>>3443036>You two simply happen to share work commutes, so you decide this person on his commute would make for an interesting photo series. If you can argue that it was your daily commute and not actually stalking the person it's fine.
It's the repetition and intention that matters. When you say a photo series, with the same subject, this implies intention to follow and capture *that* subject, and not just happenstance. Then the person can argue that it's harassment (which it is) and get a restraining order on you.
When you fixate on a specific subject, and make an effort to be at the same place with them, then it's clear that it's not happenstance.
More simply though, especially if the bus company is not public, the person could just complain to the company, and they can ask you to stop, cause it's happening in their property and they have their own rules. They could even bar you from using their buses anymore.
Lastly, there's an even simpler and less invasive way for your subject to avoid your photography, if it makes them uncomfortable. Change seats. Or slightly change the itinerary. If you do the slightest to adapt and take their photo again, it's clearly harassment.
And I don't appear black and white to be edgy. But some issues can't exist in a spectrum of less to more, you either have them or you don't. Secure cryptography, freedom of expression, pregnancy, etc. .
I'm not arguing whether it's moral/good/whatever to have freedom of expression protected by law. In many countries you don't have it, and that's the end of discussion.
But in countries where you have it, it's usually one of the pillars of the constitution and recognised as a basic human right. But the "right" to not be offended isn't recognised anywhere as far as I know. So we need to be extremely careful when proposing adjustments to the right of expression.
