I agree that he is pretty much a knucklehead. Does he over step his boundaries? Yes! Can he be abrasive? Yes! Sadly this is covered under the first amendment as freedom of press. He is a freelance photographer, these photo's are being taken in public, not in the privacy of peoples homes so that is the difference.
If youíre in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Thatís the difference between what is public and what is private. Itís the reason that all those security cameras that are on every city street are allowed to photograph us, because when weíre out in public we have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thereís a big difference of taking a picture and the use of a picture. If I take a picture of someone on the street they donít really have a right to tell me that I canít take their picture. They can ask nicely,ďHey, would you mind not taking my picture?Ē But they canít enforce it, because there isnít a law.
If itís in public view and youíre on public property, then youíre allowed to take a picture of it.
There are permutations. If youíre standing on a public sidewalk and youíre taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and itís a wide shot of the city street, thatís fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebodyís window, youíve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort.