Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
As I understand it, it's generally legal to photograph someone in public, because consent can be assumed. It has to work this way because otherwise it'd be impossible for e.g. journalists to take a photo of a rally.
Question: can the photographer still take the photograph if they are told "I do not consent to being photographed"? If the answer is 'yes they can still take the photograph', does telling the photographer "I do not consent to being photographed" change anything at all?
consent can be assumed
Nah, consent can't be assumed just by default: it defeats the very definition of consent. Some active indication that consent is given must be present.
However, where the right exists, consent is not required. Conversely, where consent is required, there is no right (unless granted by consent).
In most, if not all, common-law jurisdictions, the right exists: if you can walk there without consent, you can take photos of what you can see — without consent — things, animals, people (including those who might think that you need their consent).
can the photographer still take the photograph if they are told "I do not consent to being photographed"?
Pretty much.
does telling the photographer "I do not consent to being photographed" change anything at all?
It may change your opinion of how tactful and considerate person the photographer is. But perhaps nothing more.
No. If you are not a person of public interest, not present at a newsworthy event, being out in public does not give any implicit permissions to take a picture centered on yourself. But if you are one face among many on the bleachers of a sports event, withdrawing permission does not prevent press coverage of the game.
