Taking public photos/videos of people in a public place?
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Sort of correct, albeit in the UK you can also legally be on public property but taking photos of/into private property. Of course this could be a moral issue and could fall under other crimes such as harassment but generally speaking you're fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Well "no expectation of privacy in a public place" insinuates that the subject also needs to be in a public place, which is not correct.
It is in some countries like France, but not the UK.
It is in some countries like France, but not the UK.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
That suggests you can sit out on the street and use a telephoto lens straight into someone's bedroom without breaking any laws?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Correct. Of course if you were questioned as to why you were doing it and you had no real reason, and/or the subject wanted to prosecute for harassment or restraining etc, then that would be valid but it's irrelevant to the photography element. You could equally just be watching them or using binoculars etc.
That's an extreme example remember. A shopping centre is private property, so technically a security guard could prevent you from taking photos inside but they can't stop you from taking photos of it or into it.
Most of the times this is done it's completely innocent and you wouldn't think twice. Press photographers probably take photos every day of people on private property; leaving courts, celeb weddings, etc etc.
That's why the Kate Middleton topless photo thing was interesting, they were in France and on private property so it was illegal aside from any moral/harassment etc issues.
That's an extreme example remember. A shopping centre is private property, so technically a security guard could prevent you from taking photos inside but they can't stop you from taking photos of it or into it.
Most of the times this is done it's completely innocent and you wouldn't think twice. Press photographers probably take photos every day of people on private property; leaving courts, celeb weddings, etc etc.
That's why the Kate Middleton topless photo thing was interesting, they were in France and on private property so it was illegal aside from any moral/harassment etc issues.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
That's tomorrow evening sorted for me.
Now, where did I leave my mac and dark glasses?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
I'd recommend not wearing sunglasses if you're taking photos.
Yeah, but then If I'm rumbled I can pretend I'm a private detective.
might be a grey area... but if say Kate Middleton was sunbathing topless on her estate and a paparazzi could spot her from a public place with a big zoom lens then he could get away with it
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Some of them would end up dead if real.
Only if you have the glasses, nose and moustache disguise
You'd probably be had up for voyeurism charges, but that probably wouldn't make a difference if you had a camera or not. The photos just provides more evidence.
Also worth noting the police cannot force you to delete any photos (or delete them themselves). If it's a crime then they would be tampering with evidence and if it wasn't they don't have any legal backing and it's just a request. As said though the police have finally started to be properly trained in this area.