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
I take pictures of people taking part in running races on public land and then sell them via a web site. I have permission from the race organisers to do this.
I ask under 18s for specific permission to have their photos on the web site.
Are there any other specific issues to be concerned about?
PS: Thanks in advance for any help
Stephen,
It can be difficult to know where public areas end and private property begins. Some Councils publish lists of the names of public road within their area. In the absence of that, the presence of Council road markings, streetlights and other road furniture is a good indicator. Council parking meters likewise. Bear in mind that photography or other activities may be restricted even in a public space by byelaws (Trafalgar Square and some of the London parks being good examples of this). Finding our who owns private property would require a search of the Land Registry and you would have to pay a fee for this.
As for security guards, they are acting on behalf of their employers, the owner or occupier of the property. If they request that you stop taking photographs while you are in/on that property, and you refuse, you become a trespasser. It follows that they do not have the authority to ask you to stop taking photographs when you are on someone else’s property, unless they are also employed by that landowner/occupier.
Hi Samantha,
No copyright issues with taking or publishing photographs of buildings. You might need to be careful of any artwork that is on a building though. For example, Tate Modern was recently covered with an exhibition of graffiti, and taking and publishing that without the consent of the artists would have presented a copyright problem.
You need to be sure that you are not on the building owner’s property, or, if you are, that there are no restrictions on photography there.
And, in London, don’t be surprised if you get approached by the police, especially if photographing something like the Houses of Parliament.
Hello Dave,
I suppose my only concern might be data protection issues, since there are some grey areas there regarding photos of identifiable individuals. Websites present particular problems because they are viewable throughout the world, so if the images were to be regarded as personal data under the Act you might be in breach of it. If the participants are aware in advance that photographs of them might be displayed on the web, this would operate as consent.
In theory this would apply to under 18s as well, but how young are some of these runners? If they are too young to give consent themselves, you would need it from a parent or guardian.
Thanks Linda,
I get the parents to sign for under 18s. The DPA thing I guess is the area. Some races have it as part of their conditions of entry that you may have your photograph taken on the route and that the race owns the rights to those images (e.g. Great North Run). No opt out clause even. I follow the guidelines given here with respect to children:
http://www.isrm.co.uk/information/270_photography_children.pdf
Interesting no mention of DPA here
Just a few words of thanks to Simon and Linda for providing an excellent resource (free which is always nice) and that your advice, expertise, time and effort is greatly appreciated. I was recently apprehended by Nottingham’s finest for taking photographs of a local church, at night and with the use of a tripod, would you believe! The two officers patrolling the empty streets of Nottingham that night screeched their squad car to a rather dramatic diagonal halt directly in front of my parked vehicle. They jumped out like Starsky and Hutch and with grave concern spent a good twenty minutes questioning me as to why I was so interested in taking photos of a religious building at night of all times and with the type of equipment I had (tripod and attached Canon DSLR with remote shutter release). After I’d satisfied them that I was an innocent local lad, interested in night photography, architecture and Nottingham street scenes and that I was certainly not planning a terrorist attack on my local church and made sure I nodded with agreement in all the right places regarding their concerns for my suspicious activity, they told me I’d be best advised to seek permission from the vicar in future. But what if he’s in bed when I want to take more photos of the church, at night, from the other side of the street 20 odd metres away with not a sole in sight apart from me and the chuntering drunk staggering towards me and my equipment. Where are the Police when you need them…
Hi Linda
Many thanks for all your time in sharing this information.
I wonder if you can offer some advice: I am working on a photographic survey of London mews properties at present. As many of the mews are situated within the London Estates, are there any additional issues I should be aware of in taking (and further down the line publishing) any of these images?
The shots are purely architectural and being produced from a Surveying/Development angle on behalf of a specialist building surveying company.
As I will be photographic over an extended period (There are 600+ mews…) over a wide area is there anywhere I can register with the police or a photography organisation to avoid being consistently stopped and asked to explain what I am doing?
Any help would be much appreciated!
Thanks
Hi Dave,
“http://www.isrm.co.uk/information/270_photography_children.pdf
Interesting no mention of DPA here”
Well, the situations where the DPA will or will not apply are not always clear. There are also various exceptions to the application of the Act. Most of the sports and recreational bodies have taken a much broader view of child protection and their measures go further than would be required by the DPA in any case.
Hello Nicola,
When you refer to London Estates, do you mean the properties managed by the Crown Estates? There are, in general, no copyright restrictions on taking or publishing images of buildings. If you need to be on private property to take an image, you should seek the consent of the property owner or you may be accused of trespassing.
It would be advisible to contact the police authorities in advance for the areas where you will be working – I suspect this area might cover more than one police authority. Carrying some kind of document from the building surveying company, which explains your remit, would also be a good idea, because yes, local residents are likely to call the police at some point.
Hello again,
I think my question touches on several previously discussed topics, including Nicola’s question.
There seems a profusion of private property not marked as such in London.
An example might be More London (where the mayors office is) but at least here its marked private and they have a sign saying it is not their intention to create a public right of way… (well obviously it is but that’s another issue).
My real problem is how do we tell where private property starts and stops and who has authority to prevent photo’s.
I was recently taking photo’s ‘behind’ Liverpool Street Station, the whole area is a private development and rented out to different companies.
A security guard asked me to stop taking photo’s so I complied and walked off the property as well as I could tell.
I actually walked onto what I can only assume is a public street but how to be certain if they own the pavement or not?
In this case I was playing as safe as possible and actually stood in the road not the pavement but the pavement had ‘council signs’ and ‘council parking meters’.
The security guard in question got quite aggressive and I had to inform him should he try and man-handle me again I would press charges for assault and pointed out he was on police surveillance cameras.
My question really is how to determine when we are on someone’s property or not.
If the security guard works for a company renting one building then do they have the right to prevent you taking photo’s from another buildings ‘land’ on the same development?
Further, the whole areas has signs designed to look like it is not private property. I think the easiest example is they signpost “Liverpool Street Station” from what is definitely public through their development.
Does the presence of parking meters (local council owned) on the pavement indicate the pavement is public?
I guess one final question is if there is a way to find out what is private and who owns it? The land behind Liverpool Street houses a lot of businesses and a Shopping Mall and the company owning the land obviously wants people to walk through and as such they make it appear to be public land.
However this isn’t an isolated case, there are many such ‘privately owned’ areas and it is often very difficult to tell where they start and end.
What is it about Yorkshire bus companies?
I read a month or so ago about one that has signs on their buses that say you are not allowed to take photographs of the buses.
Just reads of another one that has “prohibited pictures of buses being taken because the driver hasn’t given their consent to be in the picture.”
Makes me wonder what the companies have to hide?
MB
Martin,
The bus companies can stop anyone taking photographs on their buses, but would not have the right to stop someone taking photographs of their buses from a public street, unless the local authority introduced a byelaw to this effect.
Nicola,
I don’t know what the position is with the properties you mention, though I suspect that many if not most of the roads that go through these estates are public highways. You could check where you are unsure by contacting the estate owners or the local authority, either would be able to let you know.
A Press Card doesn’t give any special legal rights to its bearer, but does identify the holder and therefore can be reassuring to the police (though photojournalists get arrested too!).
The list of organisations that issue a recognised press card can be found here: http://www.presscard.uk.com/
Most of these only offer membership to people working in the news media.
I have only just happened across the “Counter Terrorism Bill Clause 83″ Which I believe has now been renumbered Clause 75:
(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (collection of information)
insert–
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1) A person commits an offence who–
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been–
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section
to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
I absolutely love my photography, and I quite often like to shoot street photography which on occasion involves photographing the Local Police responding to a 999 call, or simply dealing with members of the public. From what I can decipher from this further erosion of my enjoyment, are they really saying “take a photograph of a constable and risk arrest and jail?” I always go out taking photo’s with your invaluable download printed off in my pocket for the inevitable confrontation with the uneducated, but I am a little more wary of my rights now and how to respond if I were ever accused of committing an offence under this act? Should I be worried? Or will this be misused just like the counter terrorism act is? Thank you in advance for your valuable time…
Jean,
I believe it has now become Clause 79 in the most recent incarnation. Certainly your concerns were shared by some of the members considering it at the Committee stage of the Bill. Assuming it is enacted in its present form, we will have to wait to see how the courts interpret it. But presumably they will interpret it in line with judgments made concerning the existing s.58, which already provides that:
“A person commits an offence if—
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.”
In fact, some members of Parliament considering the Counter-Terrorism Bill thought that the new Clause 79 provisions were not necessary as they were already covered by s.58 as it exists already.
There is case law concerning s.58 as it now exists, in which the court has said that “The natural meaning of s 58 required that a document or record that infringed it must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism.”
And that a “reasonable excuse” “…was simply an explanation that the document or record was possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism.”
Many many thanks Linda. After giving it more rational thought, I can now see the light at the end of the tunnel as it were!
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been–
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
As I fall under the first category, is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s forces, and my images are unlikely to be of any use to anyone apart from me or the press, they would be “relieving” themselves into the wind. Besides are they really going to make it illegal to film and photograph the Trooping of the Colour, Remembrance day parades etc etc? Thank you once again
There have been some concerns raised that this clause will be used to stop photography of police officers. Some officers have in the past taken various levels of exception to being filmed by journalists and groups such as FITwatch. Heaven knows why because such filming will only go to demonstrate the high quality of our world class police force and that if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve nothing to fear…
Hello Linda,
IÂ’ve read and re read your legal guide, but I’m still somewhat confused over the legal issues with regard to landscape photography. Below are 4 examples that come to mind and IÂ’d really appreciate any advice.
Example 1:- I take a photograph of Tarn Hows (The Lake District) owned by the National Trust can I utilise this photograph for commercial use e.g. advertising or postcards etc? In order to take this picture I would have my tripod & camera setup on National Trust land and the main object of the photograph would be owned by the National Trust.
Example 2:- Castlerigg Stone Circle (The Lake District) again owned by the National Trust. In order to get decent photographs of this amazing site I would need to have my tripod and camera setup on the actual site and Castlerigg Stone Circle is a very distinctive item; would I be OK to use such a picture commercially?
Example 3:- Scafell Pike (The Lake District) owned by the National Trust, if I set my tripod up on its summit and photograph the surrounding landscape(also owned by the National Trust) can I forward these photographs on to a commercial photo library?
Example 4:- IÂ’m parked in a lay by on the public highway and setup my tripod and camera to take photographs of Scafell Pike (The Lake District) owned by the National Trust. Can I sell such photographs through a commercial photo library?
Having read all of the above posts and a great amount of internet information it seems clear that I can photograph houses, mountains & landscapes etc from a public road with no problems, but the moment I step onto ‘owned’ property then photography becomes a ‘no no’.
The problem here is that all of the country is ‘owned’ by somebody and my own particular area ‘The Lake District’ is pretty much ‘owned’ by the National Trust.
I donÂ’t know if this view is an extreme exaggeration, but I sort of get the impression that 99.9% of all commercial Lake District landscape photography (not shot from a public highway) is going to need National Trust authorisation (which I have heard is not readily available).
Is this view correct?
Apologies for the long list of things, IÂ’ve tried very hard to get the information together but after 2 days of searching IÂ’ve just drawn an uncertain blank!
Any help on this would be very much appreciated and will most certainly be repaid in as much beer or wine as you can drink!
Cheers
Tim
Hi Tim,
Well, it isn’t quite true to say that the NT owns the Lake District, but admittedly it does own a fair chunk of it. And pretty much all the rest of the Lake District National Park is in private ownership of one kind or another.
It also isn’t the case to say that photography becomes a “no no” when you step onto private property. It depends entirely on whether the landowner objects to it or not. Owners of property have the right to restrict the activities of people who are on their land, just as you have the right to stop strangers from using your front garden as a picnic site, for instance. I realise that this seems like a very different matter when the property owned extends over half a County, but it’s the same legal principle. A landowner could, if he so wished, prohibit all photography, not just commercial photography, or alternatively allow any kind photography.
In short, you can take photographs for resale or other commercial use if you take them from a public highway (including a public right of way). Landowners do not have the right to restrict activities occurring off their own property, even if that involves taking photographs of their property (assuming this does not invade someone’s privacy – a separate issue that is unlikely to arise in most landscape photography.).
The National Trust say they do not allow commercial photography or filming at any of their properties without prior consent. This is sometimes refused and sometimes made subject to conditions. I’m afraid I don’t know what their general policy is on consent where the “property” in question is a large area of semi-wilderness.
So, in essence, you would need permission in all the situations you mentioned, except for example 4.
The National Trust has said in the past that, where they come across images taken without permission, their policy is to ask the photographer for a fee. They have also said that they do not pursue photographers through the courts because they simply don’t have the resources to do so.
> I was asked not to take photographs on a public right of way that is owned by a farmer living in a small cottage.
>
> However, he also lied by saying that the land was no longer a right of way (which is untrue).
>
> If he had the authority to ask me to refraid from taking pictures on a public right of way, why did he feel the need to lie about the land not being a right of way? Is it because photography is allowed on a public right of way, but not on private land? The public right of way crosses his land.
>
> The right of way is clearly sign posted as such and as the long standing owner he would have known what the position was.
>
> That being the case – am I entitled to take photographs of scenery and the like on a public right of way?
>
> Are there any restrictions?
>
Hello Linda,
Many thanks for that amazingly quick reply. The beer and wine is in the post!
It really does make a huge difference getting a straight reply and having clarity where none existed.
I have one final question for you; if you would be so kind as to answer it, regarding your mention of ‘public right of way’.
I have included a link to the Castlerigg Stone Circle OS map showing public rights of way:-
http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm?mapAction=gaz&gazName=g&gazString=NY291236
And the OS Map key (PDF)
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/education/pdf/25knewEGMlegend.pdf
According to this map (& associated key) there is definitely a Public Right of Way from the main road to the very middle of the stone circle and then veering across to Castle Lane.
With reference to your post, I am quite free to stand on this Public Right of Way and take photographs all day long and use said photographs for commercial purposes (as long as I do not obstruct anybody), even though this Public Right of Way actually runs over National Trust owned land?
I apologise for seeking additional clarity on this point and being a general pain, but my reasons for asking are linked to a number of posts on other web sites stating that photographers had been requested by the National Trust to remove photographs from stock and other commercial sites, even though the photographs have been taken from a Public Right of Way that runs through National Trust property.
I don’t know if you have come across this yourself or if it is just an urban myth, but clarification of the Castlerigg Stone Circle ‘Public Right of Way’ as an example would certainly answer all my questions.
Once again, apologies for being a nuisance and many thanks for your assistance.
Cheers
Tim
Tim (and also Stuart, since your query is related)
True Public rights of way are counted as public highways and it used to be thought that the only rights there were in connection with public highways was the right to travel along them. But there is case law going back quite a way to the effect that the public highway can be used for other activities (specifically including photography) so long as it does not obstruct or interfere with the use or enjoyment of the highway by others. So, you can take photographs on public footpaths and bridleways as you could on any other public highway.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) introduced a new category of way called a restricted byway. These are intended to replace a former category called “roads used as public paths”. There have not been any court cases to establish whether there is a right to carry on any activity other than passage along a restricted byway.
There is also a category of right of way called a “permissive path”. This is where a landowner has agreed to allow a right of access across his land, but without this being designated as a public right of way. Landowners can impose conditions and restrictions on the use of a permissive path. (Paths across National Trust property are often permissive paths rather than true public rights of way, Tim, but the one on the map reference you gave is certainly indicated as a public footpath.) Permissive paths should have signs indicating that the path is not a public right of way.
Just a final point. Land that is designated as “access land” by CROW. The access right does not give the right to carry on any commercial activity on access land, so this precludes commercial photography. (This is not the case in Scotland.)
Hello Linda,
Thanks once again for an excellent explanation of the Public Right of Way issue. Unlike all the other web information I have seen, your answers are crystal clear and eliminate all of the doubt and other concerns.
I see Stuart was also thinking about the same type of issue, so I guess there are plenty more out there that are somewhat puzzled by the whole subject!
Judging by the link below (Post 18 – Eeyore – last paragraph)there is probably an opportunity for a small book / booklet on the whole Public Right of Way & commercial / personal photography issue with regard to Landscape & Nature Photography. (I for one would certainly purchase it!)
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/wildlife-photography/8997-ban-photography-public-places.html#post97480
Many thanks for giving up your valuable time to answer these questions. It is very much appreciated.
Cheers
Tim
P.S I hope the beer and wine arrives safely!
Hello. Just hoping that you might be able to help me with some issues that I’m having with my neighbours.
I own a Leasehold apartment, which is at one end of a larger building. The whole of the rest of the building, and my Freehold is owned by my neighbours. I have parking rights in front of the building (I am able to park for up to 12 hours).
I do not own the driveway into the tarmac in front of the building, but have access rights over it.
I have been renting my apartment out for holiday lets. Some of the holidaymakers have been standing on the tarmac on which we have parking rights, and also on the drive over which we have access rights & taking photographs.
My apartment is a house defined as an apartment since I don’t own the walls, chimneys & supporting structure of the floors etc. These, along with the tarmac on which I have parking rights are counted as the Reserved Property, which are maintained by the Management Company fund which I pay into.
The photos being taken are of my apartment, of the whole of the house, and of the landscape away from the house (often including a set of gates in the foreground). The house & the gates are listed. The house is Grade 2*, I’m not sure about the gates.
My neighbours object to any photos being taken of their property (although they saw fit to circulate widely a photo of the house on a Christmas card with my apartment included in the image).
They have been harrassing visitors, hunting them down & insisting that they delete any photographs taken, accusing them of trespass & threatening to call the police.
Am I right in thinking that because I have parking rights in front of the house, and access rights over the drive, that since I/we have rights to be there, we are allowed to take photographs of the house/gates/view for our own use?
I’d be really grateful for any advice you can offer.
Your site is excellent – very clear & concise. Thank you.
Has there actually been caselaw that says you have the right to take photographs on a right of way? I’ve seen cases where drawing a sketch was allowed (although I did think it was an obiter comment) but presumably that would be seen as applicable to photography. There’s a House of Lords case DPP v Jones and another which was about whether a group of people were a trespassory assembly or not. As such it descended into a pretty deep and meaningful investigation of trespass including the possibility of trespassing while on a public right of way. In the particular case it was found by the majority that they weren’t trespassing but, if I’ve understood it correctly, the HoL said it wasn’t hard or fast as to whether an act was trespass or not and individual factors can make a difference. With that in mind I can’t help wondering if in some circumstances landowners might succeed in counting photography on a RoW across their land as trespass eg if the issue du jour ‘privacy’ comes into play, I would be very interested in your thoghts on that.
Andy,
The case you refer to that mentions the sketch is Hickman v Maisie, and the comment was obiter, though clearly influential on their Lordships’ consideration of the matter in DPP v Jones. DPP v Jones was concerned specifically with public assembly on the highway, but the ratio is applicable beyond those specific circumstances.
Lord Irvine said in his judgment:
“The question to which this appeal gives rise is whether the law today should recognise that the public highway is a public place, on which all manner of reasonable activities may go on. For the reasons I set out below in my judgment it should. Provided these activities are reasonable, do not involve the commission of a public or private nuisance, and do not amount to an obstruction of the highway unreasonably impeding the primary right of the general public to pass and repass, they should not constitute a trespass.”
This was the majority view of the court. And this could not be described as obiter, since the HoL regarded it as the essential issue of the appeal.
It is true that, as with most issues arising at common law, there will be questions of circumstance and degree. No-one could suggest that it could never be trespass. But, to be honest, if you are taking photographs from the public highway that infringe privacy, or amount to harassment or breach of confidence, the person affected is nowadays much more likely to rely on one of those causes of action than to bring an action of common law trespass.
Julie,
It’s an interesting question, and one which really depends on the extent of the rights you have been granted over the parking space and the drive. If these rights are restricted to the right to park for a certain period, and the right to access your property from the drive, then you may not be able to claim that you have the right to take photographs from those places.
The difficulty in this instance is not what the subject of the photographs is, but where the photographs are being taken from, and whether your rights over the reserved property can be said to extend to the right to take photographs from there.
Linda,
Very much thanks for your reply. The information is very much appreciated.
How would you suggest I could go about finding out for definite whether or not my rights might extend to taking photographs from the land over which I have parking rights etc please?
Also you mention that the difficulty in this instance is not what the subject of the photographs is, but where the photos are being taken from: I have permission to be on an adjoining piece of land (it is privately owned, but I the landowner’s permission). If I stood on this adjoining piece of land, would taking photographs of the house from there be acceptable?
Sorry to come back with yet more questions! Very many thanks.
The National Policing Improvement Agency NIPA has just published their updated ‘Practice Advice on Stop and Search in relation to terrorism. See: http://www.npia.police.uk/en/6534.htm
Here’s the section on photography:
’2.8 PHOTOGRAPHY
The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation
If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination, the person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.’
Peter
Re: Peter Jones
“Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search” – they handily seem to miss out the fact that the officer would have to have a reasonable suspicion that the articles are intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
Also, they say “images may be viewed as part of a search”. Sure, but dinosaurs may be resurrected from extinction, doesn’t mean they have a right to perform the aforementioned acts.
Linda,
I’ve watched several U.S. ‘champions of freedom’ (for want of a better term), and they seem to have developed a seemingly healthy habit of videotaping/audio recording any encounters they have with the police. From what I’ve investigated, as long as you’re in a public place or on your own property, can you envisage any problems that might come about from this?
Many thanks.
Dear Linda,
Please could you help me answer the following questions.
I was asked to take photographs for a scriptwriter who would subsequently would turn them into a film, which is what we agreed. We have not signed a contract yet, but I wanted to write one myself which states that I am the owner of these images and the writer cannot reproduce or use the images without my permission. Is the correct, that I own the photographs. And if so, what is the actual name of the law or bill it is stated in, and in what year it was passed? I am fine with the images being manipulated, and changed but I just wanted to know my rights as a photographer before I give the images to her (tomorrow that is!) Is there also somewhere where I can find a standard contract to use and add bits to myself.
Thank you for your help!
action game rpg
Flash Ad/
Julie,
Your title deeds and any accompanying documents should state what rights you have in relation to the land. If rights are granted only in respect of parking, or access, or whatever, then other rights would not be presumed, whereas a right of “use” would be more widely interpreted.
If you had permission to take photographs from adjoining land, then generally you would be able to take photographs of land or buildings, just as you could from a public street, provided you did not invade the privacy of a person, or harass anyone. In the UK, no one has image rights in his property.
Peter, thank you for posting the new guidelines.
Patrick, in general there is nothing to prevent anyone from filming or recording incidents involving the police, though if you were filming or recording your own interaction with the police in such away as to amount to obstructing them in carrying out their duties, you could be subject to arrest.
adult affiliates
adult affiliate networks
Linda,
Thank you ever so much – I really appreciate everything that you’ve clarified.
Hi Linda,
If someone were to discreetly film their own conversation / interaction with the police ( I’m thinking friendly but informed shall we say) would you be fairly safe in doing this assuming that they noticed they were being filmed.
Peter
It would seem the Met Police haven’t gotten around to reading the new guidance yet.
From http://www.pressgazette.co.uk
dated 15/12/08:
‘The NUJ has accused the police of abusing its stop and search powers after a photographer was detained for 45 minutes whilst she was covering a wedding in London Docklands.
Jess Hurd was taking photos of a traveller wedding last Wednesday – on UN Human Rights Day – for a long term documentary project on the persecution of travellers when she had her camera taken from her and was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
The section covers those thought to be “carrying out hostile reconnaissance for a terrorist assault”. Hurd was spotted by police outside the reception venue at Ramada Docklands last Wednesday taking photos and recording video. Her photos appeared in Saturday’s Guardian.
Hurd may have been stopped because she was filming close to London City Airport.
She is reported to have had her camera removed from her while police viewed the footage she had taken. She said she was detained for 45 minutes and told not to use any footage that showed the police cars or officers.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said: “Any officer that suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you. Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.”
NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear said: “This is yet another absurd misuse of the s44 powers which are designed to allow the police to detain those actively involved in carrying out a terrorist activity not to stop press photographers carrying out their legitimate business.
“Despite the governmentÂ’s warm words about the right to photograph in public and new Home Office guidelines it appears the routine abuse of these powers goes on.
“How ironic that those documenting persecution and intimidation on UN Human Rights Day should be subject to such abuse and intimidation”.’
Peter
Amazing, first guidance is issued to the police reminding them that photography in public is entirely lawful and then you get this from the minister in charge, it seems, of policing:
Home Office clarifies street photography bans
The Home Office has written to the National Union of Journalists, outlining cases when photography may be legally limited. BJP reports.
In a letter dated 03 December, which BJP saw, Vernon Coaker, the Minister for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing, has written to the National Union of Journalists to inform it of measures that have taken since their meeting on 05 November.
The meeting was arranged after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith shocked photographers by appearing to condone increasing police restrictions, despite confirming there is no legal framework to prevent them shooting in public.
In the letter, the Minister has confirmed that photography can be limited in public places in special circumstances. The letter reads: ‘This may be on the grounds of national security or there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or inflame an already tense situation or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace or to avoid a public order situation or for the person’s own safety and welfare or for the safety and welfare of others’.
The broad definition could allow police officers to legally prevent photographers, including press photographers, to document events such as protests or any kind of incident.
Developing…
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=831582
I guess that this would be an example of what the Minister for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing has in mind:
A short video of the police interacting with press photographers
outside of the Greek Embassy in London on 08/12/08
tinyurl(dot)com/5fmpfd
Peter you beat me to it!
Pretty shocking treatment of Jess Hurd there, hope she takes them to the cleaners.
Linda, I’d be very interested in your analysis of these new guidelines on street photography ‘bans’. Do you think any of it could stick?
Peter, thanks for posting all the links to recent events and developments.
With regard to recording/filming one’s encounters with the police, assuming this is on one’s own property, or public property, or property where one is permitted to film, then technically it is not illegal, but I have to admit that I can foresee that, in some circumstances, the police involved would not like it, and a situation that had begun as friendly might become confrontational. A lot would depend on how it was handled.
Andy, the difficulty here is that the Minister’s letter does not create any “bans” as such. It has always been the case that the police have a certain amount of discretion, and that behaviour that is acceptable in one context might not be in another. There have always been situations and places where taking photographs would raise security concerns, even before 9/11 or the London bombings. And it is probably fair enough, in the interests of public order, for the police to stop a photographer or ask him/her to leave when his presence is clearly inflaming an already difficult situation. Likewise, there are obviously circumstances where someone taking photographs of children should rightly raise suspicion. To take away any kind of discretion on the part of the police would lead to ineffective policing and, quite probably, to more rigid and authoritarian policing overall (and quite apart from in the area of photography). When there was a call for legislation setting out the rights of photographers and any limitations on these I was rather opposed to the idea because, although it might make things more clear, it would almost certainly lead to greater restriction, not less. Legislation is rigid by definition, and a more lassaiz-faire system that more or less allows public photography except in rather ill-defined circumstances, while not perfect, probably allows more freedom than any alternative would.
However, it is also important that the discretion of the police is exercised sensibly and not used as some kind of catch-all to stop any kind of behaviour that they are not too keen on. For what its worth, what happened to Jess Hurd appears to me to fall on the wrong side of the sensible exercise of discretionary powers, but to be fair I wasn’t there and I have no idea if anything else might have motivated the police to act as they did. If the story is as reported, though, it should have been obvious what she was filming, regardless of whether she was near an airport, and thus a s.44 stop and search appears absurd in the circumstances.
For there to be more clarity, photographers in these situations need to be prepared to take the matter through the courts. Most people, understandably, are not willing to go through this.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your reply to my question.
Peter
Sorry Louise, I haven’t been able to answer for the last couple of days. Unless your contract states differently, you own the copyright in the images. See section 11 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb3-l1g9
You are the author, and a contract to provide a service (i.e. taking photographs for a specific purpose) is not a contract of employment.
Anything else that you wish to allow or disallow can be stated in the contract. If you do a search on Google for photography contracts you should find links to several existing contract terms and conditions that you can adapt to suit yourself, but there isn’t really any need for formal legal language as long as the terms are clearly stated.
Dear All
Ithink the problems and issues here relating to the treatment and lack of knowledge of the police is but typical of the way they each believe they are masters of the law and forget that they are IN FACT servants of the law. I too have been subjected to their ‘kangaroo’ tactics over an issue regarding photography and taking photos of a horse in a field from a public footpath. this led the owner of the horse to report me to the police saying that i assaulted him by pushing him and making threats. the police have actually believed him despite my having three witnesses (who they even failed to interveiw). How about that then? Personally i feel that the police officers inthis country and particularly in suffolk are bored and just want the public to think they are superior beings – probably because they know what we really think of them
regards and all the best with this site, i hope this site can work to show the police that their job is to act within the law and make attempts to show the public that they may well be capable of doing their job correctly.
hi.
I have been asked by a local club to take photo’s of the bands that appear there, for use on its website, with the agreement that i will sell copies ia my website. how do i stand legally. do i need consent from the artists aswell as the club, or can i do as i like with my photos.
many thanks in advance for any advice you can give
adrian
Just to add further to the confusion…
http://www.epuk.org/Resources/819/acpo-police-media-guidelines
Which certainly does nothing to clarify for non NUJ members and people without Press ID.
At best it creates a 2 tier, at worse it will be used as justification from PO’s to hassle those without a press pass.
Having read through the photographers rights and received two 5090X searches under terrorism in the past I got hassled the other day… for taking photo’s “In the vicinity of Clapham junction” from a public highway.
Again.. I was asked for ID so I asked if I was being stopped under Section 44.
I was told they hadn’t decided… and asked for ID.
I said I didn’t think so… but they insisted and I did have my driving license in my wallet.
I then got accused of lying “Why did you lie” … to which I answered I didn’t know if I had ID or not and they asked a Yes/No leading question.
I was accused of being obstructive… and asked why.
I said I wasn’t being obstructive and simply wanted to know WHY I was being questioned and notes made and my ID requested.
I was given a “terrorism” answer…. and the fact I was acting “nervously”.
I said I was understandably nervous as I was minding my own business when approached and they hadn’t told me why and that their line of questioning as to WHY I was taking photo’s had no sensible answer other than it was my hobby.
Then they wanted to search me so I said “sure as soon as I get a 5090X”
At this point they just stormed off… but not before they ruined my day and the light had gone and left a veiled threat to “watch my back”.
The root of the problem seems simply to be the “need” to justify photography as a hobby and the ability to answer “Justify why you are taking photo’s” without sounding like a smart arse…. or obstructive. This is certainly not helped by the police taking an aggressive attitude before they even speak to you.
So what did I achieve?
I didn’t get searched but now I have to wonder if they are waiting for me on the way home… they know where I live and if they decide to just beat the living daylights out of me one night I’m walking home it feels like a hollow victory for my “rights”?
thank you for the artical
For the past 2 years I have been regularly taken photos of rugby games at my local (amateur) rugby club. I have not ever specifically asked if it is OK, however I am a member of the club, everyone is aware that I do it and the club also uses my photos on their website. Occasionally my photos have been published in the local paper and other clubs (that the team play against) have asked if they can use some of the photos for their own websites, which I have agreed to.
Recently, I was asked by a company if they could use some of my images for their marketing and promotional material (marketing to other rugby and sports clubs). I do not know specifically which images that they want but 99% of the players photographed will be recognisable and so will the sponsors logos.
Am I correct to think that if the photos get used by this company that it is their responsibility to ensure that model releases are obtained; or, as the photographs are taken from a place of public access and nowhere is it stated that photography is restricted, that these photos can be used for commercial purpose without consulting the people in them?
← Previous Comments
{ 39 trackbacks }