>>3443019>Photography is not speech.It is classified as speech in the broader sense in most legal systems though. I mean, you could just write a very detailed ("photographic") depiction of how a person looks. Or make a very detailed sketch/drawing. Or take a photo. Under law, there's barely any distinction between the three.
>requests from those photographed to remove publicised images should be up for discussion unless it's a matter of public interestI don't disagree with that. But they're always up for discussion. Even if a court ruled a thousand times in favour of the photographer is similar cases, you can still get your case to court and hope for a different result. And maybe you'll get it, if you can argue successfully that the removal of the publicised photo is beneficial to the public interest.
>If the publication of one photo with explicitly denied consent isn't harassment, is the publication of two? Three? A series documenting a person's commute to work that happens to be the same as the photographer's? What about a year-long series?This one would be harassment. If you start following a person with the intention of taking a picture of them, that's harassment. I'm not arguing with that, the law (and my opinion) is clear on this subject. Even if a person steps out of your direction to avoid being in the frame, and you reposition yourself so you can shoot them, that's also harassment in my book.
What I'm arguing for is, if you go on in your daily life, without harassing or following someone, and you're in a public space, then whatever your eyes are allowed to see, your camera is around to capture, or your hand is allowed to sketch/write about.
