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
In The Register
Met amends journo photo guidance to prevent interference
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/met_clarify_photo_guidance/
Links to Metropolitan Police Photography Advice
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
MB
Just received a link to an article which might be of interest. I’m certain in my mind that the person who wrote the letter to the Bolton News had not committed an offence – one more case of council workers claiming higher authority than they ought
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/yoursay/yourview/4541062.Is_it_wrong_to_take_pictures_of_teen_crime_/
Thanks for the PDF guide.
I love street photography in the UK and I am not about to give it up. Here are a few tips:
Always carry business cards with your contact details (I use MOO mini-cards). Giving them to subjects can often allay their suspicions.
Establish respect and trust over time, by volunteering to shoot charity & school events. You’ll be given an “Official Photographer” badge, the organiser’s full backing and a Hi-Vi vest to wear (when working in the road). Give your pictures away (unlimited use, not-for-profit) but always retain copyright. You will soon build your portfolio, risk-free. Schools should be able to help you get your CRB certificate (Criminal Record Bureau check), an essential requirement when working with children.
Carry model release forms with you (on paper) for those times when you might want to sell a picture. Libraries must protect themselves these days, even when you only photograph people from behind (“anonymously”).
Have fun out there, but play safely.
Peter Bryenton
BryPix.com
Hi Linda
I have always been under the impression that subject to the normal rules of the game that taking a picture in a street (a place where the public would have a reasonable expectation to pass and have no privacy) and getting people in it is perfectly legal and does not require permission for the photo to be taken or be published on my server online.
I have been shown the following case (Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece) and as far as I can see, any subjects should have to sign a model release form before pictures are taken even on the streets because it is a breech of their human rights. How does this ruling affect photographers and can members of the public genuinely use this case as a legitimate excuse to stop me photographing on the streets.
What goads me is that the case has its own issues surrounding photos being taken in a private location and the photographers not asking for permission nor supplying film when asked by the Minors parents as well as being rejected all the way through the Greek system.
Have you got any advice with regards to this case?
Cheers
Yes, it has always been the case that issues surrounding photography of people in public have been mostly concerned with publication rather than with the taking of a photo. (Though publishing on the web does give rise to data protection issues in some cases.)
Reklos and Davourlis v Greece was the case I was referring to when I wrote in the Guide that “a recent decision of the ECHR suggests that simply taking a photograph may, in some circumstances, infringe the right” (of privacy).
The case had very specific circumstances and involved the taking of photos of a newborn baby in a place where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy (a hospital). Nevertheless, the implications could potentially be far-reaching. Firstly because there was no issue of publication of the photographs in this case, and secondly because of the statement by the court that the concept of privacy included the right to identity and that “effective protection of the right to control one’s image presupposed, in the present circumstances, obtaining the consent of the person concerned when the picture was being taken and not just when it came to possible publication.” This goes much further than the English Court of Appeal in Murray v Big Pictures, where the court was at pains to point out that it was not creating a general right to control one’s image.
On the other hand, note the words “in the present circumstances” which suggest that the decision might not have been the same in different circumstances (for example if the image had been taken in a public street). The full implications of the case for photographers in the UK who are taking photographs on the streets is therefore uncertain and, at least initially, a matter for the UK courts. Legal protection of privacy is developing so rapidly that it is difficult to predict.
Hi Linda
While I am pretty certain that I was acting within legal boundaries, I just wish to clarify. I assume the Manchester Pride festival is a public event, any photos of persons at or in that event would be deemed public. Could someone request any photos taken to be approved before being published on a website photo gallery (non profit), I would assume that because it was a public event then I would not need any persons permission. Also would this change if I was on a float or vehicle parading in the actual event and took photos of people on or off the vehicle. Again I would assume unless it was specified beforehand then permissions would not be needed.
Your help would be appreciated
Cheers
Paul
Hi Paul,
Various recent human rights cases have left me rather hesitant to predict what courts are going to decide with reference to photographs of people. At the moment, at least, images taken of people at public events, particularly of groups or crowds of people, can be published, especially if this is in the nature of news reporting or has an artistic purpose.
If you were on a float or in a vehicle, it would depend on the wishes of the owner/organiser of the float/vehicle. They could ask you not to take photographs, obviously.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
Hi
Im wondering wether any one could help me out. I recently got a message from a photography studio askin me to remove the face shot of myself on facebook. The photo was taken in there studio but has not been edited by them in anyway. Therefore the photgraph I scanned never had any copyright markings on the back unlike the ones which had been edited by the studio which had a clear copyright sticker on the back. I then cropped the image as all i wanted was my face on facebook. I was told by the studio that if I dont remove the picture of myself they will be taking further action as I have committed copyright infringment and that I dont have any rights to the picture of myself. Is this true and if so do i have any human rights to have the picture of my face on facebook.
Dan, in law the photographer owns the copyright in any photograph he takes (whether it has been edited or not), unless something different was agreed when the photograph was commissioned (and that would be most unusual in portrait photography). The copyright is theirs whether or not they put any copyright markings or other information on the photograph. So the studio is correct. You own the physical photograph they gave you, but you infringe their copyright if you reproduce it in some way.
Hello, I’d be very grateful for a little advice. I do urban exploration photography, which involves trespassing – do the site owners have any right to prevent publication of the images I take? I normally put the images online, but I also plan to use some in a book – can the site owners prevent publication of the book? Thank you very much for your help.
Hi Ben,
It’s an interesting question. I’m assuming, to begin with, that you are in England or Wales as the law differs somewhat in Scotland. In theory, yes, the owner of a site on which you were trespassing could seek an injunction to prevent publication of images taken while you were trespassing. There is some contradictory case law on the matter and it seems that the granting of an injunction is by no means automatic. Most of the cases have involved trespass in order to obtain photographs or film footage of situations that are likely to be newsworthy and therefore there are probably some differences with your activities.
So, it is possible though not necessarily probable that an injunction could be granted to prevent publication.
However, you may be liable in damages to the site owner for the original trespass, if he chooses to sue.
Hi Linda,
Thank you very much for your reply – I’m sorry, I should have said that I am in Scotland. As I understand it, the difference would be that the site owner couldn’t sue for trespass? Also, if it is relevant, the site is covered by the MSER 2005 regulations – I was not aware of this at the time, of course.
Would an injunction, if granted, only prevent publication, or would I also be liable for damages?
As you say, there is not much difference, except that in Scotland it would be an interdict rather than an injunction, and damages are not awarded against a trespasser for simple trespass without proof of actual damage.
MSER 2005 Regs do not really alter the matter, since they provide only that unauthorised persons must not enter a site covered by the regulations, that they must leave if requested and that reasonable force can be used to eject them if they do not comply.
Although trespass can be a criminal offence on certain sites in Scotland, this would not be the case with a site covered by the MSER 2005 Regs (unless the site also came within another protected category).
An interdict, if granted, would not be accompanied by an award of damages unless these were claimed for and there was proof of actual loss.
I’m the Reviews Editor for Digital Photographer magazine. I’m writing an article on Street Photography and wanted to ask if you’d be interested in being interviewed on the subject with regard to UK law?
Please contact me using the email address provided.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Josie Reavely
Josie, I’ve forwarded your details on to Linda.
Good morning,
I just wanted to check whether Linda has got back to you on this as yet please?
Many thanks,
Josie
Josie, I emailed you privately over a week ago. I will send the mail again. Sorry about that. Linda
Hi Linda,
Perhaps you can help me.
My neighbour has a very restricted private right of way over my property which he regularly abuses. When I see him doing this, I photograph him. I have written him a letter telling them that I am taking these photographs as evidence that he trespasses on my land and that if need be, I will use them as evidence in a court of law.
He has just written me saying that he doesn’t give his permission to be photographed on my property because he has a right of way over it.
I’m pretty certain that if somebody is on my land, then I can photograph them but I would just like to make sure.
Thank you!
Hi Robert,
Yes, in general the law has not prevented someone taking a photograph of someone else, whether the photographer is on their own land or in a public place. (Though there is recent ECHR case law that suggests that this may be changing, and that in some circumstances, simply taking a photo of someone without their consent will be regarded as an infringement of their right to privacy.)
The photos you take are presumably processed by computer and the photographs of your neighbour would be regarded as personal data within the scope of the Data Protection Act. However, if you are processing personal data only for the purposes of your personal, family or household affairs, then you would be exempt from most of the provisions of the Act.
Be aware that, if you are obviously photographing him every time he uses the right of way, whether or not he abuses it and trespasses, there is a possibility that this might be regarded as harassment.
Hi Simon,
Would you be interested in allowing Warehouse Express to include the UK Photographers Rights Guide v2 within a small booklet for our customers? We’re keen to make sure every photographer knows what is & isn’t allowed.
Hi Oli,
If you’re talking about a paper printed booklet, you can print the guide and include it as a pullout or loose insert. It must remain intact as is. i.e. printed on 2 sides of 1 piece of paper and not edited in anyway. No WEX logo’s (or any additional text) should be added.
You cannot re-host and distribute the electronic version of the guide. You can however include a link on your site to http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr which will bring them direct to this page. Please don’t direct link to the PDF however.
Thanks for the speedy reply Simon. I’ll let you know if we decide to print the flyer as specified or link to http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.
We’ve featured the guide in our blog post:
Photographers’ Rights: Are You Aware?
Thanks!
I’d be interested in hearing about distinctions between photography for evidence-gathering and photography as a violation of personal or property rights. An example: on a train heading to the seaside, a group of young men come into the carriage, with tins of alcohol, and start making vaguely suggestive comments about a young lady in one of the seats, and salting their speech with crude sexual terminology. You may know of similar scenes involving buses and vulgar youth or smokers. If I photograph or video the scene, am I a) violating transport company rules, b) intimidating the men concerned, or c) legitimately recording for the purposes of making a complaint? Where is the line between ‘citizen’ and ‘vigilante’ in respect of photography?
Hi, and sorry I haven’t been around for the past month!
These kinds of distinctions are sometimes hard to draw and can depend on the circumstances of each case. In other words, there is no hard and fast rule. With regard to (a) it depends on the rules of the transport company concerned. If they have a policy of not allowing photography or video on their trains/buses, then you would be in breach of your contract with them. And in theory could be sued, though in practice you will simply be put off the bus or train. And the company concerned might actually be grateful that you did photograph the scenes if they wanted that as evidence of someone else’s behaviour (on a similar note, although there have been amny reported incidents of police officers preventing photography, they usually appeal for photographs and videos when there has been an incident). In circumstances such as you describe, it is unlikely that the men concerned could claim they were being intimidated – this really would be a question that depended on the circumstances, and on both their behaviour and yours.
There is no legal distinction that draws a line between “citizen” and “vigilante”. Only criminal and or civil laws dealing with conduct such as harassment, breach of the peace, invasion of privacy, data protection, etc.
Hi Linda
Just wondering if you could help with my query. I’m looking at running a competition to win a prize. I’ve checked with the company and they have said I can make mention of the brand and product’s name in my advert but I can’t show any images of the prize. Not too sure why though. Also, what if I purchase the prize first? If I own the prize outright, will there be any implications if I take a photo of the prize and use that image in my ad?
HI Sane, and sorry for taking so long to respond. I’m not sure why the company is happy for you to use the name of their brand and product in the ad for your competition but are not willing for you to use and image. They obviously don’t have an objection to being associated with the competition. Have you considered asking someone else in the organisation for clarification.
It’s hard to say what implications there might be without knowing what the product is and whether any elements that might appear in the image would be protected by copyright. If they are, then there could be potential legal problems with reproducing them. Trademark law should not be an issue if the company has already consented to the use of the brand and product name, and in any case you could include a prominent disclaimer to say that neither you nor the competition are connected in any way with the company or the brand.
Hi,
If a person appears in a photo (musician in well known groups in 1950’s / 1960’s) do they have the right to use it in their own biography?
Regards
David
Hi David,
The present law is that copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer, or possibly to his employer if the photo was taken in the course of employment. It will belong to the photographer’s heirs if he has died, or to anyone he may have assigned the copyright to. So, if copyright still subsists in the photograph, and you are not the copyright owner, you would infringe copyright if you used the image in a book without the copyright owner’s permission. Copyright lasts for the life of the photographer plus 70 years.
The rules regarding copyright in old photos is a bit more complicated. If the photograph was taken before August 1989 and it was a commissioned photograph, then copyright belongs to the person who commissioned it.
For photographs taken before 1 June 1957, copyright lasted for 50 years from the date the picture was taken, and some such photographs will be out of copyright now. For photographs taken after 1 June 1957 and before 31 July 1989, the 1956 Copyright Act provided that copyright in PUBLISHED photographs would expire 50 years after the date of publication. Unpublished photos thus had indefinite copyright, but the 1988 Act provided that copyright in these unpublished photos would expire 50 years from 1 August 1989. This was changed in 1995 to give these photos the same protection as modern photos, the life of the creator plus 70 years. So, photos taken after 1957 will still be in copyright.
Photos taken before 1/6/1957 should in theory be out of copyright, but there is a complication. If they were still in copyright when the 1995 Regulations came into force, they have the standard life + 70 years protection. And even if copyright had expired before 1995, UK copyright in such photos could be revived if they were protected by copyright anywhere in the EEA as of 1 July 1995.
I bet you wish you hadn’t asked!
In short, the likelihood is that the photos to which you refer are still in copyright and simply being the subject of the photo does not give a person the right to use it. He will need to seek the consent of the copyright owner. In the case of revived copyright, consent cannot be refused, but a royalty payment can be demanded.
I have been contacted by the owner of an art gallery in the town where I live. I like taking photographs of reflections, and at least one photograph I took a year or so ago was of his art gallery window, reflecting the buildings opposite. He came across the photo on Redbubble, a site where photos can be displayed for sale, and asserted that he was going to charge me for reproducing a copyrighted work, as artworks in the window were visible within the reflections.
That is, I was standing on the pavement, taking a photo of his shop front, and incidentally in the photograph you can see that inside the window there are works of art displayed for sale.
I can’t believe that he has a case in copyright law. I’ve looked at the photograph and there is one work of art in particular that you would probably be able to tell what it was, a picture of some landscape, but the point of the photograph is the window itself, not the artworks inside it. Does he have a case? Should I be consulting a lawyer?
It’s a bit hard to tell without seeing the particular photograph, but if it is apparent that the point of the image is the building and the reflections in the window, then refer him to s.31 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which reads:
31.Incidental inclusion of copyright material.
(1) Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.
(2) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the playing, showing, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of subsection (1), not an infringement of the copyright.
For clarification, a photograph is an artistic work. And, unless some rights or authorities have been transferred to the gallery owner, it would in any case have to be the artist who sought compensation for any copyright infringement.
Thanks for your reply. The photograph is still visible on my blog here:
http://edinburghlook.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/morningside-gallery/
though I have hidden it on Redbubble pending a legal decision. It is (in my opinion) clearer on Redbubble that it is one of a series of photographs of window-reflections.
I attempted to refer the gallery owner to the copyright law – I looked it up myself when he e-mailed me – and he replied that he’d been in the business 20 years and knew better than me what the law was. It may be that I need to ask a solicitor to formally write him a letter!
Hi Linda,
I’m wondering if you can help. I have a number of organisations working for me carrying out construction type work. We have been photographing and filming them for years without any trouble. We tend photograph and/or film examples of good practice (in terms of health & Safety – I’m the H&S Manager) and also on occasion bad or unsafe working practice. I use the media to explain to various line managers what good looks like and also what some of our safety issues are.
We recently filmed a contractor working on our property who was behaving badly and who did not have all the safety checks in place. He has complained that we have broken his human rights and is citing data protection etc. and has asked for the film footage deleted (naturally).
Can you tell what law says about what I can and can’t do in this regard…can I film and photograph contractors working for me on my property?
Thx,
Hi Shane,
There are Data Protection issues implicit in photographing employees, contractors, etc. I am assuming that any photography and filming is carried out openly and not covertly, because there are very few circumstances in which the Information Commissioner would regard covert filming as justified. I am also assuming that this is not automated monitoring (i.e. by CCTV, which has its own Code of Practice).
Assuming the above, then, as a general rule, you can photograph or film but it should be made clear to contractors in advance that this will take place, and what the footage will be used for.
For detailed (free!) advice, including whether you need to notify under the Act, you can contact the Office of the Information Commissioner: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx
Hello and congratulations for your web site,
I’m a French journalist who lives in Northern Ireland for one year. I make articles illustrated by photos on a web blog : http://ulster.over-blog.com/
Last week, I went to Derry for Halloween and I took photographs of people in disguise. All of them agreed, but I didn’t tell them I may publish the photos on my blog.
Some people are unrecognizable because of their masks, but others have their face visible. Other persons (those children) have their face and hair visibles, even if they’re disguised.
What can I do and not do ? Is there a special rule, in the law, for “public disguised celebrations”, like Halloween ?
Thank you for your help !
J.Baptiste Allemand
Hello, Jean Baptiste, and sorry for my delay in responding to your post. There is no special rule for celebrations that are disguised, but in general (at least at the moment) there is not a legal problem with the publication of photos of people at a public event where there would be no expectation of privacy and no additional information is published about any person in the photos. I say this with some hesitation because the law does keep developing in this area toward a more comprehensive law of privacy. The Information Commissioner had recently said that images uploaded to Facebook and similar social networking sites are within the exemption for personal use. The same might not be true of a journalistic blog, but it could also be argued this would come within the special purposes exemption, since the images are being processed for the purposes of journalism.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about, but it would be wise to remove images of anyone who objects to the publication.
Hi Linda, I have recently began a career as event photographer. A DJ has asked me to take photographs at a nightclub he works at, there are of course the usual posed shots which the public want to buy, but he is more interested in the candid shots of people enjoying themselves at his events. Do I need to seek permission from the people that I photograph before the DJ uses the images for promotional purposes?
Hi Mark, and sorry to take so long to respond. Using images of a person in marketing does require consent, and the CAP Code, which admittedly is an extra-legal code, says that this consent should be in writing. It also says that images such as crowd scenes may be permissible without consent.
The easiest way around this is to post an obvious notice at the entrance to the nightclub saying that people may be photographed and the images may be used for promotional purposes, and asking anyone who objects to make this clear.
Dear Linda Macpherson,
I intend to curate an exhibition of my great-grandfather’s photos next year (he died in 1957, leaving archive with family). I have some of the archive from my uncle. I intend to digitally scan these glass slides and restore for new prints, to be exhibited in a local museum.
However, the main archive, and focus of the exhibit, is in the hands of an author who published a local history book using these images in 1987. Now a elderly woman, she understands that the original slides are the property of the family. But she has started stalling and I may have trouble accessing the material in her possession, even though she states in her intro text that she was “allowed to take them” (for use in the book only). Therefore, i contend it was only loaned to her and remains the property of the family (both materially and in terms of picture rights).
Further to initially backing my exhibition endeavour, she now says she hopes to put the slides away safely somewhere for posterity. This intention works counter to my now urgent need to access the material and start production. She seems dogged in her intention of installing the slides in an institution and protecting their dissemination. Whereas I wish to expose the images and give them the merit and focus they deserve. I contend that she has no right to make these decisions and that they lay under the auspices of the family for another 13 years (70 yr rule).
What aspects of intellectual property and copyright law might I invoke or assert in order to convince her that I am entitled to make my claim?
I am hoping that a simply letter headed precis of the law in this respect might suffice.
I cannot comment regarding the position of the lady who borrowed your family photos (though it seems a little tenuous) but I work in the museum and heritage world in Scotland and can assure you that no reputable institution in the UK (such as a museum, library or archive accredited by the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)) would accept photos or anything else to which the donater does not have good title. Such donations would be prevented by the standard Acquisition & Disposal Policy that accredited institutions will have in place, and any objections by another person claiming title would disrupt the donation and probably at the very least ensure its return to the person who attempted to donate it. If you could show good title (eg by the presentation of a court order) then the insitution would follow the instructions of the court. Think of artworks returned to victims of Nazism and so forth. Of course this would not necessarily apply to non-accredited private collections which call themselves museums and archives, but even then the owner would be taking a risk in accepting material to which the donater has no good title. It doesn’t solve your problem but i don’t think you will have to fight a big institution for your photos! See the MLA and Museums Association websites for further details of ethical standards and policies.
I would just like to express my sincere thanks to you for producing the Photographers Rights Guide. It is extremely useful. Many thanks
Hi, I’m hoping someone can help me regarding the photography of medical specimens.
I live in Wales. Up until recently I had enjoyed photographing – with permission – numerous medical specimens in a Scottish museum.
These specimens are 200+ years old and predate any parliamentary act.
During my first visit in 2007 I inquired as to whether I was allowed to publish my photos. The professor showing me around responded in the positive, only stipulating that I CREDIT THE MUSEUM, no other conditions were mentioned, what context they should be seen in, etc. etc.
A contact at the museum recently reacted only with encouragement when I informed him of my intentions to sell my photos, display them in a gallery and publish them in a book. However, I have suddenly received e-mails from the same contact who I had informed regarding selling/work that he (suddenly!) found my photographs distasteful (previously, I have heard nothing but praise for my work). He also requested that a) I remove all work from my website b) that there were previously unmentioned conditions to the publishing of the photos and c) certain (?) legal action would be taken on their part if I did not comply.
Can anyone help? This is three years’ work going down the pan! Thanks.
Hi Jeff,
This is an unfortunate situation and I suppose it illustrates the reason why lawyers annoy people by always insisting that things are confirmed in writing. I think it would be worth asking specifically what legal action they propose to take if you don’t comply, since it is very easy to threaten some unspecified legal action. The only possible issue could be that, by publishing, you are in breach of your licence to enter the museum and photograph the specimens, and clearly you are not if you had permission.
Is the professor you originally spoke to still available? It would be worth contacting him, and also reminding your other contact that he had responded positively when you previously informed him you intended to publish the images. It is rather hard for me to comment without knowing the reason behind the change of mind and exactly what the previously unmentioned conditions are. You can email me privately with more details if you have them but do not want to publish them here.
Thanks for this. It does not open and is coming up as a ‘damaged file’
Anyone that can email me it I would be grateful.
The download works fine, try re-downloading it again. If you don’t have at least Adobe Reader version 5 then get updated.
I have Adobe Version 9.2. Still doesn’t d/l.
Hmmmm what OS, browser and version are you using? Can you try another browser? It must be something specific to you as the guide is downloaded hundreds of times each day and no one else is reporting it.
If you still can’t get it I’ll email it to you, but I’d appreciate knowing your setup in case there’s an underlying issue.
Using Win XP
Explorer 7.
Also tried via Firefox and it loads as a PDF.
GOt it now.
Many Thanks.
Dear Linda,
An excellent site and great blog resource. Thanks for the recent reply to my legal query posted on your blog (comment-1574). The matter has now been resolved without recourse to legal proceedings and the exhibition is to go ahead. With this in mind would you kindly either remove my blog posting or simply remove/change my name at the header. You see, it appears prominantly on a google search and may course distress as the exhibition develops and is launched. many thanks!
name removed, I’m glad that the issue has been resolved, and sorry that I was otherwise engaged and did not answer in reasonable time. I will ask Simon to remove your original post.
Sorry for the delay in replying to this, I was away from home for most of last month and missed it the post. I don’t want to delete the original altogether as there are replies to it and it means deleting all of them too. I have however changed your name to ‘name removed’ which should fix the issue for you.
Please note however google may take some time to change that data in their index.
Dear Linda
I read a letter by a “Robert” dated October 9 reguarding aperson on his property abuseing arite of way. surely “Robert” is colecting proof (photo evedence) of his case, or am I wrong in this?
Hi Adrian,
Yes, he probably does intend the images to be used as evidence of abuse of the right of way. But if the images are taken to a solicitor, such communication would be privileged. There is an exemption under the Data Protection Act for data processed in connection with legal proceedings.
Hi Linda,
I live in a flat in a leasehold property in England. Myself and other members of the building are trying gain the Right To Manage (RTM) our own property from the managing agents whom we feel are unfairly charging us and providing bad service. We received a letter from the Managing Agent’s solicitor notifying us of access to our property in relation to our RTM claim (they have the right of access under the RTM process). We wrote to them asking for a reason for the visit, but no reason was given in response. When the representative came to carry out the visit we began video taping him. The first thing we did as we began to video him was to tell him he was going to be recorded. The representative said that we did not have his permission to record him and we were failing to give him access to our property. The representative also stated that it is against the law to record someone without there permission. Is this correct? Do we need permission to video record someone on our own property?
An interesting question. Generally, you would have the right to video someone on your own property, though if the video was to be used for anything other than personal/domestic purposes there may be data protection issues involved. But you would normally be able to make it clear that you were going to video anyone on your property and what this would be used for, and the person concerned would have the choice of not entering your property if they didn’t want to be filmed. The situation is somewhat different where, as in this case, the person has a legal right of access. Even so, there is no automatic right not to be filmed (at least at present). It is the use of the film that might be problematic. It isn’t clear from your comment here what your purpose is in making the video. Have you had in further contact from the solicitors in relation to this, since overall this is the kind of matter that is best resolved through negotiation where possible.
Dear Linda
I would Like to Know if one was asked to do aphoto shoot that was to be published, what is procedure as aphotographer. Who ownes the rights to the shoot even if the model is the one who hired you? Do I need to have a signed release form? I know if their are others (models) are involved or another party hireded me all modeles have to signe, but what if its amodel footing the bill??
Hi Adrian,
I’m not quite sure what you are asking, in that you don’t say whether it is agreed from the beginning that the shoot is to be published. In general, unless something different is agreed, by default the photographer owns the copyright, no matter who foots the bill. However, if you have been hired, for example, to shoot a model for his/her portfolio, and you also want to use the images for some other use, you will need the model’s consent. Verbal consent is legally sufficient, but a signed release is best because it acts as evidence of consent and also sets out exactly what has been agreed (i.e. the scope of the consent). A written release may also be demanded by a publication or image library before they will use the image.
This is incredibly useful. Unfortunately my other half (also a lawyer) remains too scared to come out with me and take photos just in case the police arrest him – makes me nervous now and says a lot about the faith in the legal system.
My question is about the use of a tripod, ladder and flasheads in public areas because I’m not very clear on this from your guide – am I able to set these up so long as it does not obstruct the public highway and people are free to pass by?
Thanks
Hi Alex,
Technically you are correct, and any offence would involve obstruction of a public highway. But it is always possible to argue that setting up a tripod, ladder, lights and the like are causing an obstruction. It doesn’t really matter that people can get past them; setting up something that might impede the passage of people or vehicles, in that they have to manoeuvre their way past, could be regarded as an obstruction. Some local authorities also have specific bylaws about things like this, so the first move might be to check with them. You could also speak to the local police if you have a specific shoot planned. In essence, if the police feel you are causing an obstruction, you could be arrested, though it is likely they would simply ask you to pack up and move on in the first instance.
Dar Linda,
I have just discovered this website which I find very interesting because of all the discussion in law because not only am I a photojournalist in Portugal but I’ve also have a degree in Law and currently going for my Masters degree. My Masters presentation will be regarding the photojournalist’s rights in Portugal and in England, o I would really appreciate it if you could advise my on where to search for legal law, books, documents, court rulings and any other information regarding not only photojournalist or media laws but also citizen’s privacy rights so I can do a confrontation between them. Please feel free to contact me. Many thanks in advance and also my best regards, Steven
Dear linda
I just had a quick look at the Governments plan on the copyright law. Now what dose it mean for sume one like me, A) as some one who dose not live in your country & B) some one who may give a friend or cousin mattieral. C) I may enter a Photo compatision. This leads (in part ) of the last question were aportrate may be involved
I am visiting the UK in March/April 2010 (from South Africa). I will be seeing my son, my granddaughter and my sister.
After reading all the trials and tribulations that photographers have in the UK, would I be wise to leave my camera at home? I have a Canon DSLR with a 70-200 L lens, which marks me as a serious, rather than tourist photographer.
I want to have a pleasant visit and would prefer that your law enforcement people don’t mark me as some form af anarchist.
Here’s an intersesting bit from The Press Association 27/12/09
Even on private property I wouldn’t have thought this was legal:
‘Police confiscate cameras as Royals attend church service
The Queen and members of the Royal Family attended a church service amid tight security.
Police confiscated cameras from members of the public heading to watch royals make their way to and from the St Mary Magdalene church on the Queen’s estate at Sandringham, Norfolk.
Visitors were also body searched with a scanner and officers kept a close eye on crowds lining a path.
Sandringham Estate signs warn visitors that picture-taking is not allowed. The rule is relaxed when the royals go to church on Christmas Day, but royal-watchers said it was the first time police had confiscated cameras before allowing people on to the church surrounds.
Earlier this year, the Queen’s lawyers warned newspapers against publishing paparazzi photos of members of the Royal Family and reminded editors of privacy obligations made under a press code of practice.
Members of the Royal Family gathered earlier last week for their annual Christmas celebration at Sandringham.
Among those who joined the Queen at the service – led by the Right Rev Graham James, the Bishop of Norwich – were the Prince of Wales; Princes William and Harry; the Princess Royal and her husband, Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence; the Duke of York and his daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie; the Earl and Countess of Wessex and Peter Phillips, and his wife Autumn.’
The Press Association
Hi, having had stellar advice from here in the past, whilst attempting to get to sleep last night, I remebered the time I had a run in with the Police last year, and was subjected to one of their ‘Stop & Account’ procedures when they took offence of me taking photographs of them dealing with a member of the public.
Anyhow, at that time and not knowing my rights as a photographer, less for knowing that having committed no offence I was not obliged to divulge my name or address, they then proceeded to look through the pictures I had taken, and again unaware of my rights, they unlawfully asked me to delete certain ones.
I am now fully aware of my photography rights, however, would I be right in thinking that when one of them was filling out the ‘Stop & Account’ form, and the other looking through my photographs, would this not constitute a ‘Stop & Search’?
After all it is my property they were searching, albeit digital images on a camera, surely this is the same as being asked to turn out your pockets?
Many many thanks once again for your advice!
Hi Jean,
Yes, if they took your camera and looked through your images, I would suggest this constitutes a Stop and Search, unless you offered them your camera and suggested that they look through the images.
Linda, this site is a fantastic resource for us photographers, thank you for sharing your knowledge. There are so many areas which continue to cause confusion and when asking the same question I have in the past received a multitude of answers. I would be so grateful if you could clarify where a photographer stands on a couple of matters:
I was recently photographing at a public event and a parent later contacted me and complained that I hadn’t gained parental consent for his son to be photographed. It turned out he was in one of the frames, as were a couple of dozen other people. I was under the impression that I could photograph freely in a public place and did not require such consents, and that there was no separate law for minors. Additionally, several people are asking to buy prints from this outing – may I sell such prints as ‘artwork’ even though they contain recognizable persons and people’s property (such as their cars)?
Secondly, I published some portraits on my website which I’d taken of my friend’s daugher at my friend’s request. The friend then complained that I had not gained permission to put the pictures on my website, but as the copyright holder I have always believed I may display my work online, or in hard copy, as either editorial or artistic use and that a release is not required for this? The friend seemed to feel that I was using the image ‘commercially’ and that by simply displaying it on my website it promotes my work. I am not wishing to sell the image to a picture library or to any third party who could use the image to endorse their product or service, for which I would obviously need the subject’s permission. Surely there is a distinction? Of course I removed the pictures, but I would like to be clear on the law so that I can educate clients if this sitatuation arose in the future.
If you could offer clarification I would be very grateful indeed.
Kind regards,
Dave
hi I recently read acomment by a David (dated Jan 6 – 2010). Regarding point 1a) regarding the minor, I would not take photos of minors.
1b) regarding the sale of pics it depends on the composition and location of the people in the pics. And as for The portrait as I under stand it one needs a signed relesease form before one can publish and / or sell any portrait of any one unlike the people in the background (like in the second half of the first point). Do corect me if I am wrong!
Hi there,
Sorry to bother you out of the blue, but I’ve been searching the internet for some help and your post regarding advertising seemed promising.
My girlfriend’s image was recently used for a print ad here in the UK, running in at least one national magazine (Vice). The campaign was for Sony Ericsson.
They were in possession of the image via a competition they were running, called “Smile Hunter”. A friend of my girlfriend’s had entered the competition.
However, regardless of whatever she may have signed, as far as I can see there has been no agreement, tacit or otherwise, between my girlfriend and Sony Ericsson.
They are using her image to sell a product, without permission. Aren’t they?
Any light you can shed on this would be very much appreciated! It’s hard to find a suitable lawyer to get some professional advice, so I’d like to get some vague affirmation that I’m right to pursue this.
Many thanks,
Diego
Hi Adrian, I’m afraid taking pictures of minors is a big part of our business. You’re correct as regards ‘commercial usage’ ie in passing on the images to a stock agency or a third party who might use them for advertising or endorsement. My question however was regarding ‘editorial’ use which as I understand it is not subject to the same restrictions. Unfortunately clients love to tell us what to do with ‘their’ pictures!
Diego, did your girlfriend sign a Model Release? Depending on the exact wording, this may have granted her friend the right to sell/distribute the images as she wished, including commercial usage (advertising/endorsement). Otherwise, I would look at the competition’s Terms and Conditions – for example were they looking for ‘the new face of Sony Ericsson’. However the agreement is not between the model and the end-user of the photograph, but between the model and the photographer (who owns that image under Copyright).
That’s simply my two-penneth, do gain a more concrete answer from a lawyer.
Hi David, I tought one needed a model release form regardless how one published any portrait work? or am I wrong?
Hi Adrian. No, a Release is only required if the photographer wishes to cover themselves for ‘any eventuality’ for example if they want to sell the image to a business or a stock agency – where the end usage might be ‘commercial’ (for example where the model’s image is used to promote or endorse a product or service). This is not the same as ‘editorial’ usage – a photographer can publish their work pretty much where they want under that umbrella (providing the image is not defamatory or conveys personal data) and they do not need anybody’s permission to do so (there is no separate rule for minors, providing the image is not indecent). I’m obviously answering the questions I asked on this forum initially, having taken separate advice, but I always encourage photographers to speak to their legal expert, otherwise an awful lot of myths get perpetuated. These days photographers live in fear of doing something wrong, thanks to the absurdly paranoid society we now live in.
Hi David I Tought that if one wants to use a portrait in an exabision in a gallary one had to have the release as well as busness & stock agency, I also wonder dose publishing on the net come under gallery exabision? or am I getting confused?
To David and others,
Sorry that I haven’t been around for the past few weeks. I have been very busy. There is a lot of confusion here about the distinction between what the law requires and the policies of various agencies. The law as such does not require signed model releases. The CAP Code, which applies to advertising and marketing, provided that marketers should seek written permission from persons before using and image of them, or their identifiable possessions, in advertising and marketing. The Code does not impose legal penalties but failure to follow it may result in a loss of access to advertising space in the media. Any organisation, whether it be a stock agency, publication, gallery or anything else, may put in place its own policies requiring model releases.
However, the law does sometimes require consent. In most instances, this can technically be oral consent or sometimes even implied consent, but these can be difficult to prove if called into question, hence the advice to obtain signed consent in the form of a model release. For minors, it is the parent or guardian who must consent. (There are some differences in both the law and the terminology in Scotland.)
As David has said, and despite what everyone seems to believe, there is no separate law concerning photographs of minors, except for images that are regarded as indecent. A person taking photographs of minors may, however, find themselves the subject of suspicion and thus investigation. (And in Scotland they may end up being charged with the catch-all offence of breach of the peace.)
With regard to images of people generally, the main impact of the law would relate to data protection law or the right to privacy enshrined in the Human Rights Act. This latter is constantly developing and the right is steadily becoming broader, but, as yet, it has not been held that a right to privacy has been infringed when one is photographed at a public event. Though the ECHR is moving towards a view that a person has the right to control his image, this has not yet been expressly stated, or not quite. Data protection law is somewhat complex and again open to interpretation by the courts. The Information Commissioner’s Office takes the view that an image of a person, from which the person can be identified, may be personal data in some circumstances depending on how it is “processed” or used. So, if the image is being used to find out more about an individual appearing in it (for example, by the police to identify people who were present at an event) then it is personal data. If used to show a scene or event, on the other hand, where the presence of the individual person is rather incidental and their identity of no importance, then it probably isn’t.
So, in short, you didn’t need the consent of the parent to photograph his child who happened to be one of a group of people in the frame at a public event. And publication of such images as art prints or in a book is unlikely to infringe data protection or privacy law – though I say unlikely because this has not yet been finally determined by any court, the case involving the son of J K Rowling having very different circumstances.
As for the image of your friend’s daughter, there is a potential for argument that you are using this for the purposes of marketing. It is also possible that as you made the image at the behest of your friend, it may be regarded as a commissioned work and publication of it would infringe his moral rights under s.85 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act:
s.85 A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have
(a) copies of the work issued to the public,
(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or
(c) the work communicated to the public;
and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.
This right may be waived by written consent.
Hi Diego,
As David suggested, it really depends on what, if anything, your girlfriend signed for her friend. If she consented to the image being entered in the competition, and the competition rules stated that images entered could be used by Sony Ericsson for advertising, then she will be deemed to have agreed to that, unless she was misled. However, since the CAP Code urges marketers to seek written permission, if she did not sign anything then you should, in the first instance, complaint to the Advertsing Standards Authority.
She does not have to have an agreement with Sony Ericsson, provided she signed a release which allowed the photographer to use the image in the way it was used.
Thank you very much for the response Linda, greatly appreciated.
Hi Linda
I would like to know if one worked for a publication as a photographer and you on your time had taken sume cracking good shots can your employer take these shots ie ; are all shot you take the property of your boss? or is it a case of shots taken on the time of your boss, and how do se one destingwish between office & personl time??
Hi Adrian,
It’s an interesting question and to some extent it depends on the terms of your employment contract. But if that doesn’t specify, then s.11 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will apply. This say that when awork is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.
The question of whether a photograph was taken in the course of employment can be a tricky one, and it doesn’t only depend on whether it was taken in one’s own time or using one’s own equipment. The courts have held, for example, that the copyright in a software program written on the employee’s own time belonged to his employer because the program was of the same kind as he was employed to write. Conversely, when a doctor wrote a book at home, but used the facilities of his employer to research it and type up the manuscript, the copyright was held to belong to the doctor and not his employer.
A similar example for photographers might be a case where a photographer was employed to take photographs of football matches, but also took photos of landscapes in his spare time. The employer could argue that any football images belonged to him, whether or not they were taken outside work hours; but he would be much less likely to be able to claim the copyright in the landscapes, whenever they were taken.
In an ideal situation, it is better to clarify these copyright ownership issues at the start of the employment, rather than arguing about them somewhere down the line.
Hi Linda
In short with out any clear guide lines from the out set the boss ownes every thing you shoot after you start working for them. yes
Not exactly, Adrian. I was trying to say that it depends on the circumstances. But it makes things easier if you have clear terms and conditions from the start.
dear Linda
another tought struck as I read your letter if one is comisioned for a private job ie; awedding or birthday dose that become the property of the boss or the one who highered you
If you are freelance, then copyright in commissioned work belongs to you, unless you have agreed something different. Though if the work is commissioned for private/domestic purposes, as most weddings and parties, etc, would be, you need the consent of the person who commissioned the shoot before you can publish the images anywhere.
If you are employed as a photographer, then it depends on the circumstances as above. e.g. if you are employed as a forensic photographer, and you shoot a wedding in your own time, the copyright will belong to you. But if you are employed as a social photographer, then it will probably belong to your boss (subject to the moral rights of the person who commissioned it).
Hi Linda,
Thank you so much for taking the time to help us on what are, for many photographers, very confusing areas. Please can you add some further clarification on your paragraph: “Though if the work is commissioned for private/domestic purposes, as most weddings and parties, etc, would be, you need the consent of the person who commissioned the shoot before you can publish the images anywhere”.
Just to be sure I’ve understood things correctly, this means that (as distinct from a photographer who is contracted/employed by a studio) ‘a photographer undertakes a wedding/portait session as a freelancer and the photographer always needs permission from the client/subject (who has commissioned the work, be it paid or unpaid) before the photographer can publish the images anywhere’. So irrespective of how the freelance photographer wishes to use the images to which they retain copyright (even if it’s just for display on the photographer’s website or studio) that photographer still needs permission from the subject/client? But the photographer doesn’t need the subject’s permission to publish the shots if the images were captured in public, opportunisitcally?
This is something I’ve always found so very confusing (I had previously thought that displaying examples of your own commissioned work on your website or in your studio was ‘artistic’ usage and therefore a protected expression). I’m so sorry for asking for further re-iternation on this – your comments really are appreciated.
Regards,
Dave
Hi David,
This is nothing to do with data protection or privacy law (where issues of artistic use or freedom of expression might arise), but with copyright law. The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act introduced the concept of moral rights to UK copyright law. The idea is that someone may have moral rights in a copyright work even though they don’t own the copyright – i.e. moral rights are independent of who owns the copyright. Most of the moral rights are granted to the creator of a work where he is not also the copyright owner. So there is the right to be attributed as author of a work and the right for the work not to be subject to derogatory treatment. But the one we are discussing gives a right to someone who has commissioned a work for private or domestic purposes and it only applies to photographs and films. The photographer (or, depending on the circumstances, his employer) will own the copyright in the photos. The person who commissioned the photos has the right to prevent their publication. (There are exceptions to copyright, but these do not cover “artistic use”.)
The easiest way around any potential problems, whether with copyright, data protection or privacy, when doing commissioned work, is to include in your terms and conditions a reference to permission to display the images.
I hope this helps.
← Previous Comments