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 }
This is the handiest little guide relevant to UK law and photographers I’ve seen. Its value is its careful brevity – more comprehensive descriptions of the law in this area are bewildering.
Nice work there, mate! Interesting even for people outside the UK (such as myself).
Excellent! Thanks!
I understand also that a photographer is ‘in the right’ when making an image of a copyrighted work of “artistic craftsmanship” (ie: object shown in a public gallery show), if the photo is made for the purposes of undertaking a “published review” (ie: to illustrate a review in a publication). The photographed work doesn’t have to be “permentantly situated”, either.
I would be interested to hear comments on this thread:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=49635
Specifically the issues raised concerning the HRA and DPA and the suggestion that the cited cases, laws, and regulations in effect make candid photography in a public place illegal. To me it sounds like hogwash…
Noppy said
“I understand also that a photographer is ‘in the right’ when making an image of a copyrighted work of “artistic craftsmanship” (ie: object shown in a public gallery show), if the photo is made for the purposes of undertaking a “published review” (ie: to illustrate a review in a publication). The photographed work doesn’t have to be “permentantly situated”, either.”
That’s pretty much correct. Fair dealing with any copyright work (not just works of artistic craftsmanship) for the purposes of criticism and review will not infringe copyright in the work provided the work has been made available to the public and sufficient acknowledgement is made (i.e. identifying the author/creator of the work)
Thanks for the guide, it’s good to know where we stand legally in a little document that is easy to read and understandable.
Very interesting and helpful guide. Thank you for making it available.
While I realise space is a premium on the document, it would be helpful to have a few more words about “commercial use”, the biggest rights issue I face as a stock photographer is the responce: “Yes you can take photos… so long as they are not for commercial use.”
Appart from the few cases in London (parliment square, traffalgar square etc). Does the law distinguish between personal use and commercial use?
Thanks,
Ian.
thanks for that
Excellent information, thanks for sharing with us, when ive got my site finished i will provide a link back to this
Very useful guide and I will recommend it to others.
I can’t see anything about the now widespread public perception that you are not allowed to take photographs of children, even in public places, without permission from parents.
Very good article.
As per Jon Sparks comment – it would be very useful to have an authoritative guide on both taking and usage of photographs of children. Even schools seem to be misinformed and paranoid about this. An instance today – I photographed mini rugby for a local paper – I usually forward a few low res pictures to the club concerned for their web site – they are disinclined to put the kids up on the web for “child protection” reasons. I understand their worry in the current climate but it is hard to cite a authoritative statement and explanation of the law. Apart from that (possibly omitted because of the very lack of law ?)the guide is extremely helpful – many thanks.
Great and handy tool for photgraphers, but I must ask what about the rest of Europe, is there any European establishment/law guide for non UK residents photographers?!
Thanks
I don’t know of any other guides to photographers rights apart from the Krages USA guide. If anyone does know of other such a guides I’d be happy to link to them.
I would just like to say that I am very greatful for the work undertaken in compiling this very useful document.
Thank you
Very useful and concise. – Thanks
I’ve pointed several clients to it when they started asking me about more detailed legal stuff (that and checked my own standard T&Cs)
There have been a number of queries here about the issue of taking photos of children, and I have also has some e-mails concerning this, so I thought it would be worth summarising some points here.
In general terms the laws relating to privacy and to data protection apply to children exactly as they apply to adults. The exceptions, children involved in court proceedings and indecent photographs, I did mention in the article. Thus, taking a photograph of a child in a public place, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is no different from taking a photograph of an adult in the same circumstances.
In addition, the Press Complaints Commission Code says that journalists must not interview or photograph a child under 16 on subjects involving the welfare of the child, or other children, without the consent of the parent of the child. This is quite a specific exception, obviously.
To use a child (under 16) for paid modelling work requires a local authority licence. This should be applied for at least 21 days before the date of the proposed shoot. (This fits in with various protections regarding children in paid work.)
The data protection issues are rather more complex and again they apply regardless of whether the subject is an adult or a child, with the difference being that, if consent is needed, for children under the age of 14 the consent must be given by the child’s parent or the person legally responsible for his/her welfare. When it comes to taking photographs of anonymous children (i.e. identity not known to the photographer) in a public place, it is presently uncertain whether this will be regarded as personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. Where the identity of the child is known to the photographer, the photograph will be regarded as personal data. Consent would therefore be needed before anything could be done with the photo. BUT, the Act contains some exceptions that would cover many of the activities of an amateur photographer.
Photographs intended for publication for journalistic or artistic purposes are exempt from most of the provisions of the Act. This would, for example, include images that were intended to be used for a photographic exhibition or competition, or in a book of photography, as well as photo-journalism.
An additional important exemption is that personal data (i.e. photos) processed by an individual for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational activities) are exempt from virtually all of the provisions of the Act. Photographers who, for example, are shooting their children taking part in a sporting event, for a family photo album, are not infringing data protection laws. Yet many have been prevented from taking photos in such sitations. The problem is that the venue for such events is generally either privately owned or owned by the local authority, and the owner has the right to stipulate whether or not photographs may be taken by someone actually on their property. Local authorities in particular have tended to over-react to the data protection issues and have prohibited photography, especially of children, on property owned by them. There really is very little legal recourse in this situation, unless the photos can be taken from outside the property. Even then the situation can become unpleasant if the police are called because someone is “lurking” around where children are playing.
Document is faulty and will not open. There is nothing wrong with my computer as every other PDF I have works fineReply from Admin – there is nothing wrong with the PDF, try updating your copy of acrobat reader to the latest version.
Thanks for that guide, link will be added shortly
Thankyou for publishing this document it has helped set my mind at rest in most areas I was unsure aout. I never used to worry about taking photographs until I was stopped by security guards in a number of places.
I have spoken to the police directly about the issue who gave me the general overview that I can photograph anything or anyone from places of national security, private property and other people children.
One thing I was unaware of was gaining concent from a person before filming them if the images are being used for commercial gain, however with TV shows like Trigger Happy TV ect. I doubt this is something we need to worry about too much in the UK.
Regards, Chris
Reply from Admin – Chris, I think the way Trigger Happy TV and other hidden camera shows work is they ask the person for permission after filming. Some people refuse and they can’t use that footage, those that do agree sign a model release and the film can be used.
hello,
i was recently in london and i was taking photos of the gherkin building. the one that looks like a large green sexual accessory. anyway, the security guard was very insistant that i could not take a picture from up close, only across the street or from the sidewalk. the reason he gave was superfluous and silly, but he was quite the obstructionist.
is this possible? i suppose the swiss bank or whomever owns the area surrounding the building. but i was wondering if they can enforce such silliness?
thanks
Reply from Admin - Hi John, this shouldn’t be taken as legal advise but I believe that the gherkin is copyrighted and any close up or isolated image of it could not be sold for commercial purposes (stock, etc). If it was a skyline shot it would be a different matter of course. As far as security stopping you from shooting up close, it’s quite possible that the ground you are standing on is privately owned. If it is then security can enforce whatever policy they like. If you are asked to move on, be polite ask for a reason why, then ask where the exclusion zone ends.
Reply from Linda - Sorry, John, I should have come back on this earlier but I haven’t been on the site for a while. In the UK, s.62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides, inter alia, that copyright in a building is not infringed by taking a photograph of it, nor by any distribution of any photograph of the building to the public (i.e. commercial use). However, the reply from Admin is absolutely correct in that, if you are taking the photo from land that is privately owned, the owners have the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on the use of the land, including photography. Asking politely about the extent of the private land is probably the best course.
UK Photographers Rights
Download a PDF detailing your rights as a photographer in the UK. Says what you can and can’t do.
I have linked to this site at the Club website as we have both British and international membership.
For 15 years I photographed construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stage 1) and I along with others had several run ins with un informed security staff.
The solution always semed to be … know your rights and stand your ground. It always worked for me.
One thing that did help is having some form of ID.. a photo badge witha logo of your project works wonders as does some printed literature setting out what you are doing. Presenting this always seemed to finalise matters quite nicely.
I happened to have my camera with me when I saw a group of boys (probably 12 years old)terrorising a cat with a dog (on a leash). I took a picture of the boy with the dog and threatened to send it to the RSPCA if he didn’t stop. Should I have done this? Is it legal to do so?
Added by Linda: This is legal. Again, it makes no difference in this situation whether the person involved is a child or an adult. The only legislation that might apply here is the Data Protection Act and taking the photograph in these circumstances would come within the exemption that it is for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime.
Thank you Linda..I did check with our officials, they said what you said. It was that it was an open publicly accessed area that confused me and a professional unbiased view was preferable. Again thank you very much…Kevin
Photographers Rights..very informative. One point I would like your advice on, I live in Harlow Essex, we have an open air shopping area completly open to the public, no barriers, doors or charges etc..On the advice of a manager a security guard requested that I cease taking photographs, claiming that I was on private property..that is possibly true..Question, do I have the right to take photographs unhindered as I was on freely publicly accessed land. The photographs I was looking to take were architectural..Thank you..yours Kevin Harbird
Reply from Linda: If it is private property, the owners have the right to place whatever conditions they wish on your presence there, including placing a prohibition on photographs. They cannot prevent you taking photographs of the area or its buildings from outside the privately owned area, though this is unlikely to help you if you need to be closer to the buildings than that would allow. If you can find out who the owner is (probably a corporation, it might be worth confirming that they really do not allow photography, and it isn’t just a kneejerk reaction from the manager.
Photographers’ rights in the UK
A very handy guide to your rights when taking photographs – very useful in these paranoid times.
Hy everyone,
Thank you for the photographer’s guide and the luminous comments.
This kind of “reference handbook” should be edited for the French peoples. We too have sometimes problems when takin pictures. Security peoples often doesn’t seems to like photographers. Street peoples too.
Many of them think that they could making a lot of money if they are taking by photographers.
In fact, reporters photographs modifying their manner of taking information pictures. Blur, cropped faces, people view from back. Since 2000, street photography had a “new aesthetic”.
I found here some useful tips for continuing my photographic work meanwhile best times…
Cheers,
Emmanuel
With the emphasis on the freedom of information and the necessity for a transparent system of government, these buildings need to be fully accessible to public viewing. There should be no restriction on monitoring these organisations. However, moving in and living in the building has no relationship to taking photographs or recording conversation
Durdle Door and Lulworth Cove on the Dorset coast are well known and often photographed places open to the public via what I believe to be rights of way. However, there are signs stipulating that photographs of the area must not be taken for commercial purposes without the permission of the landowners (the Lulworth Estate).
To what extent can the landowner prevent the use of such photographs?
Reply from Linda
Rights of public access to privately owned land in England and Wales is now governed by The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Section 2(1) of the Act gives the public a statutory right of access to certain kinds of land, but Schedule 2(1)lists the purposes for which Section 2(1) does not entitle any person to be on land, and this list includes anyone who “engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose.”
This means that the landowner is entitled to prevent photography for commercial purposes. If you did then take photographs for commercial use, you would no longer be entitled to be on the land and would, in effect, be trespassing. The photographer could be sued for damages and the usual rule that damages are only awarded to compensate for actual losses suffered by the plaintiff do not apply. Nominal damages can always be claimed for trespass and, in the case of trespass for commercial photography, exemplary damages might be awarded in some circumstances.
Ok, that doesn’t really answer your question, but I wanted to make it clear that any commercial gain from the photographs might be wiped out by damages and legal costs.
With regard to the landowner preventing the use of the photographs, he could ask the court for an injunction to prevent publication, which the court may or may not grant, depending on the circumstances. In the circumstances you describe, the likelihood would be that the court would not grant an injunction, but would award damages to the landowner in respect of the trespass, such damages being greater than the any profit made from the publication of the photographs.
i have been taking picturs now for some years untill the other day when a crime was taking place and i took pictures of the crime and from a window took pictures of the person all the time and every time they went near this person.
is that ok or is it invading there human rights.
as the person is now being sort after by the police should i hand over my pictures.
Reply from Linda
I assume that the crime in question was being carried out in a public place? Even if it wasn’t, the Human Rights Act does not create absolute rights, it tries to balance the rights of different interests. Frankly, a person who is in the process of committing a crime is not going to be able to argue that you invaded his privacy by taking photos of him doing it. If he could, every CCTV and security camera would also be an invasion of human rights.
Should you hand your photos over to the police? There is no legal obligation in these circumstances to report a crime or to present yourself as a witness. There is arguably a strong moral obligation though – that has to be your decision.
If I want to take photographs in public buildings like post offices, hospitals or doctors surgeries and I only intend to use the footage for artistic value and not comercial gains, do I need permission from any of the subjects I photograph?
Reply from Linda
Well, you would first need to check whether you are allowed to take photographs in the buildings in question. They may be buildings to which the public has access, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean that you are allowed to take photographs there. I would very much doubt that a doctor’s surgery or a hospital would allow photography or the people there.
As far as the people are concerned, the law of privacy in the UK is still in something of a state of flux, but the courts might well take the view that hospitals and doctors’ surgeries are places where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and taking photographs of people there might be regarded as a breach of confidence, unless you obtain their consent.
Dear Linda (and other contributors)
My compliments and thanks to you for not only writing the article on photographers rights but also for responding to questions on these pages; the latter have proved just as illuminating as the article.
I recently visited a local tourist attraction which is recreation of an Anglo Saxon village. I took photos for stock of the buildings, people and activities, including my children dressed in Saxon costume weaving etc. Upon leaving I noticed a sign saying that commercial photography was only allowed by permission of the steward. I could easily have not seen/ignored this sign. I sent low res thumbs of my images to the steward asking for permission to use them. A request for money was made which I responded to by offering to make high res versions availble to them for free. In the end permission was denied and I have respected that. But if I went ahead and ignored this prohibition what law would I be breaking and what legal redress would they
(a local council) have? Thanks
Reply from Linda
It’s rather hard to answer this without knowing more. I assume that this was an attraction that you paid to enter. If so, you would have a contract with the council and it would govern the terms and conditions under which you were allowed to enter the attraction. You can only be governed by terms and conditions of which you were made aware, but this can be done by means of imported terms – a notice as you enter, a note on a ticket that says that entry is subject to terms and conditions, that kind of thing. The fact that you didn’t see the sign doesn’t matter if it was visible on entry and a reasonable person could have seen it.
If you ignored the prohibition, you have not broken any law in the criminal sense, but you would be in breach of contract and could be sued for damages.
Even without any contract, the owner of land is entitled to restrict entry to his land or to put conditions on that entry. If one of those conditions is a restriction on photography, then you become a trespasser as soon as you breach that restriction. Again, the council could bring a civil action for damages.
Good guide – thanks.
Hi very interesting content. If there are no photographic restrictions mentioned within the terms and conditions of entering a site / event, am I free to sell any photographs taken without seeking the organiser / property owners permission? I was thinking along the lines of pictures of steam engines, lamps, track etc at preserved steam railways, aeroplanes at airshows (and airports where the image is obtained from within the airfield boundary i.e. photograhers area) and other events such as council fun days. How about street art, statues, monuments and other arty items like benches, bike racks, lighting. Could I be in infringement if I sold an image of such art?
Many Regards
Reply from Linda:
Just to make things complicated, the answer is yes and no. It is generally true that you can take and sell photographs of things on private property, unless it is a condition of entry that you cannot. (Different rules may apply to taking photographs of people, where the Data Protection Act might come into play.) You do need to take some care with images that contain another person’s trademark – this would probably apply to photos taken at an airport, where the planes have business logos and trademarked design elements. A trademark is infringed where it is used, without the consent of the owner in relation to goods or services identical to or sufficiently similar to the goods and services for which the mark is registered and this use is likely to lead to confusion. So, to some extent it depends what the image will be used for. If you are just selling prints (and assuming the mark is not registered in connection with the selling of prints) this would be ok. But stock photo libraries won’t accept images that incorporate someone’s trademark because the images might be used in way that does infringe the mark.
The same would apply to images that do not incorporate registered trademarks, but where the object is strongly associated in the public mind with a particular business. If the image is used in way that might imply a connection with that business, the owner of the business could sue. So, again, the ultimate use of the image is what matters. Use in advertising is likely to be problematic, use on prints or postcards, less so. Where a trademark incorporates artwork it may also be protected by copyright, and cannot be photographed unless its inclusion is completely incidental to the subject of the image.
Generic steam-engines, lights and tracks are unlikely to present any intellectual property problems.
As for “streeet art” it is not an infringement of copyright to take or to distribute (i.e. sell) a photo of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship which is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public (though the owner of the premises can place restrictions on the right to take photos). Temporary installations, performance art, light displays are not covered by this exception. The benches and bike racks may not be covered by copyright, depending on their originality, but, even if they are, they would usually be regarded as works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place, and could be photographed.
Dear Sir,
Could you please tell me if it is illigal to paint a picture and sell it from some elses photograph ?
Thank You Mrs Usher.
Reply from Admin – Yes it would be a violation of the original artists work, unless you have specifically licensed the image to allow for resale. Most stock images cannot be resold in this manner. You should check the images license agreement for full information on this. If in doubt consult the agencies customer support and/or take your own legal advice.
I’ve recently started taking outdoor portraiture in woodland areas for people’s personal use – eg. anniversary photos, actors head shots, children and parents dressed as fairies etc. As the venture is new, I’m really distressed with being hit with permit charges on any scrub of land! A very low key operation, with low charges to clients, WHERE am I leagally able to take these shots? The latest upset came when I was shooting on Wimbledon Common – (by the name, I assumed common land) But no, like Richmond Park the week before, a permit was demanded half way through the shoot, with the phrase ‘commercial gain’ bandied around as if I was a rich photographer working for a major advertising agency!! Intererstingly, I tried to point out, there was NO mention against taking ‘commercial’ photos on the By laws sign at the edge of the wood, or in the leaflet handed to me by a ranger. I only found some mention on their website after the event. The scenery behind my clients is not identifiable as any particular park – I just need somewhere that has interesting trees and feels ‘magical’ . Please, I would so appreciate some advice as to public land, parks, river tow paths etc. and my rights to be on that land to take this kind of work?
Reply from Linda
The Royal Parks, of which Richmond Park is one, are covered by statutory provisions that prohibit taking photographs in connection with any business activity unless the photographer has permission from the Royal Parks Agency. They will normally charge a fee.
Other public parks aren’t covered by the provisions, but, unfortunately, local authorities may still restrict the right to take photographs for gain, or may demand a fee for allowing you to do so. The best bet is to check with the local authority for the place you intend to use.
Thanks very much for the guide, “Photographer’s Rights in the UK.” Please allow me to ask a few questions related to the photo that I have taken recently.
The photo was shot on a boat and as it happened I caught a child in a few more rows before me, looking into my lens. (The photo was filled half with the child and the other half with background of the surrounding; but after cropping it makes an excellent child photo). I understand from the postings on the page that it is legal to do so; even though the boat may be a private property, the staff on the boat were aware that I was taking photos continuously of the scenes and the people, and I wasn’t hiding my camera.
As I do with most of the other good pictures that I have taken, I would like to publish it on a photo-hosting website. I am not quite certain if it is okay to do so. The identity of the child is not known to me and I only take photos as a hobby and do not do it for a living. I believe that I own the copyright of the photo, but because it is on the Internet if some people use it for obscene purposes will I be responsible if any manipulation of the photo happens? By publishing on the photo-hosting website, will I be infringing any laws, since I think the photo will be viewed by dozens of other people.
Reply from Linda
This is rather a murky area of the law at present. The present state of the law in the UK is that there is no general right of privacy, even under the Human Rights Act. This may be subject to change in future. As far as the Data Protection Act is concerned, it is not clear, as yet, whether courts in the UK would regard as personal data a photograph of a person whose identity is not known to the photographer. If the photo is not regarded as personal data, none of the restrictions of the Data Protection Act would apply. Even if it is, there is an exemption in the Act for the processing of personal data for “artistic purposes”. Non-commercial publication on a photo-hosting website, equivalent to an exhibition of photographs, could be regarded as such.
You would not be liable if someone else, without your consent, manipulated your photo for obscene purposes. The offence is to take or make an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, or to distribute such a photograph. The offence would be committed by the person who did the manipulation.
Thank you very much in advance.
Linda,
Thank you ever so much for your reply. In short I understand your reply as, if an item, object etc (but not a person) is in the public domain, or on private property but you have permission to be on that land / event, and no photographic restrictions have been imposed by the land or article owner, then editorial style use (prints, books, personal use only image disks) are fine. Selling for commercial use, advertising etc becomes a bit more involved.
So I could sell a picture of Concord for someone to have as a personal use picture or image but not to someone who wants to use the picture in association with promoting their company or organization or event.
I would therefore imagine that images of strong brand items such as a steam locomotive painted as Thomas the Tank engine would be best avoided, and with well known locomotives it would be courteous, although not strictly required, to get written permission if the locomotive features strongly in the image or image set.
If I am unsure with regards selling an image I should contact a specialist legal advisor!
Thanks again.
Linda,
Many thanks for doing this – it is extremely useful! Do you know if there are any such resources covering other countries (other than the US)?
Joe
Reply from Linda
The US guide is the only one that I know of, though there may be others. I hope to do an international version, or at least a European version, if I ever get the time!
Excellent, informative, and a definite direct a client there tool.
Is there another version somewhere? I seem unable to open the file (I am typically able to view PDFs both on and offline with no problems).
Reply from Admin - Are you using an old version of acrobat reader ? It’s free to download and update to the latest version of acrobat reader. You can find the latest version here.
Weddings…
Say I have been hired to take photgrpahs at a wedding, what is the happy couple’s legal standings on the negatives?
Cheers
AM
Reply from Linda
It depends what you have agreed in the contract you have made with them. Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the copyright in the photos and the negatives remains with the photographer. But you don’t have complete freedom in what you can do with them. The person who commissioned the photographs has certain moral rights in them, meaning that you cannot sell them, distribute them or show or exhibit them in public without that person’s consent.
Thanks
Many of my shots are candid shots, it’s nice to know that where we stand in the eye of the law.
Thank you for replying to my post : )
With technological advances I cannot see how the public arena can refuse photography. Cameras can now be hidden in so many places; humanity will have no choice but to accept the ‘freedom of photography’. How else are we to gather possible evidence in this corrupt society?
Britain has more cameras ‘monitoring activity’ per head that any other country. I think privacy is deteriorating and if society is to overcome hypocrisy, people must become aware of themselves in every context possible!
What do you think about post offices, council offices, town halls and other buildings ‘owned’ by the taxpayer?
Reply from Linda
Sadly, what I think of it doesn’t make any difference, legally speaking. I’m a photographer as well as a lawyer, so naturally I am generally in favour of photographic freedom, at least within reason.
But, as far as those buildings “owned” by the taxpayer are concerned, the taxpayer may pay for them, but they are owned by various government or local authority agencies, and they can, if they wish, stop you taking photographs on their property, just as they could stop you moving in to their offices and sleeping there.
The rights of a photographer
UK Photographers Rights
More problems anounced for photographers and may become even more widespread. Under a scheme called Leisurewatch, photographers may face official questioning about activities in an even wider range of public places. Leisurewatch started in 2001 as a joint venture between local authorites and police and is now being rolled out nationwide with the backing of the home office. Staff involved canapproach photographers and demand an explination to there motives. if not satisfied they are empowered to report the photographer to the police. Signs will be displayed at accredited Leisurewatch sites and is currently focused at specified recreational areas, the scheme has pottential to be used in all sorts of public areas including beaches, piers and seafronts as well as parks etc.
Wedding
Hi could you please advise me
we had our wedding done prophesionaly by a freelanse photographer who has since died.
we would like to get the negatives for our wedding but his wife does not seem to want to coperate what can we do any ideas would be greatly apreciated on how we stand legally
we know this photographer would have keept all his negatives well organised at home
Thanks
Garry
Reply from Linda
The ownership of the negatives and any copyrights are a matter for the contract between the photographer and the client, but the usual terms are that the photographer retains the copyright in the images and also the ownership of the negatives. On the death of the photographer, these would pass to whoever was entitled to inherit under the terms of the photographer’s will, or, if he didn’t leave a will, under the laws of intestacy. Assuming that ownership of the negatives has passed to the photographer’s widow, and she is unwilling to part with them, there isn’t really anything you can do. There are, however, legal restrictions on what she can do with them.
{ 39 trackbacks }