Dear Expectation of Privacy Anon
I took the liberty of editing your post, something I am not doing often, but I felt that rehashing same old, same old incriminations does not bring anything new to the table. My point of view did not change.
I will not discuss your posting timeline remarks, which I take note of and consider relevant. It would not be the first time such things seem to happen just like that, out of the blue and Bob's your uncle. Especially when considering the 'source' and the paltry intrigue that was woven apparently very, very quickly, but not without some prior planning (and perhaps debate?). It is, however, the first time that the troll tells us the 📷 were taken in public (with implied renunciation of privacy), by an 'identifiable person' (who, I am sure, will be thrilled to hear that she's just been thrown under the bus, should any further investigation occur - something I do, however, have reasons to doubt). This gives me hope she finally understood not all of us are total, brainwashed morons, who'd gobble just about anything, without questioning or thinking twice.
Six pictures were taken, in low resolution, and with deliberate blurring. This shows me the person knew she was treading on very thin ice, here. Some of them feature faces, all of them seem retouched in some way or another. Some of them are taken from the back and show just waving hands suggesting a presence, which is afterwards confirmed with a sneaky side shot of the hands' owner, if I may say so. The last one shows two people walking in the distance, in the shadows, on a perfectly empty street. The man seems to miss his left leg and his left arm seems to be lost/fused with the woman's black, long overcoat (this, I suspect, means LOVE and is a FACT). We know, the lady likes to shoehorn herself in pics. It is what it is. But hey, these are details. I am more interested in the legal problems these photos present.
While doing my own research, I found a very interesting little webpage dealing with amateur photographs in UK pubs. It's a thing, apparently, just like birdwatching (I had no idea). Among the recommendations for those brave enough to try and take snapshots of customers, is this one:
A lovely illustrative example is even provided, of a London typical pub scene. I am sure those who saw those six snapshots will agree the intent and MO are similar, albeit more hasty and perhaps less professional:
[Source: https://boakandbailey.com/2017/01/photography-in-the-pub/ - posted January 12, 2017]
There is a reason for this, usually spelled in complicated legalese, considering the fact that (unlike France, for example) the UK legislation has no specific legal provisions defining the 'right to privacy', which leaves to common sense and jurisprudence the rather uneasy task to fix some boundaries, outside of the self-evident (terrorism, etc).
First of all, there is a distinction to be made between public and private property. In a nutshell, anything that is on the pavement and outside of a building is usually considered as public property. You can (and many do, as you mentioned yourself, albeit snarkily), take pictures from that spot and you might even take pictures of a pub's patrons through the window. As long as you are not inside the venue, you do not need permission, either from the venue's owner or the patrons themselves.
[Source: https://www.institute-of-photography.com/your-rights-as-a-photographer/]
In the case of that particular pub, common sense would dictate a more relaxed policy, as far as photographs from public property are concerned and that may include the pavement outside the building. It is a very touristy area, after all: chasing around all the tourists clicking their cameras to oblivion would be an obvious never ending story.
Once you are inside, however, things get complicated. Snapping pics without the venue owner's permission can be construed as trespassing, especially when these pictures are not for your own, personal use (me, Shipper Mom and Lola Flores, the corgi), but feature pub patrons (two B-list actors and their alleged sidekicks, laughing - HAHAHA, come on: we all know how C laughs, don't we?- and talking loudly about Season 2 of a series they played in for ten years and counting).
[Source: https://tlc-online.co.uk/photography-in-public-places-a-guide-to-uk-law/]
This subject to agreement policy is mandatory, no matter how relaxed the rules of a particular pub might seem, on face value. People should never presume the contrary, especially when doing that particular sneaky deed.
On that private property, people were photographed, that the person snapping the pics did not personally know (we'll stick to this premise). The intended use was purely editorial, because these photographs were immediately shared on a well-known and rather ill-reputed Tumblr gossip blog.
[Source: https://tlc-online.co.uk/photography-in-public-places-a-guide-to-uk-law/]
This is where the UK's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) policy and legislation come into play, along with a second distinction: the right to snap a pic is not the same as the right to share it freely, especially online. It regulates the use of personal data and grants individuals the right to rectify or erase any such data they do not want to be made public. According to UK law, photographs are considered personal data, when the persons included in the snapshot are identifiable. But In their epic fit of braggadocio, the informer and the troll identified all the Fab Four with glee. So, if they want/need to come clean, they will need their consent and a legitimate interest for taking that pic. Surely providing tea for a gossip blog cannot be considered as such.
[Source: https://tlc-online.co.uk/photography-in-public-places-a-guide-to-uk-law/]
This does not necessarily cover public property, but it certainly covers private property. This is why this episode could, in theory, be successfully contended in court.
The photographs remain the property of the person who took them and who is also the one and only copyright owner, unless they rightfully renounce this questionable honor, in writing.
My take on it? I have many thoughts and questions, Anon. I do not think anyone will press charges against this. It will remain an abysmal eyesore for just a handful of people invested enough to actually give a damn about all this. I will let you put two and two together, as always. Let's see if any of the Fab Four says/does anything about this, which I seriously doubt. For many reasons.
Ship on, ladies. And Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate.
