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 would appreciate an email in reply to my enquiry..
I live in Scotland and would like to ask if there is an update to the trespassing law in Scotland as it states it will be updated in 2004.
I am in desperate need for an answer as this is the sort of thing that is currently preventing me from getting access for photography in certain areas.
thank you
Dave Cullen
DAVE CULLEN
DAVECULLEN1@YAHOO.CO.UK
Dave,
I have emailed you. For general info though, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which updated the law as described in the Guide, effectively gave a greater right of access rather than imposing restrictions. There are still statutes in force that make trespass a criminal offence in certain circumstances, though few of these (except perhaps trespass on the railways) are likely to affect photographers.
If access rights are not exercised responsibly, landowners could still potentially bring an action for trespass.
Adrian,
The safest course would be to have the consent of the artists, or to ask the club to ensure that artists are aware that their photos will be taken for inclusion on the website and for possible sale.
The application of the Data Protection Act to images of people in such circumstances has not been determined yet by a court, and such images could be regarded as personal data and, if put on a website, this data would also be transferred outside the EEA, which is contrary to the eighth data protection principle.
Verbal consent is enough, though written consent is useful if it were ever necessary to prove that consent was given. The club presumably enters into some kind of contractual arrangement with the bands, so it would be easy for the club to make this part of the contract.
Just looking at a couple of examples of 5090X that someone has posted online. The police officers’ writing is almost illegible. I wonder if someone should produce a form that people can print out and carry around, with a summary of rights (particularly what you have to do and what you are not required to do) and places to fill in the details of the police officers doing the stop and search and what they say and do?
hi there
can you tell me if i have been asked to take photos of a child for their parents who then bought some of the images (that were copyrighted by myself) can i have a copy of the photos in my portfolio that i show perspective customers?
many thanks
mark
Hi Mark,
It may depend on whether you are talking about a website portfolio or physical prints. Images of people, adults or children, may be personal data within the Data Protection Act and it should then only be processed in accordance with the data protection principles. Note that consent is not the only possibility that may allow personal data to be processed. But display on a website presents its own problems when the website can be accessed from anywhere in the world. The UK courts have not decided specifically on the issue of images except to say that images of people are capable of neing personal data, so the law is not unambiguous. It may be simpler in future to ask clients for consent to include images in your portfolio or for display online, or include that in your terms and conditions.
I have recently started an art and
technology course and one of the
coursework modules I am taking is
the study of structures. So rather
than take photos of buildings I have
decided to go for something different
and have gone for towers and electricity pylons.
I have identified a place near where
I live that I want to visit and take
photos of the pylons and the infrastructure at the substation.
If my photos are taken from a
recognised public footpath or highway
is there any restriction on whether
I can take such photos? I note from
the document that this may come under
the National Security aspect. Please
can you clarify this point thanks.
It is with increasing alarm that I watch the slow nibbling away of our rights, however what’s the position on amateur (i.e. non – Press or non – professional) photographers photographing things like ships, buildings, industry and things like electricity pylons – the latter being in a public place but being infrastructure could generate a disproportionate amount of interest from the local rozzers although a potential terrorist wouldn’t use a digital SLR. Any advice would be welcomed, cheers Les
Here’s a rather interesting letter from The Guardian of 24/02/09
‘Watching brief for police and the public
Last Friday I sat as a JP, judging an unemployed man accused of assaulting a policeman, mostly in view of a council street camera. He had earlier been refused legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service had denied him advance access to the pictures. He only saw them when we did, during his trial.
He told us that a passerby had also filmed the incident on a mobile. He was right. We saw the photographer on the council tape. The defendant said police had demanded the person’s mobile and deleted the pictures. When asked in court, the officer confirmed that this was the case, the reason being to stop police being on YouTube. From the casual way it was agreed in open court, it seems it is normal Met practice to seize mobiles in order to delete pictures involving them.
Our magistrates court was not the forum to question the principle, but should London police be destroying evidence that might help courts come to a proper decision? And is it reasonable that the only film evidence made available is that which the arresting officers have seen and which has been denied the accused until the last minute?
If we are to have a surveillance society, perhaps the watching should be both ways – monitoring officials as well as the public.
Simon Neave
London’
On browsing various websites about the amendment to the counter terrorism act 2008, S58A, Makes it a criminal offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of the armed forces, the intelligence services or a constable which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Having read the varied views off those sites, namely the NUJ, and those of other professional, and freelance photographers. I am more confused now than I ever have been on the legalities of taking photographs which may have a ‘bobby’ in the frame?
But even more so as the act also applies to myself, where as, should I be questioned (again!) as to my actions, and why I am taking photographs of the Police dealing with members of the public, under the pretence of ‘the terrorism act’ as a former member of her Majesty’s forces, surely as they are trying to elicit information which is of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism or. publishes or communicates such information, commits and offence? They are then indeed committing that same offence?
Granted the Police are no more likely to be a terrorist than I am, but, I am aware of the lack of education surrounding this law and my local constabulary aswell as the majority of the country’s Police force.
I am of the view, that if they were to stop me on the pretence of counter terrorism, and begin quoting that as the reason, I will be justified in using that same law in withholding my personal information, as it is an offence for them to elicit that information? Albeit, they are going about their lawful buisness as am I.
And am I correct that they can now confiscate a photographers equipment but still can’t delete any images without a warrant? And just when I was looking forward to the longer days!
The world just gets crazier. According to this report a man was arrested for taking photographs of sewer gratings. The police held him for two days, searched his home, computer and mobile phone but did not find any pictures of sewer gratings! They kept his DNA of course.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/03/manchester-man-arres.html
http://www.channelm.co.uk/video_4x3.html?bcpid=1213934526&bctid=5172505001
Peter, that is an interesting letter. I know of no law that would permit the police to do this. Deletion of images would generally require a court order
Jéan, it is clear that s.58A is not intended to make it an offence for anyone to take a photo of a police officer or a member of the armed forces at any time. Unfortunately, the very broad way in which the provision has been drafted does leave that possibility open. I do have some faith that, if this comes before the courts, they will interpret it in the same rather restrictive way that they recently interpreted s.58, and that some evidence would have to be given to show that the information was intended to be used in connection with terrorism. In addition, in England and Wales at least, the DPP has to consent to a prosecution under the section. As I have said before, I don’t foresee many photographers being prosecuted before the courts for taking photographs that may include the police (and it is beyond me how the average person might be able to identify members of the intelligence services, police constables and members of the armed forces who happen to be out of uniform and/or former members of any of these).
I can imagine, especially given the endless difficulties caused by s.44 stop and search, that this new provision will be used by some (and it is only some, let’s be fair) to intimidate or threaten photographers.
Where a person is stopped and search under s.43 or s.44, the police can sieze anything that they reasonably suspect constitutes evidence that the person is a terrorist (s.43) or that they reasonably suspect is intended to be used in connection with terrorism (in the case of a s.44 stop and search). Note that this requires a reasonable suspicion, which the s.44 stop and search itself does not. So it would not be correct to say that they can simply “confiscate” your camera. And deletion of images requires a court order.
Many thanks once again Linda for clearing that issue up. It would appear that I may have been influenced somewhat by the knee jerk reactions to some of the comments left on the NUJ website. But you have suitably re-assured me again, thank you!
Dear Linda, Surely Google Streetview UK now makes a mockery of any claim the police can make, with a view to photographing buildings for terrorist intent? I think it must have changed all the ‘rules of the game’ unless there is one law for the general public and another for Google?
I am not a professional photographer and took a digital photo of my adult daughter before she checked in for her flight at Manchester Airport. An airport employee told me I had to delete the photo as it had in the background a Briitish Airways logo behind the check-in desks. If I hadn’t complied, she said she would call the police and if I didn’t comply I would be arrested and my camera confiscated. This was not for security apparently but because of the BA logo. I complied because I didn’t want a scene when saying goodbye to my daughter for some time. But I am becoming increasingly disturbed at this sort of harassment of ordinary British citizens doing no harm to anyone in their everyday lives. Can anyone on this site enlighten me of my rights in this situation. I don’t like being bullied.
Carole, the BA logo is protected by copyright (as well as being a trademark, but taking a photo would not infringe the trademark). Taking a photo of a copyright protected work technically does infringe the copyright, though not, in the UK, if the inclusion of the work in an image is incidental to the image as a whole – i.e. the photo is of your daughter and the BA logo is not the focus of the image.
Anyway, even if it could be copyright infringement, primary copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and would not therefore be a matter for the police.
I have no idea whether there are restrictions on photography at Manchester Airport, and I suppose that even if there aren’t you could technically be stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act, but not for the act of taking a photo that includes the BA logo!
You might want to write to British Airways and explain what happened and what was said to you. I would be most interested to know what they had to say on the matter.
I’ve had this sort of moronic behaviour more than a few times. Only to be expected with the UK being taken over more and more by the ‘jobsworths’. Who frankly frighten me more than terrorists or criminals – if only because of they’re just so totally mindless and acquiescent. Not hard to see where a future police state might find its loyalty.
Best thing is simply to play along and take advantage of their almost certain technical dyslexia.
Simply delete the picture – but DON’T use the camera again (or the memory card, at least) until you get home. Slot the card into your PC and use one of a dozen open-source or commercial applications to get your picture back in a trice.
Linda. Is there any intention to update the rights guide to cover recent legislation? Whilst I understand from the discussions that the basics haven’t changed, people might question the validity of the advice when they see it was created in 2004.
Cheers
Ian
Ian, an update is underway. Watch this space!
Linda
Thank-you,Linda.I know its too late now to save the photo, but I will write to BA & also try to find out the situation at Manchester Airport. Anything to stop the insidious loss of personal freedoms we seem to be suffering in the UK now. At least if it happens again I will not be as easily intimidated. I will keep you posted if I get a response.
Thanks also Jack for the advice about retrieving the photo – very useful.
Great website – keep up the good work.
I was wondering today whether all the publicity about Google Streetview, and Google deleting or blanking images of faces, buildings etc, is going to reinforce people’s belief that you have no right to take pictures of people or buildings?
Linda, I have recently been trying to work out property rights for my stock library photos to license them for commercial use. Some are obvious but most are not. I know you have covered a lot in the forum but sorry if I am going over old ground.
The problem I have are with general scenes that contain buildings taken from public places. At what point do I have to get property rights for commercial use for building in a general view, or in the background of a scene. For example does a photo of the city sky line with the Gherkin in it at any size always require a property license? Surely these types of photographs are about the place not specific buildings, or is that the key?
I understand that it is illegal to take photos for commercial gain in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Gardens and the Royal Parks, but does that mean that the content of the photos for example taken within Trafalgar Square of fountains etc are therefore not to be used for commercial use.
I am still very confused about how to find out which buildings cannot be photographed for commercial use. I understand that you cannot make a list and I have spent a couple of days trying to read up on the subject, and to be honest the more I read the more confused I get. Is there a general rule about which Government buildings can be used for commercial purposes, leaving council buildings out. Are churches OK. Would a close up of a Statue on Notre Dame be excluded for commercial use. I understand that if a building is owned by the National Trust or English Heritage then restrictions apply upon entry, but can I use a photograph taken from the street of the outside for commercial purposes.
I will work under the assumption that any building built in recent times and any piece of public artwork made in recent time, is still in copyright and therefore photographs are not to be used for commercial purposes. What about buildings and artworks that are outside copyright.
Finally what is the criteria that the law takes into consideration when examining property right infringements by photographs used for commercial purposes.
Sorry for such a huge question that I know is impossible to answer. I do not seem to be able to get any simple guidelines to the question “Does the photo require a property release?”, beyond if it has a building in it the answer is yes. This feels strange when I am looking at an alpine scene with a pretty wooden cow shed in it in the distance and ticking the box ” requires property release”. The same goes at the moment for street scenes at night with no people and long views of townscapes.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Paul,
There is a copyright exception for buildings (and also for works of artistic craftmanship and sculptures that are permanently situated in a public place). It is not an infringement of copyright to include them in a photograph or film, or to distribute such a photograph or film to the public. In other words, copyright law is not really an issue here.
When deciding whether a release is required, the main consideration is what use the photo will be put to. “Commercial use” is fairly vague term. (And actually, editorial use is not always trouble free either, depending on the context in which the image is used.)
So, in general it is legal to take images of any building from a public place and in most cases these could be sold (they could be printed on postcards, for example, and that is a form of commercial use). Use in advertising, however, is more difficult. A London-based business that wants to use an image of a general view of London for promotional purposes would not need a release from from the owners of the various buildings in the scene. But if they used an image of a particular business building in such a way as to imply some connection with that business, then they could be liable for passing off (and for trademark infringement if the building included a trademarked sign or logo). A general image of a street would not usually cause problems but one of an individual’s house, used without permission, would be a breach of the ASA’s Code of Practice.
Property rights in general do not, in the UK, include rights in the image of one’s property, it is where the image is to be used in a way that may infringe an individual’s privacy, or make some kind of unfair use of a business reputation (passing off or trademark infringement) that legal problems arise.
The Trafalgar Square, etc, question is an interesting one. The bylaws make it a criminal offence to undertake photography for commercial purposes within the Squares without written permission. It would not prevent the commercial use of photographs taken from outside, and probably wouldn’t prevent the use of photos taken inside the Squares, though it would leave the photographer liable to a fine.
Dear Linda,
I am just starting out and with my first client have ran into a problem, can you offer me some advice?
I still work with film, and I was out of work when I agreed to do the project which I was led to believe that cover my expenses initially, then if a grant was approved I would receive a payment. However no fee was agreed. I sent in an invoice for my basic expenses, which didnt include my time, travel or efforts, but did include film and processing, this totaled 800euro (which I was paid). Now the client has said that after spending 800euro he wants me to hand over the photos which his group now own. is this the case? or can I claim any right to the prints?
Thanks, John.
Thanks for a great site.
Could a brief summary be prepared for stock sites’ reviewers and for submission with photos on IP re property and people in public scenes and logos as many rejections are clealy incorrect quoting no release form, when not actually required. They don’t seem to train reviewers correctly.
(Part of comment edited by admin, please post responsibly)
Simon beat me to it, Whistler. The stock agencies are based the world, as are their contributors and customers and it would be impossible to apply different rules for every jurisdiction. In addition, many of the sites that have a RF licensing model are implying that the images they licence are suitable for almost any kind of commercial use. These are not individually negotiated licences and therefore material that might be appropriate for some uses will be rejected because it would not be appropriate for some commercial uses.
The agencies have the right to determine what they accept based, not on law, but on whatever rules they determine. They will, naturally, tend to adopt rules that will offer them the greatest protection against possible litigation in all jurisdictions.
John, it’s a little hard to comment as it does really depend on the detail of what you agreed with the client. If you agreed to do the job on the basis that you would only receive your expenses unless the grant was approved, then it would be logical to interpret this as meaning that the client would be entitled to the prints simply be covering your expenses and that further payment would only be forthcoming if the grant was approved. (You don’t say, incidentally, if it was or not.) I assume that the agreement did not cover assigning copyright to the client, and that the negatives are still yours? And I’m not sure why you didn’t also claim any travel expenses, as this would seem to be covered.
However, as I said, it really depends on exactly what was agreed. Contrary to popular belief, an agreement does not have to be in writing to be legally binding, but it certainly helps to have a written agreement when it comes to trying to prove exactly what was agreed.
whistler – the acceptance rules for a stock agency are up to the agency to decide on. There’s no way an agency can research the law in every country the image will be sold into, as well as taken in. They take decisions on what level of risk is acceptable to them and then try to apply that evenly and fairly to each submission.
I’m photography director for iStockphoto.com and the rules our inspection team use are very different to UK law. It doesn’t mean the reviewers are trained incorrectly.
It’s impossible to comment on your caveat as we have no facts of the case. With that regard I’m editing the comment out as it’s a touch provocative with no info to back it up.
Linda,
Thanks for the property release info. I will look at my photos in a new light. I must thank you for a fantastic site and for your time replying to all our questions.
Regards
Paul
Is your PDF “photographers’ rights in the UK” still up to date?
If not, what are the changes?
Thank you.
Maurice
Fraser,
The CAP Code (British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing), urges marketers to obtain written permission before portraying members of the public or their identifiable possessions. The Code is not law, but there are extra-legal sanctions for breaching it. There are also legal issues of libel, depending on how the image is used, and possibly of data protection.
It does not matter who obtains the necessary releases as long as they are obtained, though certainly it would be the end user who was liable with regard to any breach of the CAP Code, or any potentially defamatory use of an image.
It would be wise to have some written agreement with the company that wants to use the images, making it clear that the images are not model released, and that it is the obligation of the company to ensure that any necessary releases are obtained.
Maurice,
An updated version has been prepared, and will be online as soon as it is formatted. (Hopefully in the next couple of weeks.)
I had my camera and equipment including my memory card. Confiscated last night by the police in glasgow. I was in a public street and not within 20 yards of any body else. police officers were arresting someone in a garage forecourt. They came over and grabbed me I was arrested and kept in jail overnight. When I was released my camera and equipment were ‘forfeited’ according to them and I am being charged with ‘Obstruction’ and another charge which was not specified to me. I was never interviewed at the police station. Can they do this?
Linda,
I was arrested for taking photos of a garage and some police activity on the 22 April. The reason i was doing it was for a university course in photojournalism. I have not heard from the police since despite my solicitor writing to them. They still have my camera and lenses, how can i get my equipment back?
stefan
Thanks Linda. I really appricate your assistance. Please keep up the excellent work.
Best regards
Fraser
Hi, and thanks very much for the info,A few weeks ago some young children climbed over my front garden wall and started to be a pest. I stood up with my camera in my hand and waved them off, Next thing parents came around saying “You can’t take photos of my children” I pointed out that they were “Trespassing” and he called the police, When the police arrived(he had gone to the famlies house and got there side first)The Police officer said that you take any photos of children at all.. I pointed out that the window had a “Venetian Blind” on it and that they would not be good photos as there heads would probably have got chopped of by the blind, He left smilling.
Ian
Hi Ian,
The police officer is wrong. There has come to be a general perception that it is illegal to take photographs of children under any circumstances but this is not the case. With a few exceptions, they are not really treated any differently to adults when it comes to photography, though the police will often investigate someone who is taking photographs of children, particularly if they feel the circumstances are somewhat suspicious (obviously they have a duty to take the possibility of paedophiles seriously).
The circumstances in which you took your photographs should not normally give rise to those kinds of suspicions, though.
Had you (or the police) used the photographs to attempt to identify the children in connection with an offence of some kind, or with a view to some legal action, there would be data protection issues, but even then that would not mean you could not take the photos.
Hello,
Thank you for this really useful forum and for all the effort to answer the many questions!
Firstly I am having a few problems downloading the PDF – it is just linking directly back to this page when I right click and ‘save as’. I have Adobe Reader 9 and Adobe Acrobat Pro 9.
My question relates to cars; I have attended a classic car event for the past 5 years and have paid to attend. I contacted the owners / organisers of the event to ask if I would be allowed to sell my photos – they have responded and said although they would prefer I didn’t they couldn’t stop me from doing so. My question now is that in some of the photos the registration plates are visible and readable and you can also make out the identity of some of the drivers. Would I need to either blur out the registration plate and drivers faces, or alternatively ask permission from all those concerned, or can I go ahead and sell without permission as they were on show at a paid event?
Thanks for your help,
Sally
Sorry, please forget the PDF bit, managed to figure it out.
Still got the question about the cars though if thats OK?
Thanks again,
Sally
Sally,
The organisers of the event could in fact have made it a condition of entry that there was no commercial photography, but clearly they have not since they say they cannot stop you.
As for the registration plates, etc, if you are planning to sell the photos for use in advertising/marketing of any kind, it would in most cases be a breach of the CAP Code to use images of individuals or their identifiable possessions without their consent.
If you are thinking of selling them as art photos or to magazines, then there are unlikely to be any difficulties with data protection. It has become usual practice for newspapers and tv to blur car number plates for privacy reasons, but again there are unlikely to be privacy issues with a car at a classic car show.
Ben, I posted some info in your blog, but I am also posting it here in case it is helpful to anyone else. I have had a lot of reports recently of incidents involving PCSOs and photographers. For anyone who is in doubt, the powers of PCSOs are set out here:
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and- publications/publication/community-policing/List_of_Powers_of_Community1.pdf?view=Binary
PSCOs, as far as I am aware, do not have powers of stop and search under s.1 of PACE, only limited powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act, and then only when accompanied by a police constable. (They do have certain powers of detention when they reasonably suspect that a “relevant offence” has been committed.)
If you wish to complain about the conduct of PCSO, or any member of police staff, you can go to your local police station, or you can write or else make a complaint through e-mail or online at: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/complaints/how_com...>
Here is an example of the kind of thing that seems to be increasingly frequent:
http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_pic...>
Linda. Is there any intention to update the rights guide to cover recent legislation? Whilst I understand from the discussions that the basics haven't changed, people might question the validity of the advice when they see it was created in 2004.
Cheers
Ian
Thanks for your reply Linda, I really appreciate your help. So, basically the rule is if I want to sell my photos and the event organisors ‘can’t stop me’ if I blur out the number plates I should be fine? Or is it the case that cause I’m selling them as art, I suppose, and the cars were on show at a show that I dont have to blur out the number plates? Basically, a shop has offered to sell my photos as mounted images on my behalf. I’m chuffed to bits but have come across all these regulations / acts that I dont really understand. Thanks again! Sally
Dude, it’s already May 15h. Where’s the updated document?
It will be up very soon, just making some final changes to the new site beforehand.
@Admin, there you go, doing something for free and getting a kicking for it! The web’s a greedy and ungrateful place. Keep up the good work nonetheless!
cheers!
cm
Thanks for the support
Version 2 is live! Thanks to Linda for all her hard work on the guide and in the comments. I’ve moved all of the comments from the v1 guides thread here to maintain the archive.
Hi Linda,
Have you read this account of a Greek photographer called Pericles Antoniou who it seems was arrested after taking some pictures on a tube train and charged with harassment under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (can they use the 1986 Act rather than the 1994 Act or doesn’t it make any difference?)
See:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
and this fir the photographers account of the incident:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85334727050
Oh, I should have added that you do need to scrool down on the second link to find the English version of Mr Antoniou account.
Hi,
Many thanks for your informative article. Could anyone suggest what the law would say about the following:-
Taking photos of people on private property with permission of the landowner, when the subjects themselves are unaware that the landowner has given permission for the photography to occur.
i.e. taking photos of crowds of students on university grounds
i.e. taking photos of attendees of a performance
Is it only the property owner’s permission that is necessary? Or o you also need the subjects?
Many thanks – a very amateur photographer.
Tom B.
← Previous Comments
{ 39 trackbacks }