The interesting case is Naomi Campbell's; it sets a precedence that there may be a privacy issue even with a photo taken from public property of an individual out in the open... that's bad news for paparazzi.
Thinking of becoming an paparazzi
The interesting case is Naomi Campbell's; it sets a precedence that there may be a privacy issue even with a photo taken from public property of an individual out in the open... that's bad news for paparazzi.
Feel partly responsible for the onset of this discussion....! Should have left my pedantry at home!post #3 ... just saying![]()
Yes you have. Voyeurism is an offence under the sexual offences act for one thing.What Steve said is true. You can get a telephoto zoom lens and take a photo of the Queen in her undies in the palace but if you've taken the pic from a public road, you haven't broken any laws.
Not really, as long as the state can prove the observer gained some sexual gratification from it. Depends what you're intowouldnt she have to actally be doing the funky munky with Phillip for a voyeurism charge to stick though ?
Yes you have. Voyeurism is an offence under the sexual offences act for one thing.
As I posted above.But only if sexual gratification can be proved. That's the difference.
As I posted above.
Still, the first step of the investigation would see you arrested, equipment seized, detained for hours, a lengthy and likely rather embarrassing interview, then bailed for weeks while witnesses etc are spoken to and CPS advice obtained in order to ascertain if any possible sexual gratification occurred.
Not worth it even if you are NFA'd at the end!
My advice would be not to photograph anyone getting naked through their windows on this one![]()
...also, if you're taking pics of the queen in her tidy whities, you might get shot before that process beginsFully aware of the process Jim, I spent long enough in the police service (forensic arena),totally agree with you it's not worth anyone going down this route !