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
{ 1040 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Linda, you continue to give outstanding advice and support on matters which affect us all, and I’m so grateful for your help. Last year you clarified the matter of publishing client images on professional photography websites, and the message I gained was that given a professional photographer’s website is a commercial endeavour the client must consent to publication of their likeness (when the images have been commissioned for private/domestic purposes) – and a clause regarding such consents is of course built into most portrait and wedding photographers’ Terms and conditions, as is the case with me. My question is this: whilst I appreciate that under a particular clause of the Copyright Act, a client has the right to request that images of them are not published where the images have been commissioned as stated, when the client has agreed to the photographer’s Terms (containing such a Release) does such a contract bind the client, or do they still have the right “after the fact” to ask that images are not used for promotional purposes?
Where the shoot has been conducted for the purpose of building a portfolio of a new genre, and fees have been waived as part of the arrangement, it can be irritating if such a client should decide they do not want photographs of themselves on a public website. Could you tell me where the photographer stands please? May I also ask if a signature is necessary (difficult when so much business is conducted over the Internet) because generally when I send my Conditions to a client via e-mail I clearly inform them that should they proceed and make a booking it is considered they have read and agreed to the attached Terms.
May I say that I am mindful of clients’ feelings and would always remove images if asked, however it would nevertheless be extremely helpful to at least know what the actual legal position is. If you could clarify that Linda I would be most grateful.
Hi Lin,
Your query hints at two separate issues, really. There is the copyright issue (or, more accurately, the issue of moral rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act) which provides that, in respect of photographs commissioned for private purposes, a copyright holder who wishes to publish them needs the consent of the person who commissioned the photos.
There are further issues of data protection, and also the possible application of the Committee of Advertising Practice Code, where images of individuals are used for promotional purposes.
But where a release for publication and/or use, limited or otherwise, is contained in the photographers terms and conditions, and the client is aware of the existence of the terms (whether he/she actually reads them or not), then the client is bound by the terms they have agreed to. They form part of the contract between the client and the photographer. So the client could not demand, after the fact, that the images couldn’t be used for those purposes. (Exceptions would arise if there had been misrepresentation, or fraud, or undue influence, all of which are very unlikely in the circumstances you describe, and which in any case would affect the contract as a whole.)
A signature is not legally required for most contracts, including one of this nature. The e-mail you describe is sufficient, it makes clear that any contract will be on the attached terms and conditions. Web bookings can be similarly handled by having the usual check box with “I have read and agree to the terms and conditions” with a link to said terms and conditions. Whether the client actually reads them before agreeing to them is up to him, he will be bound to them if he signifies his agreement to them.
Obviously, from a business perspective, it is often more beneficial to comply with the client’s request, especially if there has been change of circumstances that might make the publication of the images difficult for the client. But this would be a decision based on goodwill rather than a legal requirement.
Linda I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate your help on this matter and others – I know I speak for every reader. Thank you very much indeed for your response, I am most grateful. Kindest regards, Lin.
Thanks, Linda, for illuminating what is to many of us a grey area. I am a former press photographer, now retired, and I’m working on a personal project that involves candid photographs of people taken in public places that I plan to incorporate into a collage, which might end up in a gallery if I’m lucky. Does this constitute “publication”? And, if so, have I upset anyone’s right to privacy? The pictures would not be demeaning, but the people in them would be recognisable.
Hi Michael,
Infringement of the right to privacy? Probably not, if the people involved are in a public place and not engaged in an activity of an essentially private nature. I say “probably” because it’s a little hard to predict the future of privacy law after Murray v Big Pictures (the case involving images that included J K Rowling’s son) and also various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. But, as things stand, this would not infringe the right to privacy. And the Data Protection Act has an exception for the processing of personal data (including images) where this is necessary for artistic purposes.
I’m very grateful to have that issue clarified. Now I feel I can pick up the project again. Thank you.
Would this status change however if Michael’s work was to be brought by a private collector?
In what respect, Hannah? The Data Protection status would not change, insofar as if the processing of personal data fell within the “special purposes” exemption, it would remain within the exemption even if the work was sold.
As I said, privacy law is a difficult one to predict because it is continually developing. But if the right to privacy was not infringed by the display of the work in a gallery, then it would not be infringed by the sale of the work to a collector. The UK courts have so far based findings of infringement of the right to privacy on the publication of an image, not on the taking of it. The exhibition of the work is arguably a wider publication than the work would have in the hands of a collector. The factor of there being a commercial sale of the work, or that the photographer profited from it, is not particularly an issue here. Privacy actions in the UK are brought on the basis of an action for breach of confidence.
I have recently been harassed by a group of teens gathering outside the house. So have decided to take pictures to gather evidence for the next stage. ( police will not do anything unless i have proof, contacted previously). Next thing i have police round, telling me can’t take pictures of children and have taken the film for destruction. how the hell can i gather evidence. made me feel dirty and like a criminal. i’m a victim, don’t know if i should follow it up to find out what’s gone on record as i’ve been CRB’d for other things that i do in the community.
Hello Paul,
If the police told you that it was illegal to take pictures of children then they were wrong. It is true that taking photos of children might put one under suspicion and possibly investigation, depending on the circumstances, but it is not a crime per se to take photographs of children. Nor do the police have the right to take your film for destruction, just as they cannot demand that you delete digital images. Either the film provides evidence of some offence on your part, in which case it should not be destroyed, or it does not, in which case it should not have been taken. Destruction (or deletion)requires a court order.
I work as an art photographer, mainly landscapes and abstracts and sell my work in the form of prints and cards. About 15 years ago I took a couple of photographs of a Highland Estate from a public road. Part of the estate owners home is visible as in this shot -
http://www.gordon-c-harrison.co.uk/product/m00769_flowerdale_in_autumn/
The owner of the estate phoned to ask me to stop selling the images on the grounds of privacy. He actually volunteered the opinion that I was legally entitled to sell the photographs but asked me nonetheless to stop doing so.
What is the law with regard to this? If I had been on a commercial shoot where the photographs were to be used to advertise or promote something then maybe the would have the law on his side? But I work as an artist, not as a commercial photographer, and simply sell artworks as prints and cards.
Hello Gordon,
Though other jurisdictions very in their laws relating to this, at present in the UK a person does not have image rights in his property. It could be an infringement of a person’s right to privacy if you were taking photos through a window, for example, but a photograph of a building, taken from a public place, in such a manner as the photograph you have linked to, will not be an infringment (not yet, anyway!). There could be potential legal problems if, as you say, the images were to be used for advertising or promotional purposes (such images would probably also fall foul of the CAP Code in those circumstances).
If publication of an image that includes a person’s property were actionable, Google Street View could not operate in the UK. Hence, the landowner is correct that you are legally entitled to sell the photographs. Whether you choose to comply with his request as a courtesy is up to you.
Hello Linda,
Thank you for that very helpful response, and for the generous giving of your time and expertise in this column, hugely appreciated.
Linda,
Please can you give me clarification on what RF photos from sites such as iStockphoto really mean? Does it mean that I can reprocess, reprint and resell the photo many times? Also I have a friend who would sell me his photos direct but is unsure what a RF contract would entail. Can you help?
thanks,
Phil.
Any stock site has it’s own license agreement. For iStockphoto please read this page http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
A Simon has pointed out, it depends on the terms of the royalty-free licence; these differ from one site to another. The concept of royalty-free is that a single licence fee gives you the right to use the image (or whatever) with no further royalties payable for future use. But the licence can restrict the actual use – making and selling prints of the image is not permitted under the royalty-free licences with which I am familiar. Printing the image onto items for sale, such as post cards or t-shirts, usually isn’t allowed either. But, in short, it depends very much on the individual licence.
← Previous Comments
{ 69 trackbacks }