I think the definition of hurrassment is perlonged or persistent targeting of specific trauma. A couple of photos would be hard pressed to stand up as a hurrassment case. How would the paparazzi continue to operate otherwise for example.
I agree... I can't find the link to the .pdf but here is some info on the matter that I found an interesting read... (sorry for the rubbish editing and layout)
EDIT - THe following can be found as a .pdf halfway down the following
link. It has useful info on taking pictures in public, about harassment, privacy, terrorism laws, etc...
Harassment and Invasion of Privacy - It is illegal to harass another person and taking photographs could amount to harassment. This isn't to say that someone could claim they were being harassed just because they were being photographed when they didn't want to be. Harassment is essentially behaviour that causes another person alarm or distress and it refers to a course of conduct, not a single incident. (A "course of conduct" means at least two occasions.) If a photographer stalks a subject in order to get a photograph of them, or repeatedly thrusts a camera in someone's face, this might be harassment.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, harassment is a criminal offence, for which the penalty is up to 6 months in prison, or a fine, or both. A victim of harassment can also ask for an injunction to prevent further harassment and bring a claim for damages. Breaching an injunction is also a criminal offence. In Scotland, harassment itself is not a criminal offence, but the victim can ask the court for a "non-harassment order" against the person who is harassing him. Breach of the order is a criminal offence. In addition, a person who harasses another might be charged with breach of the peace, which is a crime in Scotland. Breach of the peace, unlike
harassment, requires only a single incident.
The law surrounding invasion of privacy has developed rapidly in recent years. Article 8 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The Convention rights are taken into account by the UK courts in determining any cases that come before them. As this area of the law is changing and developing, it is hard to be certain about what will and what will not amount to an infringement of Article 8. The use of long lens to take a photo of someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent, is an invasion of privacy even though the photo is taken from a public place.
For images of people in public places, the key seems to be whether the place is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the courts have greatly extended the areas where this might be the case. A court has held that the right of privacy of a child might be infringed by the taking and publishing of a photograph of him with his parents in a public street. Privacy actions in the UK have been concerned with publication rather than simply the taking of a photograph, but a recent decision of the ECHR suggest that simply taking a photograph may, in some circumstances, infringe the right.
Photographers are therefore advised to be careful when taking photographs intended for some kind of publication, even when the subject is in a public place. Photographs taken of people at public events are probably still permissible, at least for the present. The general advice is to get consent, and preferably written consent, wherever possible. Failure to obtain a signed model release will certainly impair the commercial use of an image, because many photo libraries, stock agencies and the like will not accept an image of a recognisable person without a release.
Photographs of people may also be subject to the Data Protection Act, which controls the "processing" of "personal data", that is, data relating to an individual and from which the individual can be identified. There has not yet been a court case that has determined whether or not an image of a person, without any other identifying information, would be caught by the Act, so photographers should be aware of the possibility. The Act also contains an exception for processing undertaken with a view to publication of any journalistic, literary or artistic material, if certain criteria are met.
so what rules are then?
haha
)
This is the link Tysonator was on about