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 www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr or leave 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
{ 9 trackbacks }
{ 598 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Is it illegal in any way to take pictures of cars that are parked badly? e.g. using an iphone to take the picture and then having that pitcure automatically uploaded to the web… ..say twitpic or flckr?
That’s really a great news!! Thanks for sharing. Been waiting for the version 2 of the guide.
Last night (near Cambs) whilst taking dusk long exposures from a bridge over one of the major routes thro’ this region I was approached by the (Traffic) Police. After a few initial searching questions, he must have satisfied himself that I was no threat to man nor beast. However, he then proceeded to explain that a recent birthday gift had been a Nikon D90 and asked could I give him a couple of pointers on how to take successful long exposures.
Within 10 minutes it was all over and they had moved on. It was all very amicable but it left me with a feeling that my privacy had been invaded and also left me wondering why I had been approached in the first place. So much so that I decide to find out more about UK photographers rights and precisely what powers the Police have. I found your guide quite enlightening.
I subsequently determined that there were no applicable laws preventing me from taking the pictures I had taken, that I was not obstructing, harassing nor invading anyone else’s privacy but it would have been useful for me to have a better appreciation of the wider UK restrictions. Still no real harm done and ‘Rob the Bob’ was better off to the tune of a free 5 min tutorial.
Peter, I’m sure you will probably have read by now that the case against Mr Antoniou was dismissed when it came to court(18/05/09). Assuming his account of the events is accurate it seems somewhat incredible that the charge under s.5 of the 1986 Act should have been brought in the first place, since the section would not cover his conduct unless he had been threatening, abusive or disorderly.
(Re the Public Order Act 1986 rather than the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – the latter amended the former and inserted some new material, but it does not replace or repeal it.)
To Sally,
Selling the images as mounted prints should be fine even with car number plates showing. I say this with some hesitation, since the no court has actually considered the privacy implications of showing car number plates in images, but as the cars in question were on display at a show there are unlikely to be privacy implications.
Looking back through some of the older comments, there appear to be some queries in the past month that I haven’t seen before and might have missed. Apologies if I haven’t answered your particular query, do post again if I have missed you out!
Linda
Tom B
At the moment at least, the property owner’s permission to take the photos would be enough. Depending on the circumstances, though, there may be privacy or data protection issues depending on what you do with the photos.
Mark,
It isn’t illegal to take pictures of illegally parked cars. There might be legal issues in publishing them to the web or anywhere else if number plates are visible. No court has decided in the UK whether publishing an image of an identifiable car might be an invasion of privacy, but the Information Commissioner felt that the steps taken by Google Streetview to blur car number plates was necessary in the interests of privacy.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your reply. The case was dismissed by the Magistrates Court. According to The Register :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/19/greek_photographer/print.html the Police didn’t offer any evidence. I wonder if he could pursue a case of wrongful arrest? Interestingly,
LU or TfL still can’t seem to make their minds up as to whether you are, or are not allowed to take pictures (non-commercial obviously) on the tube without LU’s prior permission . There web site still says you can.
Peter
Suspected typo (column 4 page 1):
“a recent decision of the EHCR”
Does this refer to the European Convention on Human Rights? and so ECHR?
Thanks for a great guide!
James, yes, sorry! It is a typo and should be ECHR. Though it stands for the European Court of Human Rights rather than the Convention.
I’ll get the PDF amended and a new version posted asap.
Typo fixed version is up now, sorry for that.
Hello. I was taking architectural photographs around the Glasgow Fort Shopping Centre when approached by a security guard (had obviously seen me on CCTV because they came straight towards me, which is an interesting intrusion in itself). They said photography was not allowed “due to the Data Protection Act” – they had taken a blanket decision to ban any photography, whether it included people or not. While strictly this is private property (although built on public land) it certainly qualifies as public space. I find this restrictive of my civil liberties. Comments?
Interesting again and thanks for the update. Just on a side not, on a
anorak issue, I was reading the Railway Magazine June 2009. Seems that the jovial train spotter and casual photographer now get short shrift from the law.
But a warning to single males who may venture too close to a steaming miniature railway, armed with a camera these coming months. Seems your presence is not wanted.
Hi Simon, would it be possible to turn on hyphenation in InDesign and see if that flows the text a bit better? The justification’s fairly heavy in places due to the narrow column measure. It might also gain you a line or two over the document, which could be used to increase the leading a little. There’s good advice on this issue in the following PDF:
http://www.creativepro.com/files/downloads/20070608.pdf
Many thanks to you both for updating the guide, it’s remarkably useful!
@Stef – I did try hyphenation when making the PDF, but the flow was nasty and I didn’t have time to fiddle around for hours on it. I’ll give it another look when I have time. Thanks for the comment and suggestion!
Bruce, the Data Protection Act gets blamed for a lot of policies that really don’t have much to do with data protection. But there is a lot of uncertainty about the full extent of how the Act operates and I guess people prefer to cover their backs, as it were. Whether because of the Data Protection Act or for any other reason, they are entitled to prohibit photography if they want to. A place to which the public have access is not the same as a public place. You have a licence to access the private property, but the owners can impose whatever conditions they like on that licence, and they can also revoke it at any time.
Thanks for your comment Linda. This is interesting. What is the definition of a ‘public place’? Everything is owned by someone, are you suggesting this definition could be used to severely restrict what you can photograph? I guess I could understand Glasgow Fort’s policy is they were an enclosed shopping centre, but the fact that it is a ‘retail park’ open to the elements with public roads passing the site on all sides. The concern is that landowners start trying to make a buck from charging to photograph iconic landmarks, statues etc. on their land, much in the way your guide describes that photography is restricted in Royal Parks. I have noted that the owner of the picturesque and historic Cove Harbour in Berwickshire has put up big signs saying you can’t take photos, despite a right-of-way running through the middle of the site and public access being granted. That seems unreasonable if not immoral.
Bruce, that’s a good question. In general, public places would include public highways, parks, town and village squares, public sports facilities and playgrounds, that kind of thing. But it is also the case that local byelaws can restrict the right to do things even in public places – as with Trafalgar and Parliament Squares and the Royal Parks.
With Glasgow Fort, for example, the owners can restrict photography on their own property, but could not prevent the property being photographed from the public road.
Access rights in Scotland muddy the waters further, since they give the public a right of access to private property, with some limitations, and allow activities to be carried on during access, which would include photography, even commercial photography. Access rights to not extent to buildings or to the curtilage of buildings, so they would apply to very little in an urban environment. Cove Harbour is thus an interesting case, though the harbour itself could be described as a building. In addition, if the right of way is a public highway, one could take photographs from there.
In England, where access rights are much more restricted, there would be little to stop landowners charging photographers for permission to take photographs on their land (though not from a public highway running through the land). The National Trust already does this, for commercial photography.
The PDF of Photographers’ Rights v2 keeps returning an error message “The file is damaged and could not be repaired”. I’ve updated my Adobe Reader to 9.1.0. Is it me? Other PDFs open normally.
It sounds like the PDF has corrupted in download. Try downloading it again.
So, basically, you can take photos of anything from the street but power-hungry assholes working as law enforcement might give you a hard time. I say don’t cooperate with police, ever. A few hours locked up > Giving up your principles.
You guys have some draconian statutes.
Hello. under invasion of privacy I was wondering – what happens if you take a photo of a celebrity in a public place such as a museum or restaurant. Could you then put the photo on the website or post it on youtube? Are celebrity rights different? I can’t imagine that the paparazzi get release forms signed for all the shots that get published in the magazines or is that because they have separate rights??
THANK YOU!!!
Sarah,
No, celebrity rights are not any different from anyone else’s. You have to be careful not to confuse a “public place” with a place that is open to the public and restaurants and some museums are generally private places which may have restrictions on photography. However, that was not your question. In respect of privacy, obviously the paparazzi do not get release forms from all the celebrities for the shots that feature in magazines. Often they don’t need them, because the celebrity in question is happy to be photographed, or the photo features the celebrity at a public event where they would have no expectation of privacy. But nowadays you will see few pictures of celebrities doing things like having a private meal in a restaurant, unless the celebrity has given permission for the photo, because the publication may be sued for infringing their right to privacy. As recent court cases have shown, even the publication of images taken of a person in a public street can now amount to an infringement of their right to privacy, depending on the circumstances, and also, of course, depneding on whether the celebrity becomes aware of the publication and objects to it.
For Tony Y. I am a retired police officer, and was a serving officer before the farcical EU pushed its nose into so called human rights. One of the good things of living in this country is that a police officer can talk with a total stranger in the street. Obviously a police officer may suspect something fishy may be going on, but having had a word with the person in question all is well. One way for the public to be reassured that the police are approchable is for police officers to have friendly chats with ” joe public “. That was the part of policing I liked the best.
David, old chap. You have clearly not been ‘Stopped and Searched’ recently, as I have just been on Oxford Street, whilst photographing for a magazine. I had no ID but co-operated fully. My Oyster card was siezed by the police to get the serial number off it. It was a Big Brother moment. These are the end days for street photography.
once again a great guide. a huge fan of the first. thanks for updating it.
Have already linked to his page on a forum and will no doubt link about once a week at this rate.
this is a hot topic, now more than ever.
thanks for all the time that went into this document
Ho Linda,
Here’s another case of a photographer arrested, held and threaten, it seem , with
a charge of harassment. I know the police have a lot of discretion (which has its good points) but is this really lawful?
‘Today at a music festival on public land i was arrested for taking photos after complaints from members of the public. I explained to the police that photography on public land is perfectly lawful. They said without an official permit what i was doing was illegal and i am alarming and distressing the festival crowd.
This was strange as i saw hundreds of people with cameras around me. Back at the station after several hours in the cells, i was told to go straight home or i will be charged and face the magistrates court in the morning.’
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/3603318615/
The actions of the police do seem rather excessive, but it is hard to say whether they were unlawful on the basis of such a short account and without knowing what (if anything) he did to draw the attention of the police when plenty of other people were using cameras. It’s also rather difficult to determine what (if anything specific) they were threatening to charge him with, or on what basis he was detained (since they must have thought they had some legal grounds to detain him).
I would advise him to go through the complaints procedure for the police authority concerned, and, in the first instance, to ask for the reason for his ejection from the event and the reason for his subsequent detention.
i know this is a little cheeky to ask photographers, but i have been followed on a number of occasions by an ex-employee who has been taking photos of me in a Tesco filling station and in the grounds of a private industrial park where i work, to establish my movements.
He was told by Tesco to desist due to the proximity of fuel pumps.
On both occasions he was stupid enough to ignore the cctv cameras.!
the photos were sent to his solicitor who forwarded them to me and to the Employment Tribunal. this seems a very grey area and although i know this is asking a poacher to turn gamekeeper, i am asking you please to share any knowledge you may have.
thank you in advance for any assistance you can give me.
brian
It is a grey area, Brian, and rather hard to answer without knowing what justification, if any, he might have for the photography and for following you. (And understandably you don’t want to discuss the issues you have with this former employee on a public forum).
If he has been regularly following you and photographing you on more than one occasion, this may amount to harassment and you could seek an injunction (or interdict if you are in Scotland) to prevent further instances of this conduct.
There is unlikely to be any invasion of privacy as the law presently stands, because the images he took were not for publication, and although the images of you could be regarded as personal data, the Data Protection Act does have an exception when personal data are disclosed if the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, .
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights (DPA s.35). I assume that this was his purpose, since the photos were sent to his solicitor.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your comment on the photographer who was arrested at the music festival. He has added a bit more about the circumstances that leading to his arrest on flicker saying:
‘At the festival I took a portrait shot of two festival goers who posed for my camera, they genuinely were interested in my project and took a card so they could see themselves on the net, later they complained to the police which still baffles me, hence the police stopping and questioning me. The police could not understand why anyone would want to photograph a stranger and said this will alarm and distress people. My annoyance came from there assistance that photography on council run festival land is illegal without a permit which led to my wrongful arrest.’
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/3603318615/?addedcomment=1#comment72157619485732509
Well, the police not understanding why someone would want to photograph a stranger does not make photographing a stranger a crime. I’m also intrigued as to what this “permit” might be. The festival organisers might prohibit photography (though clearly they hadn’t) but that would not be a police matter.
I understand from the Flickr thread that the photographer is making a complaint through the IPCC. They will forward it to the force concerned.
Hi Linda.
My wife and I are trying to get started in the event photography market and to this end have been taking pictures of the rehearsals of a local dance studio for a show they are performing in a few weeks.
We are aware of some of the pitfalls and minefields for photographers and in this instance we are worried about getting the correct permissions to use/distribute/sell our images which we take under these circumstances and hope you can clarify a few points.
Many of the performers are between 14 and 18 so I wondered what written permissions we would need to get (if any) from the parents/studio to use these images within an online portfolio (but not for selling)?
For future events involving dance studios and dramatic societies, if we wished to put those images into a stock library, what permissions would we require from the performers and/or the studio/society?
Finally, if the studio/society already had written permission from the performers (or their guardians) to allow photographs to be taken and used, would they be able to transfer that right over to the photographer in some way (eg written contract)?
Thanks.
Victor, these questions are a bit specific to be covered by a comment here, but I can give you some general info.
There are potential data protection issues with images of people and the extent to which the Data Protection Act applies to images of people without any further identifying information has not yet been determined by a court. I would advise anyone to err on the side of caution. The Act does not require consent to be in writing, but it is safest as it provides clear evidence of consent. Also, the Act does not stipulate an age at which someone can consent for themselves, and it seems to be based on whether the individual genuinely understands what they are consenting to. All the same, it would be best to get the consent of a parent/guardian if the subject is under the age of 18.
Many stock libraries will not accept images of people without a signed release (and signed by a parent/guardian if the subject is under 18). If images are to be used for what is loosely termed “editorial use”, they may come within the exemption provided in the DPA for personal data processed for the special purposes of journalism, literature or art.
If the studio/society has permissions from the performers or their guardians they could not transfer it to you as such (this would need the consent of the person who gave the permission). But if the permissions were broad enough to allow photographs to be taken and used by third parties, you would be covered by those permissions.
Linda,
Is there is one law we can quote to police officers or security guards when going about our legal right to photograph from a public highway that may convince them to leave us alone.
Maybe we could get a solicitor to create a legal document, which we could carry around in our camera bags,to present to those who are trying to use the law to stop us taking pictures.
thanks
paul
There really isn’t, since there is no statute that sets out that right. UK law generally works on the assumption that something is legal unless there is a law against it, and there is no law against taking photographs in a public place, so long as you aren’t causing an obstruction. Of course, there are circumstances in which the police might move you on, for example when there is a situation of public disorder or something similar. And there are, of course, the various anti-terrorism measures that MAY apply, though they are taken too far by some.
I have wondered before whether someone could produce a combined checklist / form that could be used when if approached by a security official, police officer or just jobsworth.
It could act as a prompt of what questions to ask and spaces to record their answers in words or by ticking boxes. It could act as a reminder if a 5090X is required.
Also space to fill in their details – name, number, company or police force etc. Obviously date, time and location as well.
It would ensure that all this is recorded in detail and also they would know that you have recorded it all.
Linda and Simon
I would just like to say thank you for all the hard work you have put in to this. It is very helpful for all us photographers and is very much appreciated.
Thanks again.
Gary
yep,I totally agree with Gary,this is a very useful resource for photographers and to cap it all its free, but it certainly isn’t cheap.
jack
Our observatory has “open days” attended by the public. We usually have somebody there (a nominated member with camera) to take the club “official” pictures that go into our private member newsletter. We always make a point of asking people if they mind us taking their picture, or if it’s a kid we ask the parents. Usually nobody minds one bit. Can you confirm (mainly to keep our committee happy) that with this in mind, there’s no issue using the pictures in our newsletter, and that we don’t need signed consent forms? I believe I’m right in thinking we’d only need those if we were wanting to use the pictures for advertising posters or in the paper… or would verbal consent be enough too (bearing in mind nobody would be paid!)?
Technically, Matt, verbal consent is legally enough for most purposes. (Though the CAP Code urges marketers to obtain written permission before portraying a person in advertising). The reason that signed consent forms are sought is that they provide evidence that consent was given if this should later be disputed. If you wish to use images of members of the public in your advertising, you should get written consent. For the purposes of your newsletter, your present practice is fine. Another possibility would be to put a sign at the entrance to the observatory, on open days, saying that photographs will be taken and may be published in the members’ newsletter.
Linda, hopefully you can advise if a fellow camera club member was in the right as I believe he was. He was photographing a general view from the public road of the outside of Aylesbury prison. He, like myself, was producing modern photographs of images held by the county museum. The county library had asked us to take the photo’s for an exhibition featuring Aylesbury old and new. My friend was accused of breaking the law by an off duty prison officer leaving work. He was told to stop and was also informed that if he was in uniform he had the power to arrest him. A day later I was taking the same shots from a position on the other side of the road from the main prison entrance, and although it was quite quite obvious what I was doing, I was even using a tripod to help precisely matching the composition of the old photograph, no one bothered me. Was I and my friend acting within the law?
There is no law that specifically prohibits taking photographs of a prison building from a public highway, though I guess it is one of those circumstances that might legitimately lead to the police asking questions about your reasons for doing so.
A prison officer does not have powers of arrest (beyond those that any citizen has) just because he is uniform. A prison officer has the same powers of arrest as a police constable only when he is acting as a prison officer. Those powers would allow him to arrest someone caught smuggling contraband into or out of the prison, for example. They do not give him general powers of arrest at any time or anywhere.
hello, a great help but does anyone know about the law in france? thanks
← Previous Comments