The law and photographing in public places

pixbyjohn

Does anyone know where I can obtain the legislation regarding the law in photographing in public places in Ireland. I am looking for the specific wording of the law.

charybdis

I'm not a lawyer and I don't really know a lot about the subject at hand, but I think the situation is that there isn't actually an explicit prohibition of it as opposed to an endorsement.

This is generally a good reference for legal issues relating to photography in Ireland, although it doesn't actually cite the laws it's based on.

Antomus Prime

A friend of mine was involved in a dispute with a newspaper for using his photos without proper permission. I'll tell him about this thread and see if he can help ya out

a148pro

pretty sure there's no legislation. there was a case about two weeks ago where twink's former husband's partner lost a case trying to sue a tabloid for taking photos of her and her son leaving the registry of Births Marriages and Deaths or somesuch place

basically Mr. Justice Kearns ruled that there is no law against taking a photo in a public place. but he saw fit to comment that the paper had stooped to the lowest levels and I'm pretty sure he did not award the paper its costs which is unusual given that they won the case.

so basically, there is no law as such, and as the Constitution allows freedom of expression, anything you do in public may be photographed and disseminated, unless it offended against another law, i.e., paedophilia, incitement to racial hatred etc

PCPhoto

the law regarding photography in public places is effectively .... if you are out in public you are fair game to be photographed ...if you are on private grounds - you need permission of the property owner.

if you are on public grounds (outside private grounds) and using a telescopic lens ...theres a reasonable expectation of privacy expected etc etc.....its a legal minefield...sometimes you can get away with it ...sometimes you cant. (all depends on the circumstances involved...and possibly the legal arguements put forward)


However - publishing the image is a different thing altogether !! (I wont get into that at the moment)

sineadw

There have been a few big test cases in the UK recently about expectation of privacy even if you're in a public place. It's in the EU charter on human rights - article 8 gives right to privacy and a private life, article 10 ensures freedom of expression. At the moment the law is based on the constitution and left pretty much to a judge to decide case by case. Recently they've been coming down on the side of privacy. We're also moving more towards the european civil law idea of moral rights, and right of ownership of image, which could pretty much kill street photography altogether.

Check out this article for a little bit more detail. I'm doing my dissertation on this so have tons of stuff if you need it..

sineadw

Actual letter of the law is here by the way: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/PrivacyBill06.pdf/Files/PrivacyBill06.pdf
but it won't do you much good. It's all over the place at the moment, as everyone has mentioned..

magicbastarder

sineadw wrote: »

We're also moving more towards the european civil law idea of moral rights, and right of ownership of image, which could pretty much kill street photography altogether.

i wonder will it have any effect on the prevalence of CCTV in the UK?

digitalbeginner

We cover street photography on our Creative Photography Course and one of the topics is the rights of the photographer in public places. Our views on this are very much informed by this piece on the Digital Rights website http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Dave

SolarNexus

Not a legal expert but everytime I've investigated it its come down to this:

Whilst there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as while on private property, you are required to obtain permission or not take any pictures at all.

Where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a public place or on public roads, you are fully within your rights to take and make use of the pictures you take.

Oddly enough I've heard this also means that if someone leaves their curtains open or door ajar and you can see into the house/dwelling, then the letter of the law says you may consider it public and take photos. Though I would imagine there would be some dispute about that.

SolarNexus

digitalbeginner wrote: »

We cover street photography on our Creative Photography Course and one of the topics is the rights of the photographer in public places. Our views on this are very much informed by this piece on the Digital Rights website http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Dave

great link!

sineadw

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wonder will it have any effect on the prevalence of CCTV in the UK?

I doubt it very much tbh. Surveillance and street photography are seen very differently, by both the law and the general public. Any new direction in the law in the UK concerning privacy would have to override the various counter-terrorism acts, and I just can't see that happening. Even in France, where you can be sued for publishing an image without the person's consent, and where moral rights started and are probably the strongest in the world, surveillance is on the up big time. Look at the new Loppsi and Hadopi measures there. If anything I think surveillance could be the thing that starts the ball rolling on Moral rights big time in the UK - as people feel more and more watched by the government and police, they may start exercising any reasonable right to objection of a photograph being taken. It'll give them back some power over privacy.

We'll see...

Cakes.

Sorry to pull up an old thread, but I e-mailed Citizens information and asked them if there is a law regarding this and if so what is it.

They said :

Citizens Information wrote:

Regarding your email;
There are some Data Protection issues raised, when taking photographs of the general public.

If a person is NOT clearly identifiable and the photo is of a general crowd , then this is acceptable.
If a person is clearly identifiable in a picture, this is personal data and you many need their permission depending on what or where the specific image was to be used. ie promote some thing or general/personal use.

Please check out the Data Protection website at;
Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. Canal House, Station Road, Portarlington, Co. Laois, Ireland.
LoCall 1890 25 22 31 - Phone 00353 57 868 4800 - Fax 00353 57 868 4757 - email info@dataprotection.ie
or contact them for further information

humberklog

Cakesofrice wrote: »

Sorry to pull up an old thread, but I e-mailed Citizens information and asked them if there is a law regarding this and if so what is it.

They said :

Gotta say Cakes (and in no way is it directed at you) but Citz. Ad. are talking through their hat. Have they never seen a copy of Now! magazine (celebs have exact same rights as everyone else), or The Herald with people going in and out of the courts. Through their hats they're talking I say.

What gets my goat is that we, us, me, you (and them) can't get clear and decisive leg. on it. Guff by halfwits flicking their belly button fluff of an opinion seems to cover it at the moment.

As said it's a dig at the incompetence of those that should know and not your good self.

PCPhoto

humberklog wrote: »

As said it's a dig at the incompetence of those that should know and not your good self.

story of our economy and government isnt it ? lol

trad

I was taking photos of an accident near the Four Courts a few years ago involving an ambulance, a taxi and a pedestrian and I was threathened by 2 female Gardai with arrest under the Public Order Act. When I pointed out there was an RTE camera crew at the same scene I was left alone.

pixbyjohn

trad wrote: »

I was taking photos of an accident near the Four Courts a few years ago involving an ambulance, a taxi and a pedestrian and I was threathened by 2 female Gardai with arrest under the Public Order Act. When I pointed out there was an RTE camera crew at the same scene I was left alone.

It is in cases like this where it is necessary to have the laws spelled out precisely. Most of the Gardai and the public really don't know what the law is in relation to photography in public places.

matrim

humberklog wrote: »

Gotta say Cakes (and in no way is it directed at you) but Citz. Ad. are talking through their hat. Have they never seen a copy of Now! magazine (celebs have exact same rights as everyone else), or The Herald with people going in and out of the courts. Through their hats they're talking I say.

What gets my goat is that we, us, me, you (and them) can't get clear and decisive leg. on it. Guff by halfwits flicking their belly button fluff of an opinion seems to cover it at the moment.

As said it's a dig at the incompetence of those that should know and not your good self.

I read that Citizen's Advice response more to do with publishing the photo

you many need their permission depending on what or where the specific image was to be used. ie promote some thing or general/personal use.

I think they are saying you can take the photo but depending on what you want to do with it you may need permission (i.e. you can't take their photo then use it in advertising for something)

trad

In deference to the 2 female Gardai I was not aware that there was a pedestrian trapped in front of the ambulance ( a hoarding had collapsed). they may have been acting in the best interests of the pedestrian. I stood my ground and asked them to specify the offence under the Public Order Act and I got something about failing to move on when requested.

humberklog

matrim wrote: »

I read that Citizen's Advice response more to do with publishing the photo

Yeah I'm reading it re publishing too though. Sure just a quick scan through the papers and magazines and there full of pics of people that wouldn't have been asked for permission such as celebs going in and out of nightclubs or accused and sentenced people entering and leaving the courts. These are just two regular examples of people in the general public highway being snapped and then having their images printed.

pixbyjohn

trad wrote: »

In deference to the 2 female Gardai I was not aware that there was a pedestrian trapped in front of the ambulance ( a hoarding had collapsed). they may have been acting in the best interests of the pedestrian. I stood my ground and asked them to specify the offence under the Public Order Act and I got something about failing to move on when requested.

So it wasn't because you were taking photos so ?

Chapo

I took a photo of a road accident dispute attended by a Garda Sergeant. She made me delete the image as I wasn’t allowed to ‘photograph a member of the force conducting an investigation.’ Was she correct?

Cakes.

AFAIK only a Judge can order you to delete pictures

magicbastarder

Chapo wrote: »

I took a photo of a road accident dispute attended by a Garda Sergeant. She made me delete the image as I wasn’t allowed to ‘photograph a member of the force conducting an investigation.’ Was she correct?

if what you are doing is not an offence, she can't ask you to delete it.
if what you are doing is an offence, she is asking you to delete crucial evidence of the offence being committed, and she can't ask you to delete it.

Chapo

That’s just the problem – I didn’t know the law and I respected her ‘expertise’. Seems like I was sold a pup? But it probably wasn’t worth the hassle of going to the station to find out!

Buceph

trad wrote: »

In deference to the 2 female Gardai I was not aware that there was a pedestrian trapped in front of the ambulance ( a hoarding had collapsed). they may have been acting in the best interests of the pedestrian. I stood my ground and asked them to specify the offence under the Public Order Act and I got something about failing to move on when requested.

That's the problem with the Public Order Act. It gives Gardaí carte blanche to make certain requests, and if you refuse you can be arrested and prosecuted under it. Give it a read some time, it's a horrifying piece of legislation.

trad

pixbyjohn wrote: »

So it wasn't because you were taking photos so ?

It was because she didn't want me taking photos.


Here's the pic

K_user

Chapo wrote: »

I took a photo of a road accident dispute attended by a Garda Sergeant. She made me delete the image as I wasn’t allowed to ‘photograph a member of the force conducting an investigation.’ Was she correct?

They can't "tell" you to delete a photograph.

They can ask you politely and you can agree too out of courtesy, but you can't be forced. However that is easier to say while sitting in the safety of my own home.

In the end the photograph in question is the only "evidence" that you weren't doing anything wrong and theirs that you were. If its deleted then its their word against yours...

K_user

Buceph wrote: »

That's the problem with the Public Order Act. It gives Gardaí carte blanche to make certain requests, and if you refuse you can be arrested and prosecuted under it. Give it a read some time, it's a horrifying piece of legislation.

There was a case in Galway a number of years ago where a student was arrested and prosecuted because she demanded help from a Guard to stop a fight in a takeaway. The Judge said that it wasn't for the public to demand anything from the police force. And just to note no one that was involved in the actual fight got into trouble!

Got to love the Public Order Act. It does give the Guards the power to prosecute you for simply being arrested. But alot of that does come down to how you deal with the situation on the day.

St. Leibowitz

You did not have to delete the photo. Only a court order can make you do that. Two guards in Dublin took a guy into the back of a van and made him delete images he had taken of them. He took them to court and they were convicted of assault and criminal damage (to the images), and fined. They appealed, and the judge quashed the convictions and fines (they probably would have been dismissed from the force if he hadn't), and applied the probation act.

However, the important thing is that the judge made it clear that they had committed an offence.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/two-gardai-convicted-of-assault-outside-pub-1965153.html


http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2010/jun/27/gardai-convicted-of-assault-have-criminal-charges-/

Fionn

minor bruising eh? :rolleyes:

I dont understand why dont they teach this stuff in Garda school??? there must be enough information and court cases etc. there to make up a lesson or series of lessons teaching Guards how to handle this sort of thing.

Chapo

Excellent link!! I'll just quote 'Cat & Cage' next time I'm in this situation. I wonder is this case law example taught in Templemore?

St. Leibowitz

To be honest, I reckon every supernintendo has had this posted up on the noticeboard in every district. They should be well aware of it for the next few months, but it'll probably slip the mind of some members after that. Also, I wouldn't cheek up just because you have this in your back pocket. There's also the notorious Public Order Act and its provisions on complying with the lawful directions of a Garda to bear in mind.

In the end, these guys are doing a difficult job and for the most time dealing with people who most of us wouldn't even think existed in our nightmares. Usually, a bit of respect goes along way, but you'll always get the few who consider you showing them respect as a sign of weakness, and leaving you open to getting a load of attitude.

Every situation in different, and should be evaluated and responded to as it develops. Personally, I wouldn't start off on an agressive stance.

jaybeeveedub

in fairness to Citiznes Information you're not reading their response correctly

"you many need their permission depending on what or where the specific image was to be used. ie promote some thing or general/personal use"

this is bang on....

If you intend to use the image to advertise some product or service then you must obtain the persons permission and in all likelihood pay them....

if it is for news/artistic purposes then you dont

they're not wrong at all

regarding the Public Order Act, its not a panacea for the Gardai, hteere are siginificant restriction on when they may exercise their power

8.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds a person in a public place and suspects, with reasonable cause, that such person—

(a) is or has been acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of section 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 or 9 , or

(b) without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, is acting in a manner which consists of loitering in a public place in circumstances, which may include the company of other persons, that give rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of the public peace,

The text in red is the part that they will try to apply to a person taking photographs, so if asked to move on while taking photos, request information on what in your actions is giving them "reasonable" grounds for thinking that you present a risk to the safety of persons, property or to public peace. As you as a photographer have reasonable excuse... lingering being defined as being in a public place without a valid reason.

Effects

I had my camera confiscated and was arrested for taking photos at the scene of a crime a long time ago. Cop was being a total asshole. They took the roll and I lost some photos that were pretty important to me. I was young and didn't know any better at the time.

On a different note, Joel Meyerowitz was assaulted at ground zero at 9/11 by a cop for taking photos of a crime scene. He went on to be one of a small number of photogs who get permission to access the site and document the renewal.