Yeah, I agree that the example is extreme, as most examples go to the extreme to prove a point though they may go too far.
That said... change two things in my example... the child is an adult, and the adult is a celebrity. Doesn't the Paparazzi do exactly this? Stalk and provide "surveillance" in any/all public places? Does one case still cross the line? Because in the situation where the subject of the pictures is a celebrity (doesn't even have to be an adult), the actions of a photographer are absolutely legal, at least for now.
@ Dan Marchant
I agree with what you are getting at. However, at the same time I wouldn't dismiss people from outside the household abusing other people. See: Penn State University. Though, Sandusky is not a photog, he also wasn't the father of any of those kids.... that said, this angle is probably too far off subject for this board.
This is where you and I differ. I get that he may be legally able to take any photos he wants of my kid from a public venue, but because he may be allowed to do so per the law, it wouldn't always be OK by me. If I noticed that someone was excessively targeting my kid as a subject of his photos beyond reason, then I will most certainly take matters into my own hands. It would start first with a conversation (as kind as possible) and go from there. I would hope that the authorities wouldn't be involved, as they would probably be punishing me for violence against the photog, his property, or both if the conversation didn't go to my liking and he didn't agree to stop.
That said. I am reasonable. I realize situations where my son may be photographed, and if not done excessively, then sure... fine by me. If my son is involved in the subject of something that he is doing, or involved in the action of something that he is doing, and the photog is there attempting to cover that something. PERFECTLY Fine. For example. Around the ball in a sport, lead in a play, performing on stage in front of other people. The photog has an expectation (either personal or paid, whatever) to cover the action of that something.
What I am talking about is at a little league game for example. If I notice a photog has his camera pointed at my son (5 y/o) and not the action for a long time when he is picking the grass and/or his nose in the outfield, looking up in the sky, tossing his glove around, etc. That is not what I expect "should" be interesting to the photog. I would expect that a photog who is at a little league (public) game should be interested in the action that is occuring, not focused entirely on one kid (mine) who is seeing ZERO action. Thus, beyond expectations. That would warrant a conversation.
Agree... though I would hope that the restraining order isn't against me.