.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,560 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes, in a public space you can photograph anything and everything you like. Cars, people, children, breastfeeding, garda car chases, etc. because in a public place a person has no reasonable expectation to privacy.

    GDPR is a non-issue as you aren't a commercial entity and it, as a general rule of thumb, doesn't roll over into private individual use. It's also more geared towards the publishing of content rather than the taking of it.

    Harassment is a thing, and if you were to go out of your way to deliberately photograph the same person over and over, they could indeed argue you are harassing them. However, if they are actually illegally parked in a manner that causes concern for you, then their argument kinda falls on it's face (although this would never get to a court room anyway, so it doesn't really matter).

    You might find that some people are just idiots and are oblivious to the issues they cause. Having a quick friendly word can often have a better effect than whipping out the smartphone and pressing record. Many people don't like that, and will take it as an attack on them, and some will likely deliberately park in as obstructive a manner possible just to annoy you in return. A friendly chat, treating everyone like adults always helps.... or let the air out of their tyres. Whatever's handiest. haha.
    1. There's books of case law where privacy rights are engaged in public spaces. It's all entirely fact dependent. Think of Naomi Campbell being papped exiting rehab. A mother feeding a child is almost certainly one of these cases, not least because of the intimacy of the act and the age of the child.
    2. GDPR can apply to domestic situations. If you think it's entirely for business or commercial uses, there are dozens of threads here that will disabuse you of this notion along with decades of CJEU jurisprudence.

    Finally, do not advocate illegal activities


  • Options
    #13
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    coffeyt wrote: »
    Thanks for that, unfortunately the friendly chat route was tried numerous times to no avail so are left with no option but to pursue this way. We were basically told ah I'll only be a few mins kinda attitude which is grand when it's one but it's nearly all day every day, one after another!

    It's a case mainly of trucks parking on double yellow lines above the property entrance which means coming out of the property you are faced with pulling out blind onto a very busy road.

    Ring the local barracks each time it happens and continue ringing back every hour until they sort it out. Dangerous parking (based on your description) is up to 3 penalty points (unattractive for a “professional” driver or €2,500 in court). I wouldn’t advocate being a nuisance with gardai except where it is dangerous. Where this is the case, and you are persistent, I find it works wonders for response times.


  • Options
    #14
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,305 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    A friendly chat, treating everyone like adults always helps
    Nope. Narcissists don't respond like adults.


  • Options
    #15
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    mick987 wrote: »
    Point on the doll where the nasty man touched you?

    I ran out of time to post more to my story....

    But thanks for the laugh., ;-)

    The car was parked in such as spot we couldn't get onto the stop.
    There was nobody in the car but they were up away about 2 bus lengths, next thing I hear a man shouting and poking me in the chest.

    Next thing his yoke of a wife joined in screaming at me that how dare I take a photo of their car and I couldn't do that etc etc....

    The abuse and name calling was unreal.

    A complaint was put in where they left out the part that she wasn't alone and the husband was there.
    The complaint stated I attacked a poor defense less old woman who was going to hospital.

    Amazing how so much detail was left out.


  • Options
    #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Robbo wrote: »
    1. There's books of case law where privacy rights are engaged in public spaces. It's all entirely fact dependent. Think of Naomi Campbell being papped exiting rehab. A mother feeding a child is almost certainly one of these cases, not least because of the intimacy of the act and the age of the child.


    You can photograph whatever you want in a public place. Anything at all. The person/subject has no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you think breastfeeding is intimate, don't do it in public. Or risk someone taking a photo, etc. etc.

    In relation to Naomi, firstly that was in the UK, not Ireland, and secondly, the issue was they posted specific details of her treatment. The photos were allowed.

    Lord Carswell said the publication went beyond simply stating that Campbell was receiving therapy - to which she did not object - and intruded into what had some of the characteristics of medical treatment. It tended to deter her from continuing the treatment and inhibit others attending the course from staying with it

    Campbell, who made a uncharacteristically low-key appearance at the House of Lords for the hearing earlier this year, has conceded the Mirror was within its rights to reveal that she was receiving treatment for drug addiction.

    But the model claims the paper overstepped the mark and breached the law of confidence by publishing details of her therapy in an article she said left her feeling "shocked, angry, betrayed and violated".

    2. GDPR can apply to dom stic situations. If you think it's entirely for business or commercial uses, there are dozens of threads here that will disabuse you of this notion along with decades of CJEU jurisprudence.

    I can't think of any example of GDPR applying to individuals? Can you give an example of someone in a personal/individual capacity having GDPR used against them? It also relates more-so to the publishing of content rather than creating it, so the OP is free to take photos or videos all he wants.


  • Options
    #17
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,930 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You can photograph whatever you want in a public place. Anything at all. The person/subject has no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you think breastfeeding is intimate, don't do it in public. Or risk someone taking a photo, etc. etc.

    In relation to Naomi, firstly that was in the UK, not Ireland, and secondly, the issue was they posted specific details of her treatment. The photos were allowed.







    I can't think of any example of GDPR applying to individuals? Can you give an example of someone in a personal/individual capacity having GDPR used against them? It also relates more-so to the publishing of content rather than creating it, so the OP is free to take photos or videos all he wants.

    The OP is posting somewhere so that's going to be a commercial company where they are posting, taking a picture is not an issue it's what you do after with the data that's the issue.

    Also aren't registration plates considered personal data?


  • Options
    #18
    afatbollix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,046 ✭✭✭afatbollix


    A car can't sue you, So you should be ok with taking its picture.


  • Options
    #19
    afatbollix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,046 ✭✭✭afatbollix


    Del2005 wrote: »

    Also aren't registration plates considered personal data?

    No as the plate is for the car not the owner.

    The data of the owner is not publicly available.


  • Options
    #20
    More Music
    Registered Users Posts: 872 ✭✭✭More Music


    coffeyt wrote: »
    Can anyone advise the following:
    Is legal to take a picture of a vehicle parked illegally?

    I'm not referring to publishing of it but say a person is trying to build a case to show dangerous parking in an area with a view to getting the garda to enforce the law, can a person take pictures of vehicles that are parked illegally for that use?

    Have been advised there could be a gdpr issue but cannot find anything to confirm this?

    Don't Gardai constantly ask for dashcam footage in relation to road traffic incidents?

    That's a picture or footage of a car possibly being used in an illegal/criminal act or way.

    Actually, they ask in relation to any type of incident where there's a resonable chance they might get dashcam footage.

    The "criminal" person or car being recorded by dashcam has not given consent, yet the Guards can use it.


  • Options
    #21
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    afatbollix wrote: »
    No as the plate is for the car not the owner.

    The data of the owner is not publicly available.

    See this post:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109286177

    The EUs independent working party that dealt with issues relating to the protection of privacy and personal data (formerly the Art. 29 WP, now the EDPB) agreed they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,560 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You can photograph whatever you want in a public place. Anything at all. The person/subject has no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you think breastfeeding is intimate, don't do it in public. Or risk someone taking a photo, etc. etc.

    In relation to Naomi, firstly that was in the UK, not Ireland, and secondly, the issue was they posted specific details of her treatment. The photos were allowed.
    Indeed, the rugged individualist may argue that people should not reasonable expect to receive medical treatment on the road having been hit by a bus lest our freedom loving lensmen see fair game for some personal snapping. Some of us, however, don't see having the ethics of a tabloid photographer as being something to aspire to.

    The proposition that you have no expectation of privacy in a public place is quite simply unsustainable once you begin to pick at issues of context and the law.

    Returning to La Campbell, you may wish to do better than rely on the Guardian's case report as it's some distance away from Lord Carswell's actual judgment. The photos most definitely weren't "allowed" and were a key part of the intrusion into her private life.
    At Paragraph 165 It seems to me that the publication of the details of the appellant's course of treatment at NA and of the photographs taken surreptitiously in the street of her emerging from a meeting went significantly beyond the publication of the fact that she was receiving therapy or that she was engaged in a course of therapy with NA. It revealed where the treatment was taking place and the text went into the frequency of her treatment. In this way it intruded into what had some of the characteristics of medical treatment and it tended to deter her from continuing the treatment which was in her interest and also to inhibit other persons attending the course from staying with it, when they might be concerned that their participation might become public knowledge.

    At Paragraph 168 Publication of the details about the appellant's attendance at therapy carried out by Narcotics Anonymous, highlighted by the photographs printed, constituted in my judgment a considerable intrusion into her private affairs, which was capable of causing substantial distress, and on her evidence did cause it to her.
    Whilst you quite correctly point out the the House of Lords, Naomi Campbell and the Mirror are all things that may be found in the UK, the law relied on was the Convention on Human Rights to which Ireland is signed up, the UK's Data Protection Act which flows from the same directive to which were (at the time) signed up to. You may wish to read Nolan v. Sunday Newspapers for a useful run down on similar issues which was dealt with by our own Court of Appeal.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can't think of any example of GDPR applying to individuals? Can you give an example of someone in a personal/individual capacity having GDPR used against them? It also relates more-so to the publishing of content rather than creating it, so the OP is free to take photos or videos all he wants.
    Off the top of my head; Rynes (Case C‑212/13) and Buivids (Case C-345/17). One involves publishing, one doesn't.

    If you want to argue the false proposition that these aren't good law since the passing of the GDPR, do a search on this forum because that canard crops up with alarming regularity. I blame terrible GDPR training performed by chancers and opportunists.


  • Options
    #23
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You can photograph whatever you want in a public place. Anything at all. The person/subject has no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you think breastfeeding is intimate, don't do it in public. Or risk someone taking a photo, etc. etc.

    In relation to Naomi, firstly that was in the UK, not Ireland, and secondly, the issue was they posted specific details of her treatment. The photos were allowed.

    Further to Robbo's post there has been a number of ECtHR decisions which have held you most certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy and protection of your private life, even when in a public place and even if for example you are famous, our even royalty, in other words your right to privacy (even in public) will often trump freedom of expression or public interest even when your well known.

    ECtHR decisions, whilst not binding on the state must however be judicially noted.


  • Options
    #24
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Robbo wrote: »
    You may wish to read Nolan v. Sunday Newspapers for a useful run down on similar issues which was dealt with by our own Court of Appeal.


    I don't know anything about that case, and I won't lie, I haven't currently got a lot of free time so there is an element of 'skimming your post' by me, which isn't intended to be disrespectful, but just wanted to be honest.

    But from clicking the link i quoted above, I note this:
    In his written judgment ([2017] IEHC 367), having set out brief extracts from the 2012 article and having described the photographs that accompanied it and the accompanying captions, the trial judge found that the photographs and captions "inclines a reasonable viewer towards the impression that the plaintiff was a major organiser of orgies". He went on to describe the 2012 article as characterising the respondent as "a principal organiser of orgies in the State with a lurking undertone of criminality".

    It seems again like photography in a public place was not an issue. The issue stems from (presumably exaggerated) captions associated with the images which may have been misleading and defamatory, which is what the issue was (rather than the photography in and of itself).

    Robbo wrote:
    Indeed, the rugged individualist may argue that people should not reasonable expect to receive medical treatment on the road having been hit by a bus lest our freedom loving lensmen see fair game for some personal snapping

    That's your opinion. Currently there's massive unrest ongoing because a man was effectively strangled to death by Police officers in the US. If no one recorded the event, would the truth ever have come out?

    Thankfully, neither of our opinions have any bearings on reasonable expectation to privacy in a public place.


  • Options
    #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GM228 wrote: »
    Further to Robbo's post there has been a number of ECtHR decisions which have held you most certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy and protection of your private life, even when in a public place and even if for example you are famous, our even royalty, in other words your right to privacy (even in public) will often trump freedom of expression or public interest even when your well known.

    ECtHR decisions, whilst not binding on the state must however be judicially noted.


    Do you have actual examples? Not looking for a case-file with hours of reading, but if you can cite a single actual example I'd be happy to take a further look at it when i get a chance.


    Nonetheless, OP is entitled to record or photograph in the circumstances he sets out in his post.


    EDIT: As an aside, I've been a pro photographer for almost a decade.


  • Options
    #26
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It seems again like photography in a public place was not an issue. The issue stems from (presumably exaggerated) captions associated with the images which may have been misleading and defamatory, which is what the issue was (rather than the photography in and of itself).

    Whilst the photographs were not taken in a public place, the issue most definitely was about the photographs as it turned into an issue of invasion of privacy as opposed to defamation on cross-appeal.

    Note the findings of the CoA:-
    The publication of the photographs was a grave breach of his right to privacy

    And the final decision of the CoA:-
    I would allow the respondent's cross appeal and declare that his constitutional right to privacy was breached by the appellant.


  • Options
    #27
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Do you have actual examples? Not looking for a case-file with hours of reading, but if you can cite a single actual example I'd be happy to take a further look at it when i get a chance.


    Nonetheless, OP is entitled to record or photograph in the circumstances he sets out in his post.


    EDIT: As an aside, I've been a pro photographer for almost a decade.

    The Von Hannover vs Germany (No. 59320/00) ECHR 2004 case would be a good start.

    Some important points about photographs in public places:-
    Von Hannover wrote:
    All the photos of the applicant had been taken exclusively in public places

    <SNIP>

    The Court notes at the outset that in the present case the photos of the applicant in the various German magazines show her in scenes from her daily life, thus involving activities of a purely private nature such as engaging in sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday

    <SNIP>

    The Court reiterates the fundamental importance of protecting private life from the point of view of the development of every human being’s personality. That protection – as stated above – extends beyond the private family circle and also includes a social dimension. The Court considers that anyone, even if they are known to the general public, must be able to enjoy a “legitimate expectation” of protection of and respect for their private life

    Note activities from your daily life (i.e out walking or going to a restaurant), not your private life in the traditional sense are considered a private nature and afforded the protection of privacy.

    And part of the conclusion by the ECtHR:-
    Von Hannover wrote:
    Furthermore, the Court considers that the public does not have a legitimate interest in knowing where the applicant is and how she behaves generally in her private life even if she appears in places that cannot always be described as secluded and despite the fact that she is well known to the public.


    And just to come back to this point you previously made:-
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You can photograph whatever you want in a public place. Anything at all. The person/subject has no reasonable expectation to privacy.

    The photographs in the case were taken "exclusively in public places", but, the ECtHR held:-
    Von Hannover wrote:
    Lastly, in the Court’s opinion the criteria established by the domestic courts were not sufficient to ensure the effective protection of the applicant’s private life and she should, in the circumstances of the case, have had a “legitimate expectation” of protection of her private life.


  • Options
    #28
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,551 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    I ran out of time to post more to my story....

    But thanks for the laugh., ;-)

    The car was parked in such as spot we couldn't get onto the stop.
    There was nobody in the car but they were up away about 2 bus lengths, next thing I hear a man shouting and poking me in the chest.

    Next thing his yoke of a wife joined in screaming at me that how dare I take a photo of their car and I couldn't do that etc etc....

    The abuse and name calling was unreal.

    A complaint was put in where they left out the part that she wasn't alone and the husband was there.
    The complaint stated I attacked a poor defense less old woman who was going to hospital.

    Amazing how so much detail was left out.
    Just curious - who did they put in a complaint to?


  • Options
    #29
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Just curious - who did they put in a complaint to?

    The job.

    Bizarre it was even entertained to be honest, huge write up done our and awaiting my presence for interview.

    Guilty until found guilty is how it works there....


  • Options
    #30
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Just curious - who did they put in a complaint to?

    Dublin bus I would hazard a guess, given the amount of abuse the guy has got.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Do you have actual examples? Not looking for a case-file with hours of reading, but if you can cite a single actual example I'd be happy to take a further look at it when i get a chance.


    Nonetheless, OP is entitled to record or photograph in the circumstances he sets out in his post.


    EDIT: As an aside, I've been a pro photographer for almost a decade.

    As robbo said look at the Rynes case. Lad videoing his own property. It's not as clear cut as you are thinking.


Advertisement