It’s been over four years since we published version one of the UK photographers rights guide. We’re now very happy to be able to publish version 2 of the guide.
This is intended to provide a short UK guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs that have been taken.
The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M is a freelance legal consultant specialising in Media Law and Intellectual Property Law. She is also a part-time law lecturer and has presented seminars on law for photographers.
The guide is a 2 page PDF, it will print out front and back of an A4 page allowing you to make leaflets to hand out. The guide is intended as an overview of the current legal situation in the UK for photographers, it is not a definitive bible of UK law.
Please do not deep link (direct link) to the PDF or rehost the guide on your website.
If you find the guide useful please link to either www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr or http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 or leave us a comment. (Comments from the old V1 guide have been kept as there is a lot of great discussion in there).
By downloading this guide you accept the fact that neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility at all for any omissions or errors whatsoever. There is a full disclaimer in the guide, this is just a before you download it warning ! Also Neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility for any replies given to comments left. If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer.
FREE Download – UK Photographers Rights v2 (right click and save as)
This guide was created for Acrobat 5 and above. If you have a problem opening the PDF, please update your copy of Acrobat Reader (it’s free to do so).
USA photographers rights guide www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Australian photographers rights http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
Over the next year we hope to gather thousands of self-portraits of photographers-professional and amateur—from around the world, each holding up a white card with the words, ‘Not a crime’ or ‘I am not a terrorist’. www.not-a-crime.com
{ 28 trackbacks }
{ 741 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Thank you once again Linda, this page is and will continue to be an excellent resource for photographers. The law can seem overwhelming at times and this discussion has been very helpful indeed.
Kind regards, David.
I wonder if you can help – we have recently taken some photographs at a ‘member’s only event’ and then reproduced them in a brochure (and would like to use on the web site) and wonder if there is some kind of disclaimer that we should publish before doing this – we do not want to have to requested the permission of each individual to reproduce.
I would appreciate your opinion.
Thanks
Sandra
Hi Sarah, and sorry to be so late responding to your comment. It’s hard to say what the legal position would be without having a better idea of the content of the photos. Use in a brochure and the web site – are these marketing tools? You should obtain the written permission of individuals before using their images in this way, but this will not necessarily apply if the images show crowd scenes rather than individuals/small groups.
Thank you for sharing this useful information.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kombizz/4317154935/
I have taken a photograph of a parking place with two lorries entering.
I have been told that the photograph cannot be used because the lorries have the companies corporate logo and livery.
without my making any comments about this, can I send the photograph via e mail for comments/opinions etc.
The photograph is intended to show goods vehicles entering a lorry park, any goods vehicles!
Thanks
John
Hi John,
Sorry for my delayed response! You say that you have been told that the photo “cannot be used” but not who told you that or what it is to be used for. It might also be relevant whether or not you took the photo on private property and whether it is the owner of that property who told you that you cannot use it. If you can give me some more information, I will try my best to help (and rather more quickly this time!)
Hello Linda,
Thank you for taking the time to reply, it is appreciated no matter the delay.
I had full permission from the land owner, in fact the owners requested me to take any photographs I wished, but the objector would have harressed me no matter where it was.
I can send you the photograph if you would be so kind as to look at it.
It was the company secretary of the company who objected.
To me it was silly and I asked the company secretary to please have their legal department contact me, this was via reply to an e mail that was written to me, but this was ignored, I repeated the request but again it was ignored.
The secretary wrote to the hosting service, to the lorry park, and to me again threatening that all steps would be taken to remove the photo. For peace and quiet I eventually removed the photo but I am so sure that if what I did was wrong then no BBC or TV company would be able to take still or video shots of vehicles driving down a road in case the vehicle had a trade mark on it or company livery paint job.
Because I think its a matter of scale you would need to see the photo. I did not take a photo of the trade mark nor the truck/lorry alone it was just entering the park via the gate.
Kind regards,
John
Sorry about the spelling of harassment in my last reply.
I omitted to say the photographs are used on a website which is none profit and very loss making. NO gain from the photos, it just illustrates the facility in this case, it could have been any vehicle entering the park! Photography is my hobby, I just like it, have done since a small boy. I have no wish to break the law or even tread near doing so, I respect everyone’s space always.
John
my sister gave some photos to my now deceased father she would now like them back, how ever my other sister who now has the photos refuses to let her have them. my question is who is the rightfull owner of said photos
David, just a few thoughts:
Did your sister #1 originally take the photos? If so, doesn’t she have original negatives or images?
If she acquired them from elsewhere, did she become the legal owner?
When you say she “gave” them to your father, do you mean “gave” as in “made a present of” or “gave” as in “lent”.
If she lent them to him, they would presumably still be hers.
If she gave them to him as a present they would become his to dispose of as he wished.
I suspect it’s not clear in what way she “gave” them?
If they were clearly your father’s property (not sister #1’s property), then:
Did sister #2 ‘acquire’ them before or after your father’s death?
Did your father give or leave them to sister #2, or did she just take them.
If she acquired them after his death, I suspect it was up to the executor(s) to decide what to do with them (in the absence of any specific instructions in the Will). Were either or both sisters (or you) executors?
These are just a few issues that occur to me which may have a bearing on “who is the rightfull owner of said photos”. No clear answer, obviously.
Trevor makes some valid points.
Ownership of the prints is not necessarily connected with ownership of the copyright, of course, so I’m assuming that your sister does not have the original files or negatives to make further prints – if she does this would be the simplest way to avoid family conflict.
It all really depends on what you mean by “gave” some photos to your father. If they were only lent to him, then, as Trevor says, they still belong to her. If she actually gave them to him, as in a gift, then he was free to dispose of them as he wished, either when he was still living, or in his will, (or under the laws of intestacy if he didn’t make a will, though these would not deal with individual items of property).
If your father was given the photos as a gift by your sister and he made a specific bequest of the photos to your other sister, then the ownership will lie with your other sister. But personal effects of no monetary value often cause difficulties in the administration of estates, since they are frequently left out of a will. The executor can then make a decision about what to do with them, including giving them to any beneficiary who expresses an interest in them.
It is impossible to say where ownership lies without knowing more, sorry!
Linda
I hope you’ll excuse me asking a copyright question that is slightly different from most of the discussion on this site.
In an earlier response (7 Dec 2009) you commented:
“For photographs taken before 1 June 1957, copyright lasted for 50 years from the date the picture was taken, and some such photographs will be out of copyright now. For photographs taken after 1 June 1957 and before 31 July 1989, the 1956 Copyright Act provided that copyright in PUBLISHED photographs would expire 50 years after the date of publication.”
A particular website (happy to identify it privately) sells copies of old photographic postcards. Many of those are dated prior to 1957 (back even as far as the 1890s), and others are dated c.1960 or earlier and were presumably published around the time they were taken, i.e. at least 50y ago (OK, I know that’s an assumption!).
The footer on their website pages states:
“All photographs copyright XYZ Ltd 1999-2010 unless otherwise stated.”
and their T&Cs make a similar claim:
“All photographs … featured on the Website are the exclusive copyright property of XYZ Limited unless otherwise explicitly stated.”
“You may not copy, reproduce, … download, … or otherwise use any XYZ content in any way unless explicitly stated within these terms and conditions.”
Are they making false claims?
Is there any copyright in the digital images even if the copyright in the original photographs has long expired?
(I’m expressly asking about copyright in the photographic images rather than any copyright relating specifically to the website, etc..)
If appropriate in the light of your response, could any of that be overridden by their following condition?
“Your use of the Website is subject to the following terms and conditions and use by you for any purpose whatsoever of the Website shall constitute your acceptance of these terms and conditions.”
Also, some of the photographic images have their company name & logo across a corner of the images. Does this affect the copyright in the images? They claim that certain “names and logos are copyright registered trade marks” (sic), but without specifying which logos nor where any TMs are registered (and they appear not to understand, or are intentionally confusing, the distinction between copyright & TM registration!).
I would be interested in your comments. Many thanks in advance.
Hi Trevor,
If you could email me with the name of the website I would be happy to take a look. It is possible that some of these images are still in copyright, though this would mean the owner of the website is the owner of the copyright or has a licence to use the images.
Putting original photographs into digital form does not create a new copyright, since copyright subsists only in original works. UK copyright law does not have a high standard of originality, but scanning a picture does not meet it.
The condition “Your use of the Website is subject to the following terms and conditions and use by you for any purpose whatsoever of the Website shall constitute your acceptance of these terms and conditions” might mean that you became liable to be sued for breach of the condition if you downloaded and used the images, but it would not be copyright infringement, assuming the images are out of copyright.
The use of the logo would be unlikely to be sufficient to create a new work in which copyright would subsist in the whole image, but copyright may subsist in the logo. However, the company is clearly confused about intellectual proeprty rights if they use the phrase “copyright registered trademarks”!
I hope you can help me. I just finished to work on my website and the girl, we both work in a Make Over Photography Studio as photographer, that posed for me topless, changed her mind. Now I have her step-father and apparently his solicitor after me. Can they really do something to me? Do I need a “Model Release Form”? Or only if I sale or make money out the pictures? My website is to show my new passion, Jewellery Making and not photography. Please help me!!!!
Alessandra, can I just clarify what you are asking. You took photographs of a topless model for your website? (I’m assuming she is over the age of 18?) The model knew what the images were to be used for and consented to this but has now changed her mind? Is that right?
Technically, so long as she gave her consent and knew the intended use of the images when she consented, you don’t legally need the consent to be in writing. But, and it is a big but, if she now denies that she ever consented, you have no way of proving that she did. The point of a signed model release form is to protect the photographer as well as the model.
In the circumstances, your best course of action would be to remove the images of the girl and find another model, making sure you get a signed release this time.
Thanks a lot for your reply and sorry for the confusion. Yes! The girl is more the 18 years old and she gave me her approval to use the pictures for my website (even after she saw a first example of the my retouching). Unfortunately if I take away her pictures from my website, there is not much left. Please have a look: http://www.everycloudhasasilverlining.co.uk (not yet on Gooogle search)
plus a lot of the jewellery are already being sold (and those are unique pieces). I understand what you said but, sure if someone come to the photography studio, take her top off and pose for me for a very good number of pictures, is that enough to prove that I had her approval? Don’t I need the Model Release only if I sell the pictures or use them for a brochure or advertising? Is a website a form of advertising or is a portfolio of my work? Thanks a lot for you help.
AR
Hi Alessandra,
They appear to be very tasteful photos, but the fact that the girl took her top off and posed may prove that she consented to the photos being taken, but it would not show that she consented to them being used on a website.
As I said, written consent is often not legally necessary. You could show that there was consent, for example, by having witnesses who heard the person consent. But if it is your word against that of the model, it’s very difficult to prove.
Images of individuals may be regarded as personal data within the scope of the Data Protection Act. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Murray v Big Pictures it is also possible that they may be regarded as “sensitive personal data.”. That means that you have to meet certain conditions in order to use them. There are some exceptions, but although your website might not be “advertising” as such, it is promoting your work, and could not be described as publication purely for artistic purposes.
I can see from your site that the images are integral to it. If it is not possible to reshoot the pieces using another model, might it be possible to discuss this matter sensibly with the model and try to obtain some resolution? It’s hard to specifically comment without knowing the full details.
Thanks a lot for your help! I decided to retouch even more the images and to remove the model’s face. I hope that is a good compromise so that I can start to relax and move forward. It’s still horrible to realized that all this troubles are from another photographer and colleagues of mine. She also work for Ann Summer and she is the first one to take pictures of naked boys. Yes! There are horrible people around in the World. Luckily there are also GREAT people like you guys that are happy to give us your time, knowledge and patience. Thanks again!
I think this highlights the importance of photographers always getting a contract signed when they shoot for commercial reasons, especially when with a model. People change their minds, get influenced by others, etc.
You should use a contract that specifies what images are to be taken, what they can be used for, and importantly if giving images to a model, what the model can use them for. Anything like nudity should be specified and signed off on before any shoot takes place. If a model won’t sign a contract before the shoot, bin them and move on to one who will.
It’s never as much hassle as the model changing their mind after the shoot!
Hi,
First of all, thank you all for the UK Photographers’ Rights Card and the resources on this site.
I wonder if you could clarify something for me. I have been doing editorial work for a while now and I take to the streets very often and produce some street work. I was discussing my work with another photographer friend and the issue of legality of selling street photography came up. I am clear in what concerns its usage for editorial work but what if I want to sell individual prints or make a street photography book? What are the implications? Would I be in breach of any privacy laws?
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Luis
Although the laws on breach of the right to privacy are developing in such a way as to place increasing restrictions on photography, MOST street photography will not infringe a person’s right to privacy. At least, not at the present time. Images that show someone in an inherently private situation will infringe the right to privacy even if the person was in a public place.
Images of individuals will usually be regarded as personal data within the Data Protection Act, however there is a exemption where the processing of the personal data is necessary for artistic, journalistic or literary purposes. This may not necessarily give an exemption for selling art prints or publishing in a book, since the exemption only makes you exempt from a provision of the Act if that provision is incompatible with your literary or artistic purpose. The courts might decide that, while it would be incompatible to seek consent before taking the photo, you could seek consent afterwards. The courts have not yet determined these matters.
Street scenes in which a particular individual is incidental to the image as a whole, or crowd scenes, are unlikely to be regarded as personal data.
Hi
I was just wondering if the recent ruling on Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by the European Court of Human Rights has any impact on the police’s ability to stop and search me when taking photographs. I have been asked for my details a couple of times when out shooting in local towns such as Aberystwyth and Lampeter and have freely given my information. However, I just watched (literally) the video of the arrest of an amateur photographer for taking photos in a town square at Christmas, and read about the recent Euro Court’s ruling.
Thanks
Dan
Hi Dan,
When you were asked for your details are you sure this was connected with s.44 of the Terrorism Act? Stop and search under s.44 is restricted to areas where an authorisation is in force.
The Government has said that s.44 stop and searches are to continue pending an appeal against the ECHR decision, though the Metropolitan Police, at least, has said that the use of s.44 powers will be scaled back.
See a short film on this: Freedom to Film, http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/013/013_003.html.
Hello Linda,
It appears my comment has dissapeared without receiving an answer, so here goes again briefly this time. Is it against the law to photograph a nude model in a remote and secluded spot in the highlands of Scotland well away from tracks, paths etc where you cannot be over looked. Many photographers here do so in areas where they could be overlooked, so an answer would be much appreciated by many.
John
Richard Woods’s article “Photography under threat: The shooting party’s over” was published today in The Sunday Times magazine, you can read it on the Times Online website.
Possible good news ?
UK minister aims to reassure photographers
← Previous Comments