'Street photographer' taking photos of people discreetly in coffee shop

[OrcinusOrca]

I am quite frustrated about a situation earlier and I don't know if I just need a grip!

Sat in a well known coffee chain earlier. Noticed someone taking photos but very discreetly on a Nikon. I wasn't certain at first but kept watching and definitely taking photos. Photos included children sat with their DM a few tables away, and then of a woman's arse (she was wearing a dress, photographer was sat on a low down sofa and had camera on their lap).

I kept meeting eye contact and the photographer put their camera down** after the second or third time. They then were (I suspect) taking photos on a mobile phone a little while after. I didn't feel comfortable saying anything directly, but I left what was left in my drink and went to speak to someone behind the counter. They told me this person is a street photographer and there is nothing they can do. 'They're an idiot' but very friendly and I could go and ask them not to take photos of me and they should oblige. I told them about the woman in a dress and they just said they can't do anything about it.

I still didn't feel comfortable confronting the photographer for a couple of reasons, so I just left it. I think what bothered me the most was the fact that they were taking photos so discreetly, and that they stopped after we met eyes a couple of times. I feel like if they stood up and announced what they were doing and said 'let me know if you want to opt out', a lot of people would have.

AIBU to be bothered by this?

Please let me be the first to say: ring 101!

Alternatively, march up to said weirdo and do what I did to the bitch that broke up my marriage, attack with a tin of Heinz soup.

No thats weird. I wouldnt like it either

I wouldn't LIKE it..

But I suspect they are trying to get photos of people just going about daily life, in natural poses, oblivious to the camera.

The minute you go and ask someone if they mind, you lose that, its completely gone, they are aware of the camera and won't behave remotely naturally.

Whether or not you or I like it, it is legal, they are breaking no laws at all so if you spot it and don't want to be photographed its up to you to walk away.

It's legal in a public place (on the street) but they can be asked to leave if they do it on private property (as in this case at a coffee shop chain).

"Shopping centres, parks, churches and stations might look like public places, but in reality most of them are privately owned. If you are asked to leave private property, but fail to do so, your presence could be considered trespass, and you could be removed using reasonable force."
www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/technique/expert_advice/street-photography-and-the-law-96304

"If you're on private land and the owner asks you to leave, failure to do so will be classed as trespass. They can use reasonable force to make you leave the land, but this doesn't include grabbing or smashing your kit."
www.techradar.com/uk/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide-1320949

^ interesting distinction buttermilk.

Its creepy but not illegal. Im in a photography groip on fb and lots of people do this. Super creepy

Legally thr coffee shop owners could have asked him to leave because he was on their property.
In reality though I doubt I'd have said anything other than to possibly strike up a conversation with him and ask about the photos he was taking. I like street photography though and don't find it creepy at all. Those natural, unposed pictures of people going about their daily business are interesting to look at and in the future they could be an important part of social history. There was an exhibition in a local art gallery/museum thing that I went to a while back that showed a range of street photography type shots from the 1960s tp today and it was fascinating.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Not automatically allowed at all, the consent of the business/private property would be required.

I take candid photos of people sometimes but not very often as I really like it as a style of photography but I don't feel I've got a very good eye for what makes pics like that interesting

march up to said weirdo and do what I did to the bitch that broke up my marriage, attack with a tin of Heinz soup.

^^ this needs an in depth thread of its own. Pretty please. With bells on!

As someone said above that is photographing into private property which is not allowed I think - the difference between a picture of someone on a beach in public v. in their private villa.

It's becoming quite a difficult issue of our age. If you are in England then you probably do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a cafe rather than on the stree under data protection law. Even in the street JK rowling's small child could not be photographed in its pushchair, the courts said.

The police guidelines about when journalists can photograph police on the streets had to be amended and reissued after protests about restrictions on photographing them. Some teachers even are being given body cams; people have dash cams; never mind mobile phones all over. Obviously the BBC and others have taken photos at football matches and the like for decades.

Anyway you were in a cafe so it should not go on. If you were in the crowds on the street at the Notting Hill Carnival then they probably can take your photo.

@Xenia ah, but JK Rowling’s small child wasn’t allowed to be photographed on the street as they did have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it was his mother who was famous not him

@TheDairyQueen

Tell us more about the Heinz incident

Private detective?

Another one who's desperate to hear about the Heinz Soup incident! With illustrations maybe?

Doesn't bother me at all. No different to appearing on the hundreds of CCTV images everyday.

is the photographer male or female?
has that made a difference to your interpretation.
i like candid photography

I dont know how OP knows the photographer was taking photos of "a womans arse" suspect she add that to make it sound creepy.
Street photography isnt "creepy" (says more about the posters who calls it creepy rather than the photographer themselves )
I also think it is valuable for future historic resource.

also it is artistic

No different to appearing on the hundreds of CCTV images everyday

Of course it is. CCTV just photographs what is there and doesn't discriminate. And it is extremely unlikely anyone will view the footage. Presumably OP's photographer is framing the shots and will view them afterwards.

Hope your ex was also challenged soupily TDQ!

What about if the children could be put in danger by publication of their images? For example, children in foster care, fleeing DV, or adopted kids?

It's not "art" if it could get your kids harmed.

The arse photo would have bothered me. I like to think I’d be forthright enough to ask whether I could look at the photos, but in reality I’d probably do what you did and speak to the staff.

I think they would have the right to ask him to leave- especially if what he was doing was bothering other customers.

YANBU, OP.

I hate having my photo taken by anyone I know let alone some random on the street. Some years ago I was walking in a shopping centre and realised a bloke had just taken a covert picture of me He saw I'd clocked it and looked a bit sheepish but I didn't want to risk a confrontation so just glared. Still wish I'd had the balls to say something though.

I'm a photographer. Taking pictures like that sounds very dubious, it's not something I'd do. I do street photography but it's fairly obvious I'm doing it and I don't do it in private places, I use my common sense about what not to photograph - for example I'd never take/publish photos of children in school uniform unless I'd been commissioned by the school of course.