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 myself accept any responsibility at all for any omissions or errors whatsoever. There is a full disclaimer in the guide, this is just a before you download it warning ! Also Neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility for any replies given to comments left. If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer.
FREE Download – UK Photographers Rights v2 (right click and save as)
This guide was created for Acrobat 5 and above. If you have a problem opening the PDF, please update your copy of Acrobat Reader (it’s free to do so).
USA photographers rights guide www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Australian photographers rights http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
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
{ 28 trackbacks }
{ 742 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Is it illegal in any way to take pictures of cars that are parked badly? e.g. using an iphone to take the picture and then having that pitcure automatically uploaded to the web… ..say twitpic or flckr?
That’s really a great news!! Thanks for sharing. Been waiting for the version 2 of the guide.
Last night (near Cambs) whilst taking dusk long exposures from a bridge over one of the major routes thro’ this region I was approached by the (Traffic) Police. After a few initial searching questions, he must have satisfied himself that I was no threat to man nor beast. However, he then proceeded to explain that a recent birthday gift had been a Nikon D90 and asked could I give him a couple of pointers on how to take successful long exposures.
Within 10 minutes it was all over and they had moved on. It was all very amicable but it left me with a feeling that my privacy had been invaded and also left me wondering why I had been approached in the first place. So much so that I decide to find out more about UK photographers rights and precisely what powers the Police have. I found your guide quite enlightening.
I subsequently determined that there were no applicable laws preventing me from taking the pictures I had taken, that I was not obstructing, harassing nor invading anyone else’s privacy but it would have been useful for me to have a better appreciation of the wider UK restrictions. Still no real harm done and ‘Rob the Bob’ was better off to the tune of a free 5 min tutorial.
Peter, I’m sure you will probably have read by now that the case against Mr Antoniou was dismissed when it came to court(18/05/09). Assuming his account of the events is accurate it seems somewhat incredible that the charge under s.5 of the 1986 Act should have been brought in the first place, since the section would not cover his conduct unless he had been threatening, abusive or disorderly.
(Re the Public Order Act 1986 rather than the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – the latter amended the former and inserted some new material, but it does not replace or repeal it.)
To Sally,
Selling the images as mounted prints should be fine even with car number plates showing. I say this with some hesitation, since the no court has actually considered the privacy implications of showing car number plates in images, but as the cars in question were on display at a show there are unlikely to be privacy implications.
Looking back through some of the older comments, there appear to be some queries in the past month that I haven’t seen before and might have missed. Apologies if I haven’t answered your particular query, do post again if I have missed you out!
Linda
Tom B
At the moment at least, the property owner’s permission to take the photos would be enough. Depending on the circumstances, though, there may be privacy or data protection issues depending on what you do with the photos.
Mark,
It isn’t illegal to take pictures of illegally parked cars. There might be legal issues in publishing them to the web or anywhere else if number plates are visible. No court has decided in the UK whether publishing an image of an identifiable car might be an invasion of privacy, but the Information Commissioner felt that the steps taken by Google Streetview to blur car number plates was necessary in the interests of privacy.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your reply. The case was dismissed by the Magistrates Court. According to The Register :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/19/greek_photographer/print.html the Police didn’t offer any evidence. I wonder if he could pursue a case of wrongful arrest? Interestingly,
LU or TfL still can’t seem to make their minds up as to whether you are, or are not allowed to take pictures (non-commercial obviously) on the tube without LU’s prior permission . There web site still says you can.
Peter
Suspected typo (column 4 page 1):
“a recent decision of the EHCR”
Does this refer to the European Convention on Human Rights? and so ECHR?
Thanks for a great guide!
James, yes, sorry! It is a typo and should be ECHR. Though it stands for the European Court of Human Rights rather than the Convention.
I’ll get the PDF amended and a new version posted asap.
Typo fixed version is up now, sorry for that.
Hello. I was taking architectural photographs around the Glasgow Fort Shopping Centre when approached by a security guard (had obviously seen me on CCTV because they came straight towards me, which is an interesting intrusion in itself). They said photography was not allowed “due to the Data Protection Act” – they had taken a blanket decision to ban any photography, whether it included people or not. While strictly this is private property (although built on public land) it certainly qualifies as public space. I find this restrictive of my civil liberties. Comments?
Interesting again and thanks for the update. Just on a side not, on a
anorak issue, I was reading the Railway Magazine June 2009. Seems that the jovial train spotter and casual photographer now get short shrift from the law.
But a warning to single males who may venture too close to a steaming miniature railway, armed with a camera these coming months. Seems your presence is not wanted.
Hi Simon, would it be possible to turn on hyphenation in InDesign and see if that flows the text a bit better? The justification’s fairly heavy in places due to the narrow column measure. It might also gain you a line or two over the document, which could be used to increase the leading a little. There’s good advice on this issue in the following PDF:
http://www.creativepro.com/files/downloads/20070608.pdf
Many thanks to you both for updating the guide, it’s remarkably useful!
@Stef – I did try hyphenation when making the PDF, but the flow was nasty and I didn’t have time to fiddle around for hours on it. I’ll give it another look when I have time. Thanks for the comment and suggestion!
Bruce, the Data Protection Act gets blamed for a lot of policies that really don’t have much to do with data protection. But there is a lot of uncertainty about the full extent of how the Act operates and I guess people prefer to cover their backs, as it were. Whether because of the Data Protection Act or for any other reason, they are entitled to prohibit photography if they want to. A place to which the public have access is not the same as a public place. You have a licence to access the private property, but the owners can impose whatever conditions they like on that licence, and they can also revoke it at any time.
Thanks for your comment Linda. This is interesting. What is the definition of a ‘public place’? Everything is owned by someone, are you suggesting this definition could be used to severely restrict what you can photograph? I guess I could understand Glasgow Fort’s policy is they were an enclosed shopping centre, but the fact that it is a ‘retail park’ open to the elements with public roads passing the site on all sides. The concern is that landowners start trying to make a buck from charging to photograph iconic landmarks, statues etc. on their land, much in the way your guide describes that photography is restricted in Royal Parks. I have noted that the owner of the picturesque and historic Cove Harbour in Berwickshire has put up big signs saying you can’t take photos, despite a right-of-way running through the middle of the site and public access being granted. That seems unreasonable if not immoral.
Bruce, that’s a good question. In general, public places would include public highways, parks, town and village squares, public sports facilities and playgrounds, that kind of thing. But it is also the case that local byelaws can restrict the right to do things even in public places – as with Trafalgar and Parliament Squares and the Royal Parks.
With Glasgow Fort, for example, the owners can restrict photography on their own property, but could not prevent the property being photographed from the public road.
Access rights in Scotland muddy the waters further, since they give the public a right of access to private property, with some limitations, and allow activities to be carried on during access, which would include photography, even commercial photography. Access rights to not extent to buildings or to the curtilage of buildings, so they would apply to very little in an urban environment. Cove Harbour is thus an interesting case, though the harbour itself could be described as a building. In addition, if the right of way is a public highway, one could take photographs from there.
In England, where access rights are much more restricted, there would be little to stop landowners charging photographers for permission to take photographs on their land (though not from a public highway running through the land). The National Trust already does this, for commercial photography.
The PDF of Photographers’ Rights v2 keeps returning an error message “The file is damaged and could not be repaired”. I’ve updated my Adobe Reader to 9.1.0. Is it me? Other PDFs open normally.
It sounds like the PDF has corrupted in download. Try downloading it again.
So, basically, you can take photos of anything from the street but power-hungry assholes working as law enforcement might give you a hard time. I say don’t cooperate with police, ever. A few hours locked up > Giving up your principles.
You guys have some draconian statutes.
Hello. under invasion of privacy I was wondering – what happens if you take a photo of a celebrity in a public place such as a museum or restaurant. Could you then put the photo on the website or post it on youtube? Are celebrity rights different? I can’t imagine that the paparazzi get release forms signed for all the shots that get published in the magazines or is that because they have separate rights??
THANK YOU!!!
Sarah,
No, celebrity rights are not any different from anyone else’s. You have to be careful not to confuse a “public place” with a place that is open to the public and restaurants and some museums are generally private places which may have restrictions on photography. However, that was not your question. In respect of privacy, obviously the paparazzi do not get release forms from all the celebrities for the shots that feature in magazines. Often they don’t need them, because the celebrity in question is happy to be photographed, or the photo features the celebrity at a public event where they would have no expectation of privacy. But nowadays you will see few pictures of celebrities doing things like having a private meal in a restaurant, unless the celebrity has given permission for the photo, because the publication may be sued for infringing their right to privacy. As recent court cases have shown, even the publication of images taken of a person in a public street can now amount to an infringement of their right to privacy, depending on the circumstances, and also, of course, depneding on whether the celebrity becomes aware of the publication and objects to it.
For Tony Y. I am a retired police officer, and was a serving officer before the farcical EU pushed its nose into so called human rights. One of the good things of living in this country is that a police officer can talk with a total stranger in the street. Obviously a police officer may suspect something fishy may be going on, but having had a word with the person in question all is well. One way for the public to be reassured that the police are approchable is for police officers to have friendly chats with ” joe public “. That was the part of policing I liked the best.
David, old chap. You have clearly not been ‘Stopped and Searched’ recently, as I have just been on Oxford Street, whilst photographing for a magazine. I had no ID but co-operated fully. My Oyster card was siezed by the police to get the serial number off it. It was a Big Brother moment. These are the end days for street photography.
once again a great guide. a huge fan of the first. thanks for updating it.
Have already linked to his page on a forum and will no doubt link about once a week at this rate.
this is a hot topic, now more than ever.
thanks for all the time that went into this document
Ho Linda,
Here’s another case of a photographer arrested, held and threaten, it seem , with
a charge of harassment. I know the police have a lot of discretion (which has its good points) but is this really lawful?
‘Today at a music festival on public land i was arrested for taking photos after complaints from members of the public. I explained to the police that photography on public land is perfectly lawful. They said without an official permit what i was doing was illegal and i am alarming and distressing the festival crowd.
This was strange as i saw hundreds of people with cameras around me. Back at the station after several hours in the cells, i was told to go straight home or i will be charged and face the magistrates court in the morning.’
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/3603318615/
The actions of the police do seem rather excessive, but it is hard to say whether they were unlawful on the basis of such a short account and without knowing what (if anything) he did to draw the attention of the police when plenty of other people were using cameras. It’s also rather difficult to determine what (if anything specific) they were threatening to charge him with, or on what basis he was detained (since they must have thought they had some legal grounds to detain him).
I would advise him to go through the complaints procedure for the police authority concerned, and, in the first instance, to ask for the reason for his ejection from the event and the reason for his subsequent detention.
i know this is a little cheeky to ask photographers, but i have been followed on a number of occasions by an ex-employee who has been taking photos of me in a Tesco filling station and in the grounds of a private industrial park where i work, to establish my movements.
He was told by Tesco to desist due to the proximity of fuel pumps.
On both occasions he was stupid enough to ignore the cctv cameras.!
the photos were sent to his solicitor who forwarded them to me and to the Employment Tribunal. this seems a very grey area and although i know this is asking a poacher to turn gamekeeper, i am asking you please to share any knowledge you may have.
thank you in advance for any assistance you can give me.
brian
It is a grey area, Brian, and rather hard to answer without knowing what justification, if any, he might have for the photography and for following you. (And understandably you don’t want to discuss the issues you have with this former employee on a public forum).
If he has been regularly following you and photographing you on more than one occasion, this may amount to harassment and you could seek an injunction (or interdict if you are in Scotland) to prevent further instances of this conduct.
There is unlikely to be any invasion of privacy as the law presently stands, because the images he took were not for publication, and although the images of you could be regarded as personal data, the Data Protection Act does have an exception when personal data are disclosed if the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, .
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights (DPA s.35). I assume that this was his purpose, since the photos were sent to his solicitor.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your comment on the photographer who was arrested at the music festival. He has added a bit more about the circumstances that leading to his arrest on flicker saying:
‘At the festival I took a portrait shot of two festival goers who posed for my camera, they genuinely were interested in my project and took a card so they could see themselves on the net, later they complained to the police which still baffles me, hence the police stopping and questioning me. The police could not understand why anyone would want to photograph a stranger and said this will alarm and distress people. My annoyance came from there assistance that photography on council run festival land is illegal without a permit which led to my wrongful arrest.’
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/3603318615/?addedcomment=1#comment72157619485732509
Well, the police not understanding why someone would want to photograph a stranger does not make photographing a stranger a crime. I’m also intrigued as to what this “permit” might be. The festival organisers might prohibit photography (though clearly they hadn’t) but that would not be a police matter.
I understand from the Flickr thread that the photographer is making a complaint through the IPCC. They will forward it to the force concerned.
Hi Linda.
My wife and I are trying to get started in the event photography market and to this end have been taking pictures of the rehearsals of a local dance studio for a show they are performing in a few weeks.
We are aware of some of the pitfalls and minefields for photographers and in this instance we are worried about getting the correct permissions to use/distribute/sell our images which we take under these circumstances and hope you can clarify a few points.
Many of the performers are between 14 and 18 so I wondered what written permissions we would need to get (if any) from the parents/studio to use these images within an online portfolio (but not for selling)?
For future events involving dance studios and dramatic societies, if we wished to put those images into a stock library, what permissions would we require from the performers and/or the studio/society?
Finally, if the studio/society already had written permission from the performers (or their guardians) to allow photographs to be taken and used, would they be able to transfer that right over to the photographer in some way (eg written contract)?
Thanks.
Victor, these questions are a bit specific to be covered by a comment here, but I can give you some general info.
There are potential data protection issues with images of people and the extent to which the Data Protection Act applies to images of people without any further identifying information has not yet been determined by a court. I would advise anyone to err on the side of caution. The Act does not require consent to be in writing, but it is safest as it provides clear evidence of consent. Also, the Act does not stipulate an age at which someone can consent for themselves, and it seems to be based on whether the individual genuinely understands what they are consenting to. All the same, it would be best to get the consent of a parent/guardian if the subject is under the age of 18.
Many stock libraries will not accept images of people without a signed release (and signed by a parent/guardian if the subject is under 18). If images are to be used for what is loosely termed “editorial use”, they may come within the exemption provided in the DPA for personal data processed for the special purposes of journalism, literature or art.
If the studio/society has permissions from the performers or their guardians they could not transfer it to you as such (this would need the consent of the person who gave the permission). But if the permissions were broad enough to allow photographs to be taken and used by third parties, you would be covered by those permissions.
Linda,
Is there is one law we can quote to police officers or security guards when going about our legal right to photograph from a public highway that may convince them to leave us alone.
Maybe we could get a solicitor to create a legal document, which we could carry around in our camera bags,to present to those who are trying to use the law to stop us taking pictures.
thanks
paul
There really isn’t, since there is no statute that sets out that right. UK law generally works on the assumption that something is legal unless there is a law against it, and there is no law against taking photographs in a public place, so long as you aren’t causing an obstruction. Of course, there are circumstances in which the police might move you on, for example when there is a situation of public disorder or something similar. And there are, of course, the various anti-terrorism measures that MAY apply, though they are taken too far by some.
I have wondered before whether someone could produce a combined checklist / form that could be used when if approached by a security official, police officer or just jobsworth.
It could act as a prompt of what questions to ask and spaces to record their answers in words or by ticking boxes. It could act as a reminder if a 5090X is required.
Also space to fill in their details – name, number, company or police force etc. Obviously date, time and location as well.
It would ensure that all this is recorded in detail and also they would know that you have recorded it all.
Linda and Simon
I would just like to say thank you for all the hard work you have put in to this. It is very helpful for all us photographers and is very much appreciated.
Thanks again.
Gary
yep,I totally agree with Gary,this is a very useful resource for photographers and to cap it all its free, but it certainly isn’t cheap.
jack
Our observatory has “open days” attended by the public. We usually have somebody there (a nominated member with camera) to take the club “official” pictures that go into our private member newsletter. We always make a point of asking people if they mind us taking their picture, or if it’s a kid we ask the parents. Usually nobody minds one bit. Can you confirm (mainly to keep our committee happy) that with this in mind, there’s no issue using the pictures in our newsletter, and that we don’t need signed consent forms? I believe I’m right in thinking we’d only need those if we were wanting to use the pictures for advertising posters or in the paper… or would verbal consent be enough too (bearing in mind nobody would be paid!)?
Technically, Matt, verbal consent is legally enough for most purposes. (Though the CAP Code urges marketers to obtain written permission before portraying a person in advertising). The reason that signed consent forms are sought is that they provide evidence that consent was given if this should later be disputed. If you wish to use images of members of the public in your advertising, you should get written consent. For the purposes of your newsletter, your present practice is fine. Another possibility would be to put a sign at the entrance to the observatory, on open days, saying that photographs will be taken and may be published in the members’ newsletter.
Linda, hopefully you can advise if a fellow camera club member was in the right as I believe he was. He was photographing a general view from the public road of the outside of Aylesbury prison. He, like myself, was producing modern photographs of images held by the county museum. The county library had asked us to take the photo’s for an exhibition featuring Aylesbury old and new. My friend was accused of breaking the law by an off duty prison officer leaving work. He was told to stop and was also informed that if he was in uniform he had the power to arrest him. A day later I was taking the same shots from a position on the other side of the road from the main prison entrance, and although it was quite quite obvious what I was doing, I was even using a tripod to help precisely matching the composition of the old photograph, no one bothered me. Was I and my friend acting within the law?
There is no law that specifically prohibits taking photographs of a prison building from a public highway, though I guess it is one of those circumstances that might legitimately lead to the police asking questions about your reasons for doing so.
A prison officer does not have powers of arrest (beyond those that any citizen has) just because he is uniform. A prison officer has the same powers of arrest as a police constable only when he is acting as a prison officer. Those powers would allow him to arrest someone caught smuggling contraband into or out of the prison, for example. They do not give him general powers of arrest at any time or anywhere.
hello, a great help but does anyone know about the law in france? thanks
Recently on a bright sunny day I took my camera for a walk in a local park. There were several young persons meeting with their friends after school, and, seeing my camera, one of them asked what I was doing. I explained that I am a member of the local camera club, and might use images for competition or even exhibition. She asked “Will you take my picture?” Of course I was happy to do so, and later on several other young persons ( all below the age of 16 as far as I could tell) also asked me to take their pictures. I arranged a group and did several other pictures. I gave a card to my subjects, telling them that they could contact me for images. However, there were not many images so I decided to go home and print them, and return to the park and give them to the subjects.
While at home printing the images, I received a phone call from someone claiming to be “Park Security” – which later turned out to be false – he was a school teacher- who was particularly upset about my taking photographs of young persons in the park. He called the police and I told him that I would be returning to the park shortly with the prints and that at that time I would be happy to discuss the issue with him, the police, or anyone else.
When I returned to the park, the complainant was not there. Nor were any of my subjects from one of the local schools. However there were two plain clothes policemen present, and when I gave some prints to the remaining young people, they approached me and we had a discussion. They told me that it is against the law to take photographs of young people under the age of 16 without parental consent.
I replied that I had checked this point with the Child Protection Agency and that I had been told that there is no restriction on taking photographs of anybody in a public place even if they are minors, provided that the subjects are not subjected to harrassment (a course of action – one event is not enough) and that the pictures are not indecent.
They did insist that my action was against the law, so I asked if they could tell me which law – quote an act and section. This they could not do. One of the officers resorted to “I wouldn’t like it if it was my child” but that hardly amounts to a legal prohibition.
I asked them to research the law and send me an email with the relevant act and section. No reply.
A couple of notes. I gave my card to the subject. Not to the teacher. Not to the police. But the police officer had my card in his hand. I don’t think he should have had it. I have no problems with giving my contact details, but I would have preferred my subject to have retained my card.
I asked the police officer if I could give the prints to another pupil of the school who was not involved in any way, so that she could give the prints to the subjects. The police were quite happy with this, but does this amount to publication? Up to that point, the only people involved were myself as photographer and my subjects, but now the pictures had been given to a third party, and consequently control had been lost.
As a final point, the mother of the girl who first asked for a picture phoned my wife to ask her to thank me for such a lovely picture of her daughter. She seemed to be the only one involved in the row who actually saw an image!
I am 67 and I have been taking street photographs for over 50 years. I wonder if these pictures had been taken by one of the young people using a mobile phone if any such rumpus would have arisen. I suggest the problem was more about ME taking photos than about the images themselves.
Frank McLoughlin, Gosforth
Frank, I’m sure you’re right and there would have been no fuss at all if the young people had been taking photos of each other. It is understandable, I suppose, that someone taking photographs of children in a public place might become the subject of suspicion, and even that the police might want to ask some questions. But the perception that it is de facto illegal to take such images is now widespread and totally false. It is worrying that this misperception is also held in many instances by the police.
I’m doing a 365 project this year, the subject of which is my girls (http://lightproofbox.zenfolio.com/p842334530) and tonights picture was really more trouble that it was worth!.
Here is the blog entry that accompanied the picture….
“More Trouble Than Its Worth??”
Tonight’s picture caused a bit of trouble at Gymnastics tonight. I positioned myself so that i was ‘concentrated’ on Caitlin (hard not to get other kids in frame, but they’d be cropped out later anyway). I had the permission of the Gym Coach as i have had in the past, and one parent came up to me and demanded to know why i was taking pictures of kids as i needed written permission of the other parents! I corrected her but she insisted she knew best as she was a ‘police officer’. At that point i advised her that she should know the law regarding the taking of photographs. She insisted that she knew the law and could have me arrested – “bring it on” was the reply!, and i even offered to ring them for her and asked her for her badge number (which she would not give!) and i kept on snapping Caitlin doing cartwheels.
“You cant take pictures of my daughter” she said. I told her i wasn’t and said that even if she was ‘in frame’ it was not AGAINST THE LAW. At that point another parent came over ranting that she didn’t want pictures taking of her daughter either. “Good, because I’m not taking any of her!” I also told her that i can go to the park and take pictures of my kids playing there if i wanted, and if her child was there so be it. “No you cant – I can have you arrested” (can you see a pattern emerging here??)
The gym coach then came over and asked me to stop – not because he thought i needed to, but because of the grief it was causing. I stopped as i had got the shot i wanted.
On the way out the ‘discussion’ continued and once again i was reminded that i could be arrested and be ‘locked up’ LOL. Again i offered to call the police so that she could be corrected.
“They’ll make you delete the images” She said! “Really?” i replied – “i thought that was against the law in case they were needed as evidence should i be arrested”. I asked her which law i was breaking, to which she called me a “prat” and stormed off with the other parent.
I passed them in the car-park (i was the last to leave as i stayed behind to apologise to the coach for causing him grief), and could here them talking about it, and once i had passed them, two of the parents marched back into the gym for round two!
I kept my cool, but was RAGING inside!!!.
I NEED A BEER!!
I feel really angry at being questioned by ignorant parents that presume that every person with a camera should be treated with suspicion. I and fearful for a future where cameras are banned and there is absolutely no social commentary for my children’s children to look back on.
Rant over!
Next time make sure you have some printed copies of the UKPR guide to give out. It should shut them up
I ALWAYS have some in my ‘manbag’, but on this night i just had the camera slung over my shoulder (DOH!!). Even if i had them i doubt it would have ’shut her up!’
And still more misperceptions regarding photography of children. It is true that many sports organisations, as part of their child protection policy, do not allow photography without the consent of parents. This is not the same as claiming that it is an offence. Likewise, publication of images of people on the web may, in some circumstances, give rise to data protection issues, but again this is not what the critics here were claiming.
An excellent guide and I can highly recommend it.. however at the risk of being pedantic, shoudn’t that be “Photographer’s Rights” with an apostrophe?
jon
Probably, but let’s not worry about it too much
Well, if one is being really pedantic, I believe it should be “Photographers’ Rights”.
I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, though.
You have probably seen this in The Register today but in case not…
Met warns officers off photographers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/09/metropolitan_police_photo/
Thanks Martin I hadn’t seen that. Great news, let’s hope the PC on the beat takes notice, not to mention the PCSO’s
Here’s the MET page the register article links to. http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
This link was posted in a discussion on this in a newsgroup
http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/
Can anyone help me with this?
If I’m photographing a building from the street and a security guard comes out – what is he entitled to do?
Can he legally stand right in front of the lens to prevent me getting a shot? Can he legally grab the camera? What is the relevant law?
Thanks – security guards can be a hassle for architectural photography!
David
Security guards are basically acting as agents for the property owner and they have no authority to act outside of the boundaries of the property. If you are standing on the public highway (and sometimes one has to be careful, since what may seem to be a public thoroughfare can be part of the private property), a security guard has no right to interfere with you, to try to grab your camera or to try to move you away. If a security guard manhandles you in such circumstances it could be regarded as an assault.
There isn’t much you can do if he stands in front of your lens, though. It may be a nuisance, but it isn’t illegal, unless he obstructs the road and makes it difficult for you to move, in which case he might be considered to be obstructing the highway.
Hi Linda,
The following comes extract from the newly released Metroploitian Police advice on photography. I was wondering if you have any comments on the police powers to view images that are claimed?
‘Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
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 have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.’
Source: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
Thanks,
Peter
Well, it is worth noting that a search under Section 43 requires a reasonable suspicion that the person to be searched is a terrorist. Only Section 44 does not require a reasonable belief that articles connected with terrorism might be found. I have no doubt that the Act would give officers power to view digital images. Section 44, in particular, provides for a search of the person and “anything carried by him”, and a search of a camera would logically include viewing the images.
The Met’s own practice advice suggests that Officers should not normally examine images: “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”
http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/files/terrorism_advice_leaflet.pdf
On balance, I suspect most photographers would rather that police officers viewed the images rather than seizing the camera.
Hello Linda,
Thank you very much for responding. So a security guard can indeed prevent legal photography by just standing there.
I know that it’s best to be patient and listen to the guard first, explain what I am doing and then gradually win him round. This works most times unless you get a particular type of guard who likes being unpleasant and unco-operative. But my problem is that when someone tells me stuff that’s obviously wrong I just react and argue which although it can be satisfying is unfortunately counter-productive.
David A
PS: And thanks for this whole thread, which I’m gradually working my way through.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your reply regading the new police guidence. I had read the met’s stop & search best practice advice before, which rather made me smile as this new advice runs counter to that with regarding digital images. Still, my guess is that most police won’t have read either so it probably won’t make the slightest difference in the real world.
Peter
Am I being cynical but is this one reason why they like making a fuss about pictures being taken of the police, it allows a fishing expedition though the pictures on the camera.
Teen Harry Potter actor caught with cannabis plants after police see pictures of drugs on his digital camera
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200125/Harry-Potter-actor-Jamie-Waylett-court-admitting-growing-cannabis.html
Added a banner link to – http://www.not-a-crime.com
Here’s the BJP article about the campaign and the Flickr pool.
Add a banner or article to your site, sign up and submit a self portrait.
Keep the good work.
I made a similar guide to portuguese photographers, avalilable here (sorry, obviously in portuguese): http://namargemdodia.blogspot.com/2009/07/direito-de-fotografar-em-portugal.html
I would like an issue clarified.
Can one take photographs on aircraft with electronic or digital cameras during the take off and landing procedures?
I ask because a few years ago, wnen I was on a British Airways flight taxying out from Gatwick Airport, a stewardess said to me that I was not allowed to take photos. When I asked why not she just said “It’s the rules!”, in a snotty manner. It seemed there was a rule that you could not take photos during the take off and landing phases, here.
As she did not bother to explain WHY i coulden’t take photos, I just carried on taking photos anyway (being as the cabin crew have to be seated during taking off and landing!)
I was taking photos from out of the window, because I am very interested in getting fairly low altitude views. I was using a film camera, (I still use film cameras, not digital). These have electronic drives (as of course, the mechanical camera has gone out of fashion).
I would like to know if the use of either film cameras and digital are banned during the take-off/landing procedures. I know they say to not use electronics but I woulden’t have thought that cameras (especially film cameras) could be considered a problem.
Yours sincerely
Gary Walker
Gary, the short answer is that it depends whether the airline concerns allows it or not.
There is no law against it, and I have no expertise in whether is really is a safety issue or not. But an aircraft is private property, and the operators have the right to ban photography during take-off and landing (or, indeed, altogether) if they wish to.
Linda – this document appears after a first read to be generally useful. It does raise one question for me regarding the rights of property owners to restrict commercial photography on their property.
If such photography does not include any elements that could identify the location in which it is taken, and the subject of the image consents, how enforceable are those property owner restrictions with regards commercial use. Examples: if I took a photo of flowering grass within a Royal Park; or if I took a picture of a person at an event on English Heritage land that the subject consented to (with no identifiable background).
Also within the scope of my question, what is considered to be commercial photography? Clearly, sale of rights to the image for other use is covered. But what if I were to take pictures of a family – to be made into wall art for them – and were paid for the mounted images? Does self-use as part of a portfolio count as commercial use?
Rick, the question of whether the rights can be enforced is one that, ultimately, can only be answered by the courts on case by case basis. Clearly, if a property owner is suing a photographer on the basis of trespass or breach of contract, it would be up to him to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the image had been taken on his land and in contravention of his expressed wishes or some contract term or other notice. So yes, in some circumstances it might be effectively impossible for the landowner to enforce those rights.
Commercial photography does not have a clear legal definition and it is rare for terms and conditions, etc, to simply state that “commercial photography” is prohibited. The byelaws governing the Royal Parks and various other open spaces, for example, state that written permission is required for taking “photographs of still or moving subjects for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate”.
That is broad enough to cover your example of taking pictures of a family for which you are to be paid, and possibly broad enough to cover the portfolio, if the portfolio is to be used to attract new business.
Firstly,
would like to say both the document and the thread are very informative, thanks very much for your hard work.
Secondly, I am doing a short (10 Min) talk for our local photogrpahic society in September about the rights of photographers, and woundered if you are happy for me to paraphrase some of your ‘UK Photographers Rights Guide’ for inclusion in the powerpoint presentation.
I would of course credit each piece from your document back to yourselves.
I am also planning to hand out to the members a list of useful weblinks and so would like to include a link to your website if that is OK?
Thanks again for your great work,
Chris
Sure thing, just please don’t redistribute the PPS online.
In Solent Shipping News
http://www.solentwaters.co.uk/JAlbumnews/Recentnews/index.html
Naval ship spotters watch out
Item Posted: 30/07/09 16:46
Police who arrested a man outside Portsmouth Navy Base base under the Terrorism Act said they have seized filming equipment. The 38-year-old was detained by officers near the Whale Island naval establishment 29th July and he remains in police custody. A Hampshire Constabulary spokesman said: “Police were called at around 2.15pm to reports of suspicious behaviour at the site. “The man, who’s believed to be from the South West of England, was detained in a white panel van parked outside the establishment. “As part of our investigation, officers seized filming equipment from the van and detectives are in the process of questioning the man at a police station in Hampshire. “From our initial enquiries, there is there is nothing to suggest there was any immediate risk to the public.” Hampshire police initially said the man had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act after reports he was seen “engaged in suspicious activity” near to the base. The man was not on Ministry of Defence property at the time he was arrested. Whale Island is home to the shore training establishment HMS Excellent, which prepares personnel for life at sea, and also the Commander In Chief Fleet.
Can anyone help me clear up an issue I am having with regards to my rights and the arguments I have recieved from a photographer in question? I recently attended a wedding of a relative where they had hired a photographer to record the event. After leaving the wedding I found out that the photographer was putting images he’s taken onto his website to sell any images to anyone in the public who wishes to purchase them. I know other photographers tend to provide logins specific to a couple and only use for promotion images of the consenting pair who hired him. However the photographer is using ALL images to sell to general public.
In particular their are images of my 2yr old son which were taken at the event (individual images and group images without my consent). I have contacted the photographer to state I do not consent for my son to have images used in this manner and his response was very defensive. He started saying he is allowed to use images in this way or how else would he make a living; to expect consent from guests is unrealsitic and it’s our fault for not realising they would be published; there’s no laws against him taking photos of my son and using them this way…etc.
Can anyone help clear things up for me a bit please? Where are my rights as a parent? Can he use images of anyone he wants to sell them as he sees fit simply because he’s a photographer and has taken a photo?
hi, my friend rented a studio and equipment for four hours from a guy last week. she supplied the models and the props and the creative edge. she finished the shoot and went home to edit them. she was on facebook and a image appeared that the guy had taken during her time in the studio fully edited. does he have the right to do this or is it un-acceptable ? your help would be really appreciated. thank you carl brennan.
← Previous Comments