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 Simon Moran 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
{ 841 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Hi Linda,
Your helpful response from a previous question has been fantastic, and I wonder if I may ask something else on a related matter. This is in the context of wedding photography, and this particular subject seems to cause confusion in the industry. The situation involves images taken at weddings which are used by the photographer on their professional websites, displayed in their sample products, and often used on their brochures and promotional materials. I am aware that there is generally no issue with displaying your commissioned work on a website (providing the client doesn’t request otherwise) since wedding guests will know they will be photographed at such an event and that those images are likely to be on-line. However, it’s the use in our more formal marketing materials that seems to cause confusion – I know that we can’t pass on images for advertising use without the consent of recognizable individuals, but does this extend to the photographer him/herself when using the shots on our own advertising products? Although the bride and groom might have consented to the various usages, do we still need to get the specific permission of each and every recongizable individual, or does the fact that the people have consented to be photographed at the event constitute permission enough (on the assumption that they have been made aware of likely usage by the bride and groom)?
Secondly, we often get asked by vendors (such as florists, hairdressers, gown suppliers, the venue itself) to supply wedding images for their use in their own marketing materials. Whilst the bride and groom may consent to this (a clause in our Contract) can that consent apply to any others who are in the pictures (ie: is it the bride and groom’s responsibility, as the ‘event organizers’ to inform guests of how the pictures might be used)? I hope that makes sense. A response would be hugely appreciated.
Kind regards,
Lin
The whole area of images of people and how they can be used is something of a minefield, since it involves different areas of the law and some of those have had no definitive interpretation yet.
The first issue is the copyright/moral rights one, whereby the commissioner of a photograph or film commissioned for private purposes must consent before the copyright holder can publish the photograph/film, or make it available to the public. In the case of a wedding, this will usually be the bride and/or groom, though it may not be; the person who commissioned the images might be a parent or other relative of one of the couple. It would be covered by your consent clause, in any event.
Another issue surrounding images of people is that of privacy and the Human Rights Act. Clearly people at a wedding expect to be photographed, so there is not an obvious privacy issue with regard to that. (Though potentially an argument could be made that wider publication is an infringement of the right to privacy, since a wedding is not prima facie a “public” event. The courts have not yet had to determine a case brought in this context).
A third issue is that of data protection. Images of individuals are capable of being personal data within the meaning of the Act, but as yet there are no legal decisions on whether a photograph will be regarded as personal data where it is an image of a person without any further identifying information, and where that photograph is not being used to obtain further information about the person. So the answer to that is not straightforward. Hence the reason that lawyers advise obtaining consent. If the images that include other guests are regarded as personal data, that does not mean they necessarily cannot be used. It means that data must be used and held in accordance with the data protection principles, which means one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Act are met. Consent is one of these. The consent can be implied, but it should be informed – i.e. consenting to have one’s picture taken is not the same as consenting to have it used in advertising, unless this is obvious from the circumstances. Responsibility under the Act lies with the “data controller”, the person who determines the purposes for which and the manner in which personal data is to be processed. And this is an interesting question in the circumstances you describe, since it could be argued that the bride and groom, by both arranging the event and consenting to any kind of use of the images, fall within that definition. (Though it could also be argued that the photographer, as copyright holder and as the person who decides how the images will be used, is the actual data controller.)
I’m sorry not to be able to give a more clear answer. As I said, the potential issues are complex and some haven’t been considered by a court. At the very least, I would not give images to third parties for use in their marketing materials without the consent of anyone who appears in the photographs.
Thank you very much for the reply Linda, much appreciated.
Hi Linda
Firstly, thank you so much for the advice above and in the PDF. It’s a valuable tool. At the moment, I predominately shoot film, rather than digital. This work is mostly street portraits or candid shots, sometimes with permission, sometimes without, but always in a public space.
Although the confrontation does not bother me with individuals, I know sooner or later I will be approached by the police and sooner or later a formal complaint will be made. What worries me is what happens to photographic film when it is confiscated, as I often only have the opportunity to shoot a single or two images of a subject, often a whole days work can be on a single role. Is it developed or simply destroyed?
Ben, I think Linda has touched on this elsewhere, but as I understand it the Police would require a Court Order before they could confiscate your property – there is no distinction between film and digital media.
If the police approach you it may be a case of politely reminding them that photographing people in a public place is perfectly legal – many of them are confused on the issue themselves.
That’s pretty much correct. If the police suspect that you have committed an offence, your film might be seized as evidence (e.g. under the Terrorism Act 2000). It would then be developed to determine if it contained evidence of an offence and, if it did, it would be retained for any future court hearing. Otherwise you should get it back. The police do not have the power to simply confiscate film or digital media, or to destroy it, without a court order.
Hi – I have a situation on my hands that doesnt seem to be covered by the general
info on the excellent guide or the comments made on this site so far ….
Last Sunday I decided at the last minute to take pictures of the Dunfermline Half
Marathon, whose route passed my front door, and further on, passed near to my girlfriend’s
house in the country.
I ended up with over 1400 pictures, which included almost every one of the runners.
I put them on my website, and sent an email around to a number of running clubs telling
them that the pictures were available (I had no means of contacting the many runners who
were not affiliated in this way).
This morning, I had the race organiser on the phone today being very abusive and ordering me to
remove all my pictures from the website or face legal action via his solicitors.
Apparently the ‘official photographer’ who was stationed only at the finish line to take
pictures as the runners crossed the line, had been notified that I had taken photos
and had been in touch with the race organiser this morning in a very angry state.
I am really not sure of my legal position as far as this is concerned, but to appease
the situation and until I have a clear understanding of the (scottish) law in this respect,
I complied and removed my pictures.
I believe that as I was in a public place (outside my flat on Chalmers Street, and on the
public path at Oakley) that he has no authority to stop me taking pictures and, if I so wish,
to sell them commercially. He apparently paid £4000 for the use/hire of the park, but I was not
on the park premises so I think he has no case there.
I wasn’t aware that there was an official event photographer before I took the pictures
and this is the first sporting event I’ve photographed, so im very much naive about the
legal processes and etiquette involved, but hope to get quickly informed.
Any advice and pointers greatly appreciated!
@Lindsay Holman
Absolutely ridiculous! Given your situation is sounds as though the race organiser (quiver in boots?) has no legal grounds to request that you take the photos down whatsoever. Only individuals in the photos can request such an action and even then they would have to go to court in order to follow this through (if you wished to be stubborn which I’m sure you wouldn’t be!). This is a good article to read with a nice summary of your rights:
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=56
I hope you can put the photos back up on your website – if not, I’ll be happy to host them on one of my websites or on my Flickr account free of charge. I’d give full credit and links to you if you wish (or if not, merely to provide them as a sign of good will to the competitors). You should not be bullied into taking them down because the race organiser was worried he’d lose some money.
Sorry, Lindsay, I must have messed up the posting of my original reply and it appears below rather than attached as I reply to your post.
Robin, though the article you link to does have a good summary of the right to photograph in public, it isn’t really applicable to this situation, as Lindsay is being threatened with a civil action over publication and possible sale of the photos. No-one disputed his right to take them, or tried to stop him. (Note also, in connection with part of that article, that PACE does not apply in Scotland.)
But yes, as I said below, I cannot see what legal grounds the race organisers would have for bringing a legal action.
Lindsay,
Just to clarify – the only reason the race organisers gave for their demand (and threat) is that the “official” race photographer was aggrieved because he had paid for the right to take the photos at the finishing line?
I cannot see that the race organisers have any legal grounds to object on those grounds, since you were not taking photographs there. If the event was in a sports stadium, then the organisers could prevent anyone taking pictures except their official photographer. They cannot prevent anyone taking pictures of the event on a public street. The official photographer paid for the benefit of being able to take the photos of the finish, and presumably most runners would prefer a photograph of themselves crossing the finish line, which is why that right was valuable.
Hi David,
The Data Protection Act gets cited for all kinds of inappropriate things, but for what it’s worth, “personal data” as defined in the Act is data relating to a living individual and from which that individual can be identified. “Living” individual is obviously not applicable here.
Out of interest, who told you to stop photographing? Cemetaries are often private property even though they allow access to the public. The owners, or their representatives, do actually have the right to stop you taking photographs there, but the Data Protection Act has nothing to do with that right.
Very helpful indeed. Many Thanks
Hello,
first of all, please excuse my english, I’m not a native speaker. I’m from Slovakia and actually on my first visit of UK (a job technical training in Reading, Berkshire).
Today, after the training, I came to park in the city center (I’ve got no idea how is it named, but there was a big lion statue in the center), and took a pictures of the park (really nice place btw:). After few minutes came a guy screaming that he’ll call police and I have no right to take pictures of people. I tried to explain, that I just wanted to take pictures of park, and of course, there were people, otherwise it would be a cemetery, but he didn’t calm down. I was little scared and as I wasn’t aware of current laws in UK, I just deleted all pictures and went away (in fact, I was happy he didn’t call the police, as he told that for pictures of people there isn’t either any fee, just a jail).
So, after few googling, I guess that he wasn’t exactly right, but I’d like to make things clear: is it allowed, or absolutely prohibited to take pictures in public places, that includes also peoples there?
@ Marek
I’m deeply sorry that you experienced such treatment in this country and I’m sorry you felt that you had to delete your photos. It makes me ashamed to be British. You may want to read the article I linked to above for Lindsay. In summary, you have every right to take photos in a public place such as a park, even if those photos contain other members of the public. They can object on grounds of invasion of privacy, but they also have to submit to reasonable levels of expectation of privacy. In a public area, these are low. The only way that they could legally object would be if you were acting like a stalker photographing them solely, or pushing the camera in their face. Despite that, members of the public can NOT request that you delete photographs from you camera. If they object, they must contact the relevant authorities. Any attempt by them to make you do so constitutes assault.
When confronted like this, it’s best to ask the person if they wish to remain with you while YOU call the LOCAL police (not 999 haha) to resolve the matter. Their ignorance about the law is then usually exposed.
Marek, he was absolutely wrong. There is no law that prevents anyone taking pictures in a public place, and that includes pictures with people in them. If the situation was one where the people might have a reasonable expectation of privacy (and this can sometimes depend more on what they are doing rather than where they are), then those people may have the right to sue you if you published the pictures. At the moment, at least, in the UK, it would not be regarded as a breach of their right to privacy just to take the pictures.
And it isn’t a criminal matter at all. So no, taking pictures of people in public, assuming you aren’t, as Robin says, harrassing them, is not an offence. (You will, however, find that you draw the wrath of the public and perhaps the interest of the police if you are obviously photographing children, whether in public or not.)
Hi there,
just to follow-up on the discussion here.
Could you explain what law lets people decide what they do in a private environment? That might sound weird but I am interested in the details.
Does it include accessing your camera, which is arguably a private ‘place’ as well, and delete your own photos?
what if the owner of the private place has put NO sign or indication that taking photographs is forbidden or restricted in a certain way?
Summary is:
What are the exact rights of the owner of the private place?
Do they have to ask you to delete photos?
Do they have rights to take your camera and delete photos themselves?
Can they keep your camera? (if you refuse deleting photos as instance)
What are there obligations in terms of informing visitors about taking photography?
I am thinking about a scenario which happened to me at a soft play area where people complained to the manager of the place because I was taking shots with my DSLR… Manager came to me, reviewed my photos (of my children…) and asked me to delete every photos where another child was in the frame on the background. I did it as it was only 5 out of 200, I knew about paranoia in the UK with people taking photos
But I noticed dozens of other parents with small camera, or even phone with camera, nobody had any problem as the manager just came to me (lucky me). As there was no sign at the entrance – I checked – and noticed a large number of people taking pictures I took some but apparently my mistake was the type of camera I used… The best or this story was somebody who was actually recording a movie on a slightly smaller videocam… I asked him and he had no issue at all, nobody complained 
How did we end up with such a paranoia level? It’s worrying.
Thanks
Hi Boris,
Where children are concerned the paranoia, as I’m sure you realise, is about the risk of paedophiles taking and swapping/selling images of children. This has been presented in such a way that almost anyone with a camera is treated with suspicion if they are photographing children. But yes, as you say, there does seem to be inconsistency in the way this is applied.
As far as privately owned places are concerned, where the public are allowed free access (for example to a shopping centre) they are essentially there under licence, which the owner or his representatives can revoke at any time. So, if they don’t like what you are doing, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, they can use reasonable force to remove you; in theory, if they can identify you, in England and Wales you could also be sued for trespass.
So they aren’t really obliged to warn you in advance not to take photos (though it would save a lot of problems all round if everyone did). But they can ask you to stop. However, they have no right to ask you to delete images, or to take your camera and delete them themselves, or to confiscate your camera.
However, it probably saves a lot of hassle, in circumstances like you describe, to delete the offending photos. Because the manager might instead choose to call the police, who might decide you are a possible paedophile, and investigate your images, your camera, your computer, etc. There are times when it is easier to choose not to make a fuss, even if you have legally done nothing wrong. I would advise anyone not to ever hand over a camera, memory card, etc, to security guards or the like. The police, if they seize such things, need to give you the grounds on which they are doing so. And the police have no power to delete images or make you delete them (though again, you may choose to do so to save time or avoid hassle).
Thanks a lot Linda for both your answers on my comments.
I am in total agreement with your comments about deleting pictures instead of ending up with more trouble.
I will stick to my best practice which always saved me a lot of trouble which is to always ask wherever I am if I can take pictures. I prefer to detect paranoia before rather than after
What I described in my first comment is definitely an exception in my experience and it corresponds to the only time when I have not been cautious enough, thanks again for your time answering !
Hi again,
I have read the PDF and it’s helpful however with any legal terms, I was wondering how a photographer is defined ?
Is there a difference in terms of rights between a professional photographer likely to use high-end camera/equipment and a non-professional with a point and shoot camera (obviously a little bit more discrete)?
How do you classify an enthousiast amateur with highend gears and prove you are not a professional looking to sell photos afterwards?
I am asking as per my previous comment about a kind of discrimination towards the people using (just) bigger cameras….
The law applies equally whatever type of equipment you are using, and it generally applies equally to amateurs and professionals with regard to TAKING the images, though other laws may apply only to publication or use of images. The only distinction would be where there are bylaws prohibiting commercial photography without permit (as with Trafalgar Square, for example). Or where a private landowner permits photography for private purposes, but not for commercial purposes. Even then, the key is the intended use of the images, not the kind of equipment you are using.
But the discrimination you mention has been well-documented, usually in relation to the application of s.44 of the Terrorism Act.
Is this s.44 still ‘valid’ ?
Quoting wikipedia:
In January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. It held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated in the case of two people stopped in 2003 outside the ExCeL convention centre in London, which at the time was hosting a military equipment exhibition. The Court found the powers were “not sufficiently circumscribed” and lacked “adequate legal safeguards against abuse”, over-ruling a 2003 High Court judgement upheld at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
Again I am no legal expert, so what I understand is s.44 is still in place but could be ruled illegal as per previous case exposed above if used again in a future case. Is this correct?
You are pretty much correct, Boris. In Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom, the ECHR found that the use of s.44 powers violated the complainants’ rights under Art 8 of the Convention. But the ECHR cannot, as such, overrule the House of Lords decision in the case. S.44 remains in place until it is amended or repealed. A UK court can issue a declaration of incompatibility (statement that legislation is incompatible with the rights granted by the Convention), but cannot ignore the legislation. (In theory, the Government should then act to remedy the incompatibility. The ECHR has said that declarations of incompatibility are not an effective remedy, unless it can be shown that the UK Government acts consistently to remedy defects in legislation.)
For what it’s worth, in April the Labour Government lodged an appeal against the ECHR’s decision in Gillan and Quinton. This is quite likely to be dropped by the Coalition Government, which has announced a new Bill that is intended, among other things, to introduce safeguards against misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. That said, prior to the Election the Conservatives had pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act in favour of a UK Bill of Rights, though this seems to have fallen by the wayside in light of the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems.
Surely it is worth pointing out to anyone who comes up to you (police or public) and demands you delete or destroy pictures you have just taken, that if you really were breaking the law by taking them, then deleting the pictures would amount to destroying evidence of your “criminal” activity?
Congratulations on a good site.
I had a minor run-in with a teacher last week while photographing (with permission) at an aircraft museum.
There were a huge number of schoolchildren there and many people taking photos of the exhibits from all angles and inevitably including some of the children in the shots, but the teacher decided to question me, probably because I had professional-looking gear.
My experience is written up on my blog at: http://martinliddament.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/show-us-your-papers/
I hope your campaign goes well. You have my full support.
A couple of news items of interest:
The Government’s application to appeal against the judgement of the ECHR in Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom has been rejected. (This is the case in which the ECHR determined that stop and search under s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 infringed the right to privacy.) I mentioned above that the appeal was quite likely to be dropped by the new Government, but this is now academic since the ECHR has refused to hear it anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/37ub45x
However, some police officers seem to be determined to use the Terrorism Act in one form or another to prevent photography:
http://tinyurl.com/252qvqg
Another case, up to you to decide if it’s a bit borderline or when the story becomes unmanageable…
http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/
Hi Boris,
Strange, I posted a link to this same story here yesterday, along with a link to the story that the European Court of Human Rights has denied the UK Government the right to appeal against its decision in Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom, but my post hasn’t appeared yet!
The Jules Mattsson incident appears, from the reports I have read, to be an example not so much of defective law as of defective application of the law. Or rather, no application of the law at all, since one police officer claimed they didn’t need the law to be able to stop photographers.
Hi Linda
I have researched the position regarding the right to publish photographs taken at public events and in public places and the position does not seem to be very clear. The question is simple: does an individual (or a company) require the consent of subjects of photographs in order to publish the photographs in magazines and newspapers? There is no intention of using the images for commercial exploitation in any way, merely for general PR purposes in various printed formats. There is also a possibility that the images would be used on the internet for the same reasons as the hardcopy formats, namely general PR purposes. A follow on question, which might raise slightly more issues is: does the copyright holder of the image have the right to store the images in an electronic image library for future use (either by it or other subscribers to the service) for future PR purposes, without the subjects’ consent or is consent required. And, is the position different for children with respect to both questions.
I think it is fair to say that the position isn’t very clear. So the question is simple but the answer isn’t quite so simple. As I have said before, there are two issues – the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act and European Convention of Human Rights, and Data Protection.
In general, there would be no expectation of privacy in a public place or at a public event, but there have been exceptions – Campbell v MGN being one example from the English courts, and Von Hannover v Germany being one from the ECHR. Hence, there may be an expectation of privacy where one is doing something essentially private, even in a public place.
With regard to Data Protection, images of people are capable of being personal data within the meaning of the Act, and thus subject to the Data Protection Principles. But not all images of people will be regarded as personal data. It depends to some extent on the manner and purposes for which they will be processed. Also, processing data for the so-called “special purposes” – literary, artistic and journalistic, are exempt provided the processing of the data is “necessary” for one of the special purposes.
The issues are complex and there isn’t time or room for an in depth discussion of them here, but there is a lot of information on the Information Commissioner’s website. In particular, this guide shows how to tell if you are processing personal data: http://tinyurl.com/36g9ue
Look in particular at pages 11-12 for an example involving photographs.
The probability is that the kind of photographs you are talking about would not breach the Act, but it is hard to know without more detail. “general PR purposes” and “public places” are potentially pretty broad terms.
Hey glad I found this site…. I got an ‘issue’ that I would be so greatful if Linda could clarify for me..
Being a keen photographer I carry my camera with me just about everywhere… on one occasion I was passing a school playing field (not the actual school.. and there was no reason to know that the grounds belonged to a school) anyway there was a group of people playing cricket on the field in the middle and I decided to take some pics… as I was doing so, two policemen on pushbikes came up to me and asked what I was doing (plus the question of did I have any of my kids playing in the field… which of course I didn’t)
Now the point here is they asked me for my details.. you know name address… and then let me go on my way… I honestly don’t see what I did wrong (which of course is not what the onlookers thought), and I did show the police the few pics I’d taken… my query is, was I under any obligation to show the police my pics (obviously I felt I was). They didnt’ ask, but supposing they did… could I refuse?… and what right did they have to ask for my details… given that I had not committed any offence…?
I took the pics standing on the pavement outside the perimeter fence… and there were adults also amongst the cricket palyers (probably not relevant).
Also there is the quesion of “why are you taking the picutres”…. does a human being actually need to have good reason or cause before he/she can legally take a picture in the UK..??… can you be arrested for not having a good enough reason…… I think this is a very important point… because most of the time I dont have a reason other than the fact that I like photograpy…(once an old bat came running out of her country home demanding to know why I was taking pics of her garden shed… oh the touble I had explaining to her)
Home Secretary suspends the use of s.44 powers to search individuals:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/539533.php
(But note that searches under s.43 are still permissible. Section 43 at least requires that a police officer “reasonably suspects” that the individual concerned is a terrorist.)
← Previous Comments
{ 39 trackbacks }