It’s been over four years since we published version one of the UK photographers rights guide. We’re now very happy to be able to publish version 2 of the guide.
This is intended to provide a short UK guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs that have been taken.
The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M is a freelance legal consultant specialising in Media Law and Intellectual Property Law. She is also a part-time law lecturer and has presented seminars on law for photographers.
The guide is a 2 page PDF, it will print out front and back of an A4 page allowing you to make leaflets to hand out. The guide is intended as an overview of the current legal situation in the UK for photographers, it is not a definitive bible of UK law.
Please do not deep link (direct link) to the PDF or rehost the guide on your website.
If you find the guide useful please link to either www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr or http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 or leave us a comment. (Comments from the old V1 guide have been kept as there is a lot of great discussion in there).
By downloading this guide you accept the fact that neither Linda Macpherson or Simon Moran accept any responsibility at all for any omissions or errors whatsoever. There is a full disclaimer in the guide, this is just a before you download it warning ! Also Neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility for any replies given to comments left. If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer.
FREE Download – UK Photographers Rights v2 (right click and save as)
This guide was created for Acrobat 5 and above. If you have a problem opening the PDF, please update your copy of Acrobat Reader (it’s free to do so).
USA photographers rights guide www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Australian photographers rights http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
Over the next year we hope to gather thousands of self-portraits of photographers-professional and amateur—from around the world, each holding up a white card with the words, ‘Not a crime’ or ‘I am not a terrorist’. www.not-a-crime.com
{ 1040 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Hi Linda,
Your helpful response from a previous question has been fantastic, and I wonder if I may ask something else on a related matter. This is in the context of wedding photography, and this particular subject seems to cause confusion in the industry. The situation involves images taken at weddings which are used by the photographer on their professional websites, displayed in their sample products, and often used on their brochures and promotional materials. I am aware that there is generally no issue with displaying your commissioned work on a website (providing the client doesn’t request otherwise) since wedding guests will know they will be photographed at such an event and that those images are likely to be on-line. However, it’s the use in our more formal marketing materials that seems to cause confusion – I know that we can’t pass on images for advertising use without the consent of recognizable individuals, but does this extend to the photographer him/herself when using the shots on our own advertising products? Although the bride and groom might have consented to the various usages, do we still need to get the specific permission of each and every recongizable individual, or does the fact that the people have consented to be photographed at the event constitute permission enough (on the assumption that they have been made aware of likely usage by the bride and groom)?
Secondly, we often get asked by vendors (such as florists, hairdressers, gown suppliers, the venue itself) to supply wedding images for their use in their own marketing materials. Whilst the bride and groom may consent to this (a clause in our Contract) can that consent apply to any others who are in the pictures (ie: is it the bride and groom’s responsibility, as the ‘event organizers’ to inform guests of how the pictures might be used)? I hope that makes sense. A response would be hugely appreciated.
Kind regards,
Lin
The whole area of images of people and how they can be used is something of a minefield, since it involves different areas of the law and some of those have had no definitive interpretation yet.
The first issue is the copyright/moral rights one, whereby the commissioner of a photograph or film commissioned for private purposes must consent before the copyright holder can publish the photograph/film, or make it available to the public. In the case of a wedding, this will usually be the bride and/or groom, though it may not be; the person who commissioned the images might be a parent or other relative of one of the couple. It would be covered by your consent clause, in any event.
Another issue surrounding images of people is that of privacy and the Human Rights Act. Clearly people at a wedding expect to be photographed, so there is not an obvious privacy issue with regard to that. (Though potentially an argument could be made that wider publication is an infringement of the right to privacy, since a wedding is not prima facie a “public” event. The courts have not yet had to determine a case brought in this context).
A third issue is that of data protection. Images of individuals are capable of being personal data within the meaning of the Act, but as yet there are no legal decisions on whether a photograph will be regarded as personal data where it is an image of a person without any further identifying information, and where that photograph is not being used to obtain further information about the person. So the answer to that is not straightforward. Hence the reason that lawyers advise obtaining consent. If the images that include other guests are regarded as personal data, that does not mean they necessarily cannot be used. It means that data must be used and held in accordance with the data protection principles, which means one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Act are met. Consent is one of these. The consent can be implied, but it should be informed – i.e. consenting to have one’s picture taken is not the same as consenting to have it used in advertising, unless this is obvious from the circumstances. Responsibility under the Act lies with the “data controller”, the person who determines the purposes for which and the manner in which personal data is to be processed. And this is an interesting question in the circumstances you describe, since it could be argued that the bride and groom, by both arranging the event and consenting to any kind of use of the images, fall within that definition. (Though it could also be argued that the photographer, as copyright holder and as the person who decides how the images will be used, is the actual data controller.)
I’m sorry not to be able to give a more clear answer. As I said, the potential issues are complex and some haven’t been considered by a court. At the very least, I would not give images to third parties for use in their marketing materials without the consent of anyone who appears in the photographs.
Thank you very much for the reply Linda, much appreciated.
Hi Linda
Firstly, thank you so much for the advice above and in the PDF. It’s a valuable tool. At the moment, I predominately shoot film, rather than digital. This work is mostly street portraits or candid shots, sometimes with permission, sometimes without, but always in a public space.
Although the confrontation does not bother me with individuals, I know sooner or later I will be approached by the police and sooner or later a formal complaint will be made. What worries me is what happens to photographic film when it is confiscated, as I often only have the opportunity to shoot a single or two images of a subject, often a whole days work can be on a single role. Is it developed or simply destroyed?
Ben, I think Linda has touched on this elsewhere, but as I understand it the Police would require a Court Order before they could confiscate your property – there is no distinction between film and digital media.
If the police approach you it may be a case of politely reminding them that photographing people in a public place is perfectly legal – many of them are confused on the issue themselves.
That’s pretty much correct. If the police suspect that you have committed an offence, your film might be seized as evidence (e.g. under the Terrorism Act 2000). It would then be developed to determine if it contained evidence of an offence and, if it did, it would be retained for any future court hearing. Otherwise you should get it back. The police do not have the power to simply confiscate film or digital media, or to destroy it, without a court order.
Hi – I have a situation on my hands that doesnt seem to be covered by the general
info on the excellent guide or the comments made on this site so far ….
Last Sunday I decided at the last minute to take pictures of the Dunfermline Half
Marathon, whose route passed my front door, and further on, passed near to my girlfriend’s
house in the country.
I ended up with over 1400 pictures, which included almost every one of the runners.
I put them on my website, and sent an email around to a number of running clubs telling
them that the pictures were available (I had no means of contacting the many runners who
were not affiliated in this way).
This morning, I had the race organiser on the phone today being very abusive and ordering me to
remove all my pictures from the website or face legal action via his solicitors.
Apparently the ‘official photographer’ who was stationed only at the finish line to take
pictures as the runners crossed the line, had been notified that I had taken photos
and had been in touch with the race organiser this morning in a very angry state.
I am really not sure of my legal position as far as this is concerned, but to appease
the situation and until I have a clear understanding of the (scottish) law in this respect,
I complied and removed my pictures.
I believe that as I was in a public place (outside my flat on Chalmers Street, and on the
public path at Oakley) that he has no authority to stop me taking pictures and, if I so wish,
to sell them commercially. He apparently paid £4000 for the use/hire of the park, but I was not
on the park premises so I think he has no case there.
I wasn’t aware that there was an official event photographer before I took the pictures
and this is the first sporting event I’ve photographed, so im very much naive about the
legal processes and etiquette involved, but hope to get quickly informed.
Any advice and pointers greatly appreciated!
@Lindsay Holman
Absolutely ridiculous! Given your situation is sounds as though the race organiser (quiver in boots?) has no legal grounds to request that you take the photos down whatsoever. Only individuals in the photos can request such an action and even then they would have to go to court in order to follow this through (if you wished to be stubborn which I’m sure you wouldn’t be!). This is a good article to read with a nice summary of your rights:
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=56
I hope you can put the photos back up on your website – if not, I’ll be happy to host them on one of my websites or on my Flickr account free of charge. I’d give full credit and links to you if you wish (or if not, merely to provide them as a sign of good will to the competitors). You should not be bullied into taking them down because the race organiser was worried he’d lose some money.
Sorry, Lindsay, I must have messed up the posting of my original reply and it appears below rather than attached as I reply to your post.
Robin, though the article you link to does have a good summary of the right to photograph in public, it isn’t really applicable to this situation, as Lindsay is being threatened with a civil action over publication and possible sale of the photos. No-one disputed his right to take them, or tried to stop him. (Note also, in connection with part of that article, that PACE does not apply in Scotland.)
But yes, as I said below, I cannot see what legal grounds the race organisers would have for bringing a legal action.
Lindsay,
Just to clarify – the only reason the race organisers gave for their demand (and threat) is that the “official” race photographer was aggrieved because he had paid for the right to take the photos at the finishing line?
I cannot see that the race organisers have any legal grounds to object on those grounds, since you were not taking photographs there. If the event was in a sports stadium, then the organisers could prevent anyone taking pictures except their official photographer. They cannot prevent anyone taking pictures of the event on a public street. The official photographer paid for the benefit of being able to take the photos of the finish, and presumably most runners would prefer a photograph of themselves crossing the finish line, which is why that right was valuable.
Hi David,
The Data Protection Act gets cited for all kinds of inappropriate things, but for what it’s worth, “personal data” as defined in the Act is data relating to a living individual and from which that individual can be identified. “Living” individual is obviously not applicable here.
Out of interest, who told you to stop photographing? Cemetaries are often private property even though they allow access to the public. The owners, or their representatives, do actually have the right to stop you taking photographs there, but the Data Protection Act has nothing to do with that right.
Very helpful indeed. Many Thanks
Hello,
first of all, please excuse my english, I’m not a native speaker. I’m from Slovakia and actually on my first visit of UK (a job technical training in Reading, Berkshire).
Today, after the training, I came to park in the city center (I’ve got no idea how is it named, but there was a big lion statue in the center), and took a pictures of the park (really nice place btw:). After few minutes came a guy screaming that he’ll call police and I have no right to take pictures of people. I tried to explain, that I just wanted to take pictures of park, and of course, there were people, otherwise it would be a cemetery, but he didn’t calm down. I was little scared and as I wasn’t aware of current laws in UK, I just deleted all pictures and went away (in fact, I was happy he didn’t call the police, as he told that for pictures of people there isn’t either any fee, just a jail).
So, after few googling, I guess that he wasn’t exactly right, but I’d like to make things clear: is it allowed, or absolutely prohibited to take pictures in public places, that includes also peoples there?
@ Marek
I’m deeply sorry that you experienced such treatment in this country and I’m sorry you felt that you had to delete your photos. It makes me ashamed to be British. You may want to read the article I linked to above for Lindsay. In summary, you have every right to take photos in a public place such as a park, even if those photos contain other members of the public. They can object on grounds of invasion of privacy, but they also have to submit to reasonable levels of expectation of privacy. In a public area, these are low. The only way that they could legally object would be if you were acting like a stalker photographing them solely, or pushing the camera in their face. Despite that, members of the public can NOT request that you delete photographs from you camera. If they object, they must contact the relevant authorities. Any attempt by them to make you do so constitutes assault.
When confronted like this, it’s best to ask the person if they wish to remain with you while YOU call the LOCAL police (not 999 haha) to resolve the matter. Their ignorance about the law is then usually exposed.
Marek, he was absolutely wrong. There is no law that prevents anyone taking pictures in a public place, and that includes pictures with people in them. If the situation was one where the people might have a reasonable expectation of privacy (and this can sometimes depend more on what they are doing rather than where they are), then those people may have the right to sue you if you published the pictures. At the moment, at least, in the UK, it would not be regarded as a breach of their right to privacy just to take the pictures.
And it isn’t a criminal matter at all. So no, taking pictures of people in public, assuming you aren’t, as Robin says, harrassing them, is not an offence. (You will, however, find that you draw the wrath of the public and perhaps the interest of the police if you are obviously photographing children, whether in public or not.)
Hi there,
just to follow-up on the discussion here.
Could you explain what law lets people decide what they do in a private environment? That might sound weird but I am interested in the details.
Does it include accessing your camera, which is arguably a private ‘place’ as well, and delete your own photos?
what if the owner of the private place has put NO sign or indication that taking photographs is forbidden or restricted in a certain way?
Summary is:
What are the exact rights of the owner of the private place?
Do they have to ask you to delete photos?
Do they have rights to take your camera and delete photos themselves?
Can they keep your camera? (if you refuse deleting photos as instance)
What are there obligations in terms of informing visitors about taking photography?
I am thinking about a scenario which happened to me at a soft play area where people complained to the manager of the place because I was taking shots with my DSLR… Manager came to me, reviewed my photos (of my children…) and asked me to delete every photos where another child was in the frame on the background. I did it as it was only 5 out of 200, I knew about paranoia in the UK with people taking photos
But I noticed dozens of other parents with small camera, or even phone with camera, nobody had any problem as the manager just came to me (lucky me). As there was no sign at the entrance – I checked – and noticed a large number of people taking pictures I took some but apparently my mistake was the type of camera I used… The best or this story was somebody who was actually recording a movie on a slightly smaller videocam… I asked him and he had no issue at all, nobody complained 
How did we end up with such a paranoia level? It’s worrying.
Thanks
Hi Boris,
Where children are concerned the paranoia, as I’m sure you realise, is about the risk of paedophiles taking and swapping/selling images of children. This has been presented in such a way that almost anyone with a camera is treated with suspicion if they are photographing children. But yes, as you say, there does seem to be inconsistency in the way this is applied.
As far as privately owned places are concerned, where the public are allowed free access (for example to a shopping centre) they are essentially there under licence, which the owner or his representatives can revoke at any time. So, if they don’t like what you are doing, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, they can use reasonable force to remove you; in theory, if they can identify you, in England and Wales you could also be sued for trespass.
So they aren’t really obliged to warn you in advance not to take photos (though it would save a lot of problems all round if everyone did). But they can ask you to stop. However, they have no right to ask you to delete images, or to take your camera and delete them themselves, or to confiscate your camera.
However, it probably saves a lot of hassle, in circumstances like you describe, to delete the offending photos. Because the manager might instead choose to call the police, who might decide you are a possible paedophile, and investigate your images, your camera, your computer, etc. There are times when it is easier to choose not to make a fuss, even if you have legally done nothing wrong. I would advise anyone not to ever hand over a camera, memory card, etc, to security guards or the like. The police, if they seize such things, need to give you the grounds on which they are doing so. And the police have no power to delete images or make you delete them (though again, you may choose to do so to save time or avoid hassle).
Thanks a lot Linda for both your answers on my comments.
I am in total agreement with your comments about deleting pictures instead of ending up with more trouble.
I will stick to my best practice which always saved me a lot of trouble which is to always ask wherever I am if I can take pictures. I prefer to detect paranoia before rather than after
What I described in my first comment is definitely an exception in my experience and it corresponds to the only time when I have not been cautious enough, thanks again for your time answering !
Hi again,
I have read the PDF and it’s helpful however with any legal terms, I was wondering how a photographer is defined ?
Is there a difference in terms of rights between a professional photographer likely to use high-end camera/equipment and a non-professional with a point and shoot camera (obviously a little bit more discrete)?
How do you classify an enthousiast amateur with highend gears and prove you are not a professional looking to sell photos afterwards?
I am asking as per my previous comment about a kind of discrimination towards the people using (just) bigger cameras….
The law applies equally whatever type of equipment you are using, and it generally applies equally to amateurs and professionals with regard to TAKING the images, though other laws may apply only to publication or use of images. The only distinction would be where there are bylaws prohibiting commercial photography without permit (as with Trafalgar Square, for example). Or where a private landowner permits photography for private purposes, but not for commercial purposes. Even then, the key is the intended use of the images, not the kind of equipment you are using.
But the discrimination you mention has been well-documented, usually in relation to the application of s.44 of the Terrorism Act.
Is this s.44 still ‘valid’ ?
Quoting wikipedia:
In January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. It held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated in the case of two people stopped in 2003 outside the ExCeL convention centre in London, which at the time was hosting a military equipment exhibition. The Court found the powers were “not sufficiently circumscribed” and lacked “adequate legal safeguards against abuse”, over-ruling a 2003 High Court judgement upheld at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
Again I am no legal expert, so what I understand is s.44 is still in place but could be ruled illegal as per previous case exposed above if used again in a future case. Is this correct?
You are pretty much correct, Boris. In Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom, the ECHR found that the use of s.44 powers violated the complainants’ rights under Art 8 of the Convention. But the ECHR cannot, as such, overrule the House of Lords decision in the case. S.44 remains in place until it is amended or repealed. A UK court can issue a declaration of incompatibility (statement that legislation is incompatible with the rights granted by the Convention), but cannot ignore the legislation. (In theory, the Government should then act to remedy the incompatibility. The ECHR has said that declarations of incompatibility are not an effective remedy, unless it can be shown that the UK Government acts consistently to remedy defects in legislation.)
For what it’s worth, in April the Labour Government lodged an appeal against the ECHR’s decision in Gillan and Quinton. This is quite likely to be dropped by the Coalition Government, which has announced a new Bill that is intended, among other things, to introduce safeguards against misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. That said, prior to the Election the Conservatives had pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act in favour of a UK Bill of Rights, though this seems to have fallen by the wayside in light of the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems.
Surely it is worth pointing out to anyone who comes up to you (police or public) and demands you delete or destroy pictures you have just taken, that if you really were breaking the law by taking them, then deleting the pictures would amount to destroying evidence of your “criminal” activity?
Congratulations on a good site.
I had a minor run-in with a teacher last week while photographing (with permission) at an aircraft museum.
There were a huge number of schoolchildren there and many people taking photos of the exhibits from all angles and inevitably including some of the children in the shots, but the teacher decided to question me, probably because I had professional-looking gear.
My experience is written up on my blog at: http://martinliddament.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/show-us-your-papers/
I hope your campaign goes well. You have my full support.
A couple of news items of interest:
The Government’s application to appeal against the judgement of the ECHR in Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom has been rejected. (This is the case in which the ECHR determined that stop and search under s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 infringed the right to privacy.) I mentioned above that the appeal was quite likely to be dropped by the new Government, but this is now academic since the ECHR has refused to hear it anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/37ub45x
However, some police officers seem to be determined to use the Terrorism Act in one form or another to prevent photography:
http://tinyurl.com/252qvqg
Another case, up to you to decide if it’s a bit borderline or when the story becomes unmanageable…
http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/
Hi Boris,
Strange, I posted a link to this same story here yesterday, along with a link to the story that the European Court of Human Rights has denied the UK Government the right to appeal against its decision in Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom, but my post hasn’t appeared yet!
The Jules Mattsson incident appears, from the reports I have read, to be an example not so much of defective law as of defective application of the law. Or rather, no application of the law at all, since one police officer claimed they didn’t need the law to be able to stop photographers.
Hi Linda
I have researched the position regarding the right to publish photographs taken at public events and in public places and the position does not seem to be very clear. The question is simple: does an individual (or a company) require the consent of subjects of photographs in order to publish the photographs in magazines and newspapers? There is no intention of using the images for commercial exploitation in any way, merely for general PR purposes in various printed formats. There is also a possibility that the images would be used on the internet for the same reasons as the hardcopy formats, namely general PR purposes. A follow on question, which might raise slightly more issues is: does the copyright holder of the image have the right to store the images in an electronic image library for future use (either by it or other subscribers to the service) for future PR purposes, without the subjects’ consent or is consent required. And, is the position different for children with respect to both questions.
I think it is fair to say that the position isn’t very clear. So the question is simple but the answer isn’t quite so simple. As I have said before, there are two issues – the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act and European Convention of Human Rights, and Data Protection.
In general, there would be no expectation of privacy in a public place or at a public event, but there have been exceptions – Campbell v MGN being one example from the English courts, and Von Hannover v Germany being one from the ECHR. Hence, there may be an expectation of privacy where one is doing something essentially private, even in a public place.
With regard to Data Protection, images of people are capable of being personal data within the meaning of the Act, and thus subject to the Data Protection Principles. But not all images of people will be regarded as personal data. It depends to some extent on the manner and purposes for which they will be processed. Also, processing data for the so-called “special purposes” – literary, artistic and journalistic, are exempt provided the processing of the data is “necessary” for one of the special purposes.
The issues are complex and there isn’t time or room for an in depth discussion of them here, but there is a lot of information on the Information Commissioner’s website. In particular, this guide shows how to tell if you are processing personal data: http://tinyurl.com/36g9ue
Look in particular at pages 11-12 for an example involving photographs.
The probability is that the kind of photographs you are talking about would not breach the Act, but it is hard to know without more detail. “general PR purposes” and “public places” are potentially pretty broad terms.
Hey glad I found this site…. I got an ‘issue’ that I would be so greatful if Linda could clarify for me..
Being a keen photographer I carry my camera with me just about everywhere… on one occasion I was passing a school playing field (not the actual school.. and there was no reason to know that the grounds belonged to a school) anyway there was a group of people playing cricket on the field in the middle and I decided to take some pics… as I was doing so, two policemen on pushbikes came up to me and asked what I was doing (plus the question of did I have any of my kids playing in the field… which of course I didn’t)
Now the point here is they asked me for my details.. you know name address… and then let me go on my way… I honestly don’t see what I did wrong (which of course is not what the onlookers thought), and I did show the police the few pics I’d taken… my query is, was I under any obligation to show the police my pics (obviously I felt I was). They didnt’ ask, but supposing they did… could I refuse?… and what right did they have to ask for my details… given that I had not committed any offence…?
I took the pics standing on the pavement outside the perimeter fence… and there were adults also amongst the cricket palyers (probably not relevant).
Also there is the quesion of “why are you taking the picutres”…. does a human being actually need to have good reason or cause before he/she can legally take a picture in the UK..??… can you be arrested for not having a good enough reason…… I think this is a very important point… because most of the time I dont have a reason other than the fact that I like photograpy…(once an old bat came running out of her country home demanding to know why I was taking pics of her garden shed… oh the touble I had explaining to her)
Home Secretary suspends the use of s.44 powers to search individuals:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/539533.php
(But note that searches under s.43 are still permissible. Section 43 at least requires that a police officer “reasonably suspects” that the individual concerned is a terrorist.)
Hi Linda,
I have a similar question to Liu from December 10th 2009. I and my neighbours are in a leasehold property trying to get the Right To Manage (RTM) from the freeholder. The freeholder asked for access on a specific date under the RTM law and we emailed him beforehand telling him we planned to record his access. The reason we gave for the recording was that we wanted to have an accurate record of the events that occured during the access.
The freeholder did not agree with us that we had the right video record him in our own homes. He said that we were refusing access, he had the right to refuse to be recorded, we were being intimidating and he planned to instruct his solicitor. The access date has passed without a visit from the freeholder, so we expect to hear from his solicitor.
You mentioned to Liu in december 2009, that a home owner does have the right to record any person entering their property and these persons do not have an automatic right to refuse, even when access is permitted. Can you tell me which UK laws this would be covered under?
I can’t exactly tell you which UK laws this would be covered under, since the law is not so specific as that. Generally, you can do anything that the law does not prohibit you from doing. Two areas of the law would potentially affect your right to film or photograph someone – Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in the Human Rights Act (the so-called “right to privacy” and the Data Protection Act. There are a lot of grey areas in both, since the law of privacy is developing constantly, the Data Protection Act has not been fully interpreted by the courts and there are no legal precedents for a situation such as you describe.
If you want the video purely for your private and domestic purposes, i.e. as a record of what occurred, then you should, in theory, be exempt from the provisions of the Data Protection Act. A lot also depends on the terms governing the freeholder’s right of access. While stating that you plan to record the event would not, in my view, equate to a refusal of access, it may be regarded as placing a condition on access.
As I said in my earlier post on this matter, this is the kind of situation that is best resolved by negotiation, if possible. And if you have been contacted by the freeholder’s solicitor (I apologise for my belated reply here!), you should probably seek legal advice of your own. I have no expertise whatsoever in English leasehold law, or the rights and obligations that were granted by the 2002 Act.
So, in short, it is wrong to suggest that no-one can ever be filmed unless they consent, but I can’t direct you to some specific ruling that covers your circumstances, sorry.
Thanks very much for the response. I haven’t heard back from the freeholder’s solicitor, but will seek advice if necessary.
Do I have the right to request removal of photographs that have been submitted to a website when there has been a fundamental change in the status of the relationship between the site and myself.
The terms and conditions of the site (an internet forum) are silent on the question of copyright.
Matthew
Hi Matthew,
Though the terms and conditions of the site are silent on the issue of copyright, are they also silent on the issue of use or retention of content submitted to the site. It is quite common for site terms to have some provision in relation to user-generated content, such as images, and without knowing what the terms are for this particular site, I can’t really answer your question.
Yes – they are silent on both points. I don’t think that it occurred to those running the forum at all.
In that case, I would advise that you contact them and ask them to remove the images, stating that you own the copyright in them and that their implied licence to use them has terminated with the end of/change in your relationship with the site.
I have to say, though, that if the site is not based in the UK, you may have real problems with enforcement if they refuse to comply.
Hi Linda…My hobby and pastime is flying Paramotors ( a motorised Paraglider ) and the views are fantastic ! My question is , can i take photographs from the air and sell them ? I ve been told that i need a Commercial Photography License ?
Another thing i ve been told is that if i fly over someones house and then knock on the door and offer them a picture , thats legal…But if i advertise my services and they pre book me to photograph their house , thats illegal
Im thinking of setting up an ariel photography business and need your advice !!
Thanks Steve
Hi Steve,
The legislation governing this can be found in the Air Navigation Order 2000, as far as I can tell. There is no such thing as a Commercial Photography Licence. However, though I don’t exactly know what a Paramotor is (!) I’m assuming that it would fall within the definition of a small aircraft as defined in the ANO 2000. You need permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to do “aerial work”. This is defined as “any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.” I think this is what you are getting at. If you take photos which you may or may not sell, this might not be regarded as “aerial work”, but if you are commissioned to take the photos, it would be.
Check with the CAA about the requirements for permission.
Linda, are you planning on any seminars on this subject?
Hi Lawrence,
Possibly, if I can gauge that there is sufficient interest. But an entire seminar just on the law would be extremely tedious to most people! I had been considering basing a seminar around street photography, to include both photography techniques and the law. And no, I wasn’t planning on doing it all myself!
Purely law-based seminars are a possibility, certainly, if there is an interest.
Is permission from the owner required to photograph a horse? Permission has been granted to enter the livery yard where the horse is stabled but there is no permission from the owner of the horse . Photos of this horse are part of a series and there are plans to take more and sell them as part of a limited edition series.
You have permission to go into the livery yard and take photographs? Has permission been refused from the horse’s owner or has it not been requested? No, you don’t need permission to photograph a horse (though if the image was to be used in advertising/marketing you would need permission for that). However, it is always good etiquette to seek permission. And it could cause problems between the livery owner and the horse owner if images are taken and used when consent has been refused.
My dads had a meeting to go to and he was supposed to meet his line manager at a certain time, he got there a few mins early do decided to relax back in his car and listen to a relaxation tape. his line manager arrived and thought he was asleep and took a picture of him. can you tell me were he legally stands he is taking them to tribunal and they have just produced this picture thank you
Like most things, this depends very much on the circumstances – where he was at the time, the terms of his employment contract, etc, etc. But if he is going to a tribunal, he really should be seeking independent legal advice.
The following website may also be helpful:
http://www.employeeprivacyrights.co.uk/
I’m not trying to be evasive here, but could I reiterate that these pages are not intended to substitute for legal advice pertaining to a specific legal problem. I’m not picking on this particular posting, there have been a few posts recently where people were asking for detailed advice on a specific problem rather than just a general question about the law. I can’t possibly answer these on the basis of the information given in a blog posting. Sorry!
If photographic images are deemed to be covered under the Data Protection Act then surely you can pay your £10 and ask every owner of every CCTV camera you passed on your way to and from work today to provide said “data”.
Given that CCTV images are kept for different purposes than your average commercial or amateur photographer might use, I think it’s more likely that CCTV will be covered under the DPA.
That should keep the jobsworths busy for an hour or two.
Oh, CCTV is certainly covered by the Data Protection Act, and subject access rights apply to it as much an any other data covered by the Act. The Information Commissioner has published extensive guidance on the DPA and CCTV.
There is some information here: http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/The_Data_Protection_Act_and_CCTV
And the ICO Code of Practice is here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/ico_cctvfinal_2301.pdf
Note that the Act (and subject access rights) would not normally apply where the cctv was being used for private and domestic purposes, e.g. someone using CCTV for home security.
Hi Linda,
I am trying to find out some information for a friend who has an on-going dispute with a neighbour. During one recent bout the neighbour began taking photographs of them in their back garden from the neighbours back garden. Any idea how this stands under the law?
Thanks,
Simon
If the photographs were to be published somewhere, there may be an infringement of your friend’s right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Merely taking the photos is unlikely to amount to that, though recent ECHR decisions suggest that might not always be the case.
There is unlikely to be a data protection issue either, if the neighbour is taking the photos for his own private or domestic purposes.
If this has happened on more than one occasion, or if it is part of a course of conduct that reasonably causes your friend alarm or distress, then it may be harassment, which is an offence under the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997, assuming your friend lives in England or Wales.
I had a problem yesterday taking photo’s of ambulances etc. the commisioner asked why i was doing it .. i told him i was freely aloud to take photo’s am I ???
Were you in a public place? (i.e. not on hospital property, for example.) If so, then you are allowed to take photos of most things, including ambulances.
Yes I was in a public place I was at a Seaside where there was a Seafront airshow and I was taken some Photo’s of the Ambulances that were parked up no one at any time were in the ambulances when i took the photo’s
HI Linda,
First of all thank you for the information you have provided, I’m sure lots of photographer have found your advice incredibly helpful.
My one question is, what is the law regarding the taking a picture of a random person on the street (this would be without their consent) and then trying to sell that picture to them (a picture which only them would be able to buy)?
Thanks in advance
Carlos
Carlos, yes, in general the law would not prevent you doing this, so long as you are not harassing anyone.
Check with your local authority whether they require you to have a licence for doing this, since it is technically street trading. And be particularly careful about taking photographs of children this way, not because it is illegal, as such, but because you are likely to cause alarm and perhaps draw the attention of the police.
Many thanks for a consise download. I am still unclear about my position as an amateur photographer/parent taking pictures of the kids playing rugby in training and at matches. I have the verbal backing of the rest of the parents from the team that my son plays for, but enevitably faces of the opposing team would be included in the pictures of the lads and lasses at play. I would like to produce a yearbook and would be grateful for your advise on what I can and cannot include.
Kind regards
Hi Dawn,
This is not a straighforward issue, since various sporting bodies and organisations have their own child protection policies, as do local authorities and sports centres, when matches are being using their facilities. It would be worth finding out what these are, if any, since some clubs demand the consent of the parents of any child who appears in photographs. Others have more lenient rules.
Firstly, thanks for such a great website.
I have taken some shots free of charge at work – mostly people shots that have been used in internal newsletters and internal websites for example. Also have photographed a couple of friends weddings
Now I am thinking of branching out part-time as a photographer in my own time and I have been approached for images of my ‘work’ to go onto a website for a communications company who would like to offer my services as part of their package. Am looking into all the insurances and things.
Am I right in assuming that if I get my current employer’s permission to use the shots I have taken previously that I can use them on this promotional website? Thanks so much in advance.
Hi Andrea,
The permission you would need to use your photographs for what is essentially a marketing exercise is the permission of the individuals concerned. They may have consented to their images being used on an internal newsletter/intranet. but that wouldn’t imply consent to the images being used for other purposes.
First of all – thankyou for a great website. It is a great comnfort to know that there are those out there knowledgable in the rights of photographers.
I have great sympathy with Lindsay (post 7) as I have just stumbled upon the same issue. I took images of a charity cycle event – taking 3800 images from the roadside of the public highway. Not another photographer in site. As soon as I published them for sale to those who took part, I received an email from the event organisers telling me that there was an official photofgrapher who was licenced to tak pictures and that as I was not licenced I was in breach of copyright. They have asked me to take my images down and also asked me how much I had made ( I assume to try to seize my revenue). This sounds like utter nonsense to me, but this is my first foray into event shooting and I was doing it more for experience than money. I have therefor taken the images off my website rather than go through a battle with them and have asked them if they would like to buy the images in bulk from me to use themselves. Also as it was such early days I had not sold any images yet so there is nothing for them to try to seize.
I find it incredible that reputable large events can try to brow beat photographers this way and I wonder if there is just one company doing this regularly, as like Lindsay, this occurred in Scotland.
Hi Linda
So great to find this website. Well done.
I build websites and use photographs on the sites I build that are commissioned especially for the websites by my clients. (I provide the photographer with the brief, the photographer takes the shots, my client pays the photographer, I edit and add the photos to the site I am building.) Please could you tell me if, once the sites are made live, the photographer can legally demand that I remove his photographs from the website I have built?
Many thanks in advance
Simon
Hi Simon,
The photographer or photographers concerned are being hired to take photographs specifically for the websites. That is what they have contracted to supply. Unless otherwise agreed, the photographer retains the copyright, but he would be in breach of contract if he demanded that the photos be removed from the website when website photographs were what he contracted to supply. But really, it would be best in cases like this to have a written agreement specifying what the terms of the contract are and what you and the client can use the images for. It might also be worth specifiying what, if anything, the photographer can use the images for, since he/she retains copyright.
Hi Linda,
This is fantastic advice.
I would like to enquire for a friend who works in a nursery. A colleague of hers took several pictures of her at work without her permission when she was standing and watching the children play. The images were shown to the manager and it was interpreted as misconduct as she was standing and not doing anything with the children. As she was under probabtion, they decided to dismiss her for this.
Does the girl that took the images has the right to use them in this fahsion?
I would appreciate any help.
Thank you in advance.
Hello Mo,
It really is beyond the scope of this site to give more than general comments on the law, but it also isn’t really possible in this instance to give specific advice without knowing more detail. The images would be personal data under the Data Protection Act, but whether the use made of them would be permissible under the Act would depend on various circumstances, including especially the exact terms of your friend’s employment contract and any probationary conditions.
Hi Linda,
I have an issue concerning photography at work which I hope you can help me with. I’ve been asked to take photographs at work of University buildings and staff for a publicity brochure. The brochure basically tells students a little about the different facilities we have and include a photo for each facility. I was asked to do this by the director of estates, who by definition, has the authority of the Vice Chancellor (the head of the University). Today however, I was threatened by a member of staff who cited an invasion of his privacy and told to delete the picture or else he would take legal action. Since it was during working hours and for the benefit his employers, is he within his rights to do so?
Many thanks
Carol
Hi Carol,
Much like my answer above, this depends very much on the terms of the employment contract of the staff member. The contract may contain provisions to the effect that the staff member agrees to be photographed for the purposes of the Institution. Or else the staff member may have signed a general consent on taking up the post. It really isn’t relevant that it was during working hours and of benefit to the employers. Though the data protection principles do allow for the processing of personal data where the processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller. Though this does not apply where “the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.”
Thanks for the reply Linda, that makes sense.
All staff are required to have photographs taken for security reasons, however no consent was given for staff images to be used to publicise the University. I’ll let my Director know before he asks me to put myself or camera equipment in the line of fire again ;0)
Linda
You state that “Obstruction and Public Order – It is a criminal offence to obstruct free passage on the highway and this includes footways and cycle paths as well as roads.”
Can you guide me to the correct legislation please as I’m currently having a problem with this exact issue.
Hello Stuart,
The Highways Act 1980, s.137 is the starting point for this. The Act, as amended, can be found here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1980/cukpga_19800066_en_1
There are various cases interpreting this – see some recent ones mentioned in this article: http://www.nicholashancox.co.uk/highway_obstruction.htm
The 1980 Act applies only to England and Wales
Thank you so much. Really appreciate this
We have officious security guards in Edinburgh too:
http://tiny.cc/vwonn
And the photographers’ response:
http://tiny.cc/xyony
I was directed here after asking a question about copyright and photos elsewhere, and I wish I’d found it sooner — great advice, and much appreciated…
Hi Linda,
Thank you so much for a fascinating and informative read!
I have a series of photos taken of a famous singer at a concert open to the public (which incidentally, i paid a small fortune to attend). I would like to publish these photos in a photobook and sell it to other fans. Am i legally able to do this?
Kind regards
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
Sorry to be vague, but the answer is maybe. Most concerts have terms and conditions attached to the sale of tickets (some venues have general terms and conditions, too). Most will prohibit photography for any kind of commercial publication, if they don’t prohibit it altogether. So you really need to check what terms and conditions were in applicable.
Your site is excellent, really informative and helpful.
I’m just wanting to check that I have understood the complex issues around photographing adults.
As an artist and photographer I usually avoid taking identifiable images of people so am new to this. However I’m involved in setting up an interesting piece of work essentially as a photographer in residence in a social arts space.
The plan is to document the life and growth of the venue over 12 months with a view to exhibiting some of the resulting images, I might also write about the work and thus publish images with it. This may be hard copy and/or on line. I will also use some of the images to publicise what I do as a photographer. The copyright will remain mine. I am registered with the Data protection agency.
The venue owners want me to take photos and aren’t employing or paying me. Staff and performers will be ‘signed up’ (or perhaps not!) and are easy to identify and sort out with releases. The venue owners are signing a ‘buildings release/permission form’. They will also publicise that the venue’s growth is being documented and have information about the project in the entrance and on their publicity materials. I think we should also have a ‘The Photographer is in’ sign on the door when I am there taking pictures as it will be intermittent..
I will take ‘crowd’ pictures as well as more individual shots and intend to have additional release forms on me at all times but won’t really want to be seeking consent before hand and often not after is practical. I don’t mind showing people pictures on camera screen if they want but would hope to be unobtrusive I’m mindful of the need not to photograph people in compromising situations – though one can’t always tell if someone really should be out with the person they are with!
The questions are: If the venue make it clear I’m there as people come in the door to the venue is that a general consent to be photographed which.is good enough?
And: The venue owners may well want to use some images in their publicity/ advertising. My understanding is that I could l legitimately sell images of identifiable staff to them for that purpose but not images of clearly identifiable individuals unless those people had signed a release form.
Any observations or clarifications much appreciated
thank you.
Karen
Hello Karen,
I am inclined to agree with you that, to be on the safe side, there should be some kind of notice at the entrance when you are there, explaining to people that they may be photographed and a little about the project, including that the images may be displayed online. This would normally constitute consent to be photographed.
Use in advertising/marketing is a different matter. The CAP Code states that images of indentifiable people should not be used without their consent, though crowd scenes may be permissible. This would also apply to staff unless they have already consented to this in some other way (perhaps through their contract of employment).
Hi Linda
Many thanks. It is all such a minefield and demonstrating sensible, practical and ‘obvious’ taking care has to be balanced with a developing paranoia that no one is trustworthy and everyone has bad intentions! Anyway we have a paragraph about the project to go in PR material, at the entrance and in the bar along with a ‘the photographer will be in this evening’ sign to go at the entrance. I also have releases…. It feels like belt, braces and bits of string…..
Thank you for so helpful a site.
Karen
Hi linda
what are the inconsistencies in the copyright law in the way it treats photographs and films
Aryan,
I’m not sure that there are “inconsistencies” as such. They are treated as different mediums. Did you have anything in particular in mind?
Dear Linda,
I would like to ask you about photography in the Cambridge Colleges (private property). For example Kings college in Cambridge UK. If one has the right to enter the property (private) they allow you to take photos but they say you are not allowed to use a tripod. So fine so good, I am not using a tripod! Then looking on their website they say that photography is allowed only for private use but not for comercial use (I attached the link):
http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/visit/photography.html
Are they allowed to do this? Or …am I allowed to sell photographs taken inside the Kings college grounds?
Thank you!
PS: this is a general problem with all the colleges in Cambridge (I guess)
Hi Catalin
My understanding is that, as it’s private property, they are allowed to ban photography entirely or allow it under whatever conditions they specify. I believe the samr practice is adopted in many private places where the public is admitted at their discretion and possibly on payment of a charge, e.g. Stately Homes, Castles, etc..
The link you provide does expressly say that “All other photography, … requires the permission of the College Council.” Why not contact the address they give? Basically, if you’re doing it commercially, I believe there will often be a charge – it’s their property: they want revenue from commercial use. Not unreasonable in my view.
Trevor
Trevor is correct, Catalin. Owners of private property are entitled to impose whatever conditions they wish on photography or anything else. They will possibly allow photography for resale or other commercial purposes on payment of a fee.
Hello again,
I have this time a legal question in relation to other type of work I am currently doing. I want to use a pseudonym. What is the law in regards to copyright using pseudonyms and do I have to register a pseudonym in some way so I won’t be shooting myself in the foot and lose my rights?
Thank you very much in advance.
Hi Luis
While not purporting to be an expert on copyright law, I have just been investigating it.
My understanding is that pseudonym ‘works’ are treated the same as anonymous ‘works’. The current Copyright law (1988 Act as amended) makes express provision for anonymous works and specifies that copyright lasts for 70y from when the work was made or, if published during that time, 70y from first publication. If the author becomes known during that time then the duration is 70y from author’s death, as for non-anonymous works.
So copyright still exisits and I doubt that the different duration is of concern to you. In any event, you should still mark any publication with “Copyright pseudonym & year”.
I doubt very much that you would – or even could – register the pseudonym, but it would be wise to ensure you have some kind of proof that you are the author. Of course, if you ever needed to pursue someone for infringement, you would probably have to identify yourself in any event.
Hope that is of some help.
Trevor
Luis, how do you intend to use the pseudonym? To sign the work? In the copyright notice?
A pseudonymous work would be treated as an anonymous work for copyright only if the pseudonym was not indentifiable to the person or entity who owns the copyright. It is not uncommon for a pseudonym to be used in a copyright notice. (Note that a copyright notice is not a legal requirement.) And you can sign your work with any name you like. The key thing is whether you can prove, if you need to, that the copyright is yours. The point of a copyright notice is to indicate to others that the work is subject to copyright and to identify the owner of the copyright. If you use a pseudonym and it is not identifiable to you, then in the event of you having to pursue someone for copyright infringement, you would have a somewhat greater burden to prove that the copyright was yours. Therefore, as Trevor says, it would be wise to ensure that you have some evidence of this.
There are no facilities to register a pseudonym as such, and the UK has no official system of copyright registration like the USA does. However, work can be registered with private registration companies such as the UK Copyright Service. Your real name and pseudonym can be included on the registration and this would operate as evidence in the event of infringement proceedings.
Thank you both very much. As usual, this website is a great resource.
Many thanks,
Luis
Dear Linda
I’m in the process of setting up a mobile studio and I want to create a portfolio book and a web site showing my work. Can you advise me what type of permission I need to gain in order to use the photos I take during a shoot.
Thank you in advance its all new to me.
Sharon
Sharon, I’m sorry, I somehow overlooked your post! Legally, oral consent is sufficient, but the problem with this is proving that consent was given if someone later denies it. If you have printed terms and conditions for your shoots (always wise), then you could include a section in these, stating that images taken may be used in your portfolio/on your website. It would also be a good idea to have an opt-out check box for this, since some subjects may not wish their images to be displayed. Ensure that the subject signs the to indicate that they agree to the terms and conditions.
Alternatively, you can have a simple release form, which the subject can sign, agreeing to the images being used in this way. The form should have the subject’s name and address, the date of the shoot and it should be signed. If the subject is under 18, a parent or guardian should also sign.
Linda
May I ask for some clarification of some advice you gave on this forum way back on “December 7, 2009 at 3:15 pm” about the duration of copyright in photos?
I’m involved in a project with our local history group and have been acquiring copies or prints of old photographic postcards (which obviously have been published), and also some old – possibly unpublished – photos (not postcards). I’m trying to determine whether they are still in copyright.
In your previous advice (if I understand you correctly), you appear to be suggesting that any earlier photographs with copyright still subsisting at the commencement of the 1988 Act (or its subsequent amendment) will acquire the copyright term specified in that Act (i.e. now life + 70y). My understanding of the 1988 Act, Sch.1,para.12(2)(c) is that (i) all *published* photographs existing at commencement of the 1988 Act, AND (ii) all photographs (published or unpublished) pre-dating the 1956 Act continue to have their copyright term governed by the 1956 Act; i.e.
(A) for all photographs (published or unpublished) taken prior to 1 Jun 1957, 50y from creation;
(B) for all *published* photographs taken from 1 Jun 1957 to 1 Aug 1989, 50y from first publication.
You also appear to suggest that *unpublished* photos taken during the 1956 Act now have a term of life + 70y. Again, I read the (amended) 1988 Act, Sch.1,para.12(4)(c) as indicating that copyright of such unpublished photos will expire **50y** from commencement of the 1988 Act, i.e. on 31 Dec 2039.
It doesn’t appear to me that any of those terms for pre-existing photographs is affected by the provisions relating to copyright subsisting in other EEA countries.
As a consequence of the above, it seems to me that ALL photographs published in 1960 or earlier will be out of copyright by the end of this year.
Am I missing something?
I would appreciate your thoughts.
Many thanks, Trevor
Trevor, the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 (which generally extended the duration of copyright to life + 70 years), applies to works still in copyright as of 31 December 1995 and to works in which UK copyright had expired prior to that date, but which was protected by copyright legislation in any other EEA state as of 1 July 1995.
I recently used my phone to capture video footage of some police officers arresting a man in a carriage forming part of a train that was stopped at Stevenage station. I was on the train at the time. Shortly after I’d started recording, a security guard told me I wasn’t allowed to film there because it’s “First Capital Connect property and you don’t have permission.” A moment later, one of the police officers came over and told me that unless I put my phone away, she’d “Confiscate it as evidence”. Evidence of what, she didn’t say.
I would be very grateful to know whether either the security guard or the police officer was acting improperly to insist that I stop filming. Surely the confines of “public transport” count as public space?
In fact, both the station and the train are private property and the security guard can request that you don’t photograph or film, if that is the owner’s policy (you would need to contact First Capital Connect with regard to their specific policies on their trains). People commonly confuse places to which the public have access with “public spaces” but the two are not the same.
The police need grounds to sieze your phone or camera or other personal effects. Normally they only have the power to do this if you have been arrested. They also have rights to sieze property they believe may indicate some connection with terrorism if they are carrying out a search authorised by the Terrorism Act. They may wish to see pictures or footage that indicate that a crime has been committed and refusal to show such may amount to obstruction. Finally, if you refuse to stop taking photographs/filming and this is likely to cause a breach of the peace, the police might temporarily take property they believe might cause a breach, but this must be returned when the risk of a breach has passed. (I am assuming you are in England or Wales?) None of these appear at first glance to apply to the circumstances as you describe them.
Why is it that supposedly “public” places such as shopping centres, or the above mentioned First Capital Connect trains and station ban photography and yet invariably cannot be bothered to put up signs, etc to say so? If there are no signs banning photography, then officials should not be telling photographers off, just as if they are doing something wrong- they are not!
After all, they don’t mind putting up signs such as No Smoking, etc!
Why does noboby ever challege these firms that ban photography – it is not very nice when you are treated as though you are in the wrong and are made to feel unwelcome?
Just to clarify, Gary, they are not “public places”. They are private property to which the public has access. To take the shopping centre, for example, the property owners have basically given permission to the public to do something that would otherwise be unlawful (i.e. going onto someone’s property without their consent would be a trespass). In law, this kind of permission is called a “licence”. The law could also imply terms for the licence – e.g it would logically be implied that the licence to enter shopping centre property might extend to parking, shopping, eating, depending on the facilities available. It could be argued that the licence to enter is not granted for the purposes of photography, or, come to that, collecting for a charity, handing out leaflets, selling the Big Issue or putting on some kind of performance, unless specific permission had been sought and granted for these things. Or, as a judge said in an old case: “When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters”
Putting up signs saying “no photography” would be fair enough, but it would be almost impossible to put up signs that covered every kind of behaviour that the property owner might find unacceptable. A bare licence of this kind kind be revoked at any time, so provided the owner (or the security guards as his agents) does not infringe specific laws against various kinds of discrimination, he is entitled to ask you to leave.
The situation on a train is slightly different, since one has given consideration (paid money) to travel. Therefore your “licence” to be on the train is contractual and not a bare licence. But again, it could be implied that the contract is for travel and not for taking photographs, etc, and the terms and conditions on which train tickets are issued allow for persons to be asked to leave a train for conduct deemed to be unacceptable.
In short, it isn’t really possible to “challenge” a ban on photography in these instances. Not legally, anyway. I fully accept that some security personnel and other staff can sometimes act arbitrarily, can sometimes be impolite and occasionally seem to be making one rule for some and a different rule for others. This is really a different issue though.
Hi. Thanks for this very useful website, which I found some time ago. I have looked into the laws surrounding taking photographs, and read all the reports of photographers being stopped, with a view to being prepared should I ever get stopped. This has not happened until very recently.
I went to a Christmas market with my husband in Leeds the other week and after a while of wandering around taking photos, a security guard approached and asked if I had a permit. I tried to assert that I was on public land, but he told me that as it was an event, the (normally) public thoroughfare was classed as licenced. I was approached because I had a ‘professional’ camera, even though I am not (yet) a professional photographer, and the reason I presumed from his comments was that they didn’t want people making an income from any images taken at the market. I was using a monopod, mindful of the dangers of using a tripod in those circumstances.
He handed me a Leeds Council business card, where I could apply for a permit in future. I believe that this particular market was organised by Leeds City Council, so I didn’t argue and agreed not to take any further images. He did not ask me to show him any images, nor delete any. I presume he was within his rights to stop me on this occasion, even though some of the compact cameras I saw people using were probably more professional in quality than my 40D.
In contrast, I took some images in one of the shopping malls in Leeds and even with a security guard standing a few feet away, I did not get stopped!
A week later, I took some images at the Sheffield Christmas market and unbenknown to me there was a security guard in the picture – he struck a pose for me!
I’m a little worried, as I’m on a street/architectural photography workshop next week – in Sheffield – and I hope we are prepared for any instances of ‘jobsworths’ trying to exert their ‘authority’!!
Sorry for the lateness, I hope your workshop passed without incident!
The Leeds market issue is a tricky one, since different local authorities impose different restrictions, and you would need to check with them, but you are right that the application of restrictions is not imposed evenly, and reports suggest that people using “professional” looking equipment are targeted more than those with compact cameras or mobile phones. This was also the complaint with police stops and searches under the late and unlamented s.44 of the Terrorism Act. At least the security guard explained the situation; this is more helpful than many are prepared to be.
Hi,
I was wondering if you could give me a bit of advice about the issue of publishing photos on my website. I am a model from the UK and I do lots of types of work from catalogue modelling to editorial work. The thing I’m wondering about is whether I am allowed to use the images that I am in on my own personal website (for self-promotion) ? I’m not sure where the copyright lies and whether I would be breaching it if I use the images on my site. My modelling agency, however, is allowed to use the images on their website so I am guessing the same rules would apply for me and my website?
Thanks so much in advance!
Veronica
Hi Veronica,
Copyright in the images would lie with the photographer, generally, or with his employer, depending on the agreement between them. So, although the images are of you, you would not automatically have the right to use them on your website. If the agency has such a right it probably has them as part of its terms and conditions in its dealings with clients. Check with the agency what the scope of these are and whether they would allow you to use the images on your own site. If not, you may find that it isn’t too difficult to obtain the permission of the copyright owner, since in most cases your use would not damage their commercial interests.
Great site, such a lot of information, but although it has answered many of my questions, I still have one.
Is there a difference in the definition of “commercial” in the use of photographs?
I have candid street photographs, that are forming part of a series that I am going to show and then sell as limited edition framed prints at art fairs and exhibitions, I am not looking to licence the images, or publish them, so I’m still confused as to whether I need a model release and or whether I could be infringing copyright if their are identifiable buildings in my work?
Hoping you can help, thanks.
Paul
There isn’t really a legal definition of commercial in the use of photographs and it’s more a matter of commonsense; you are making commercial use of an image if you are selling it in any way. Certain other matters, such as Data Protection and Copyright issues, do not depend on the use being “commercial” as such anyway.
First, the buildings, since that is easy – it does not infringe the copyright in a building to photograph it and you can sell or otherwise reproduce the photographs.
People are trickier because of Data Protection laws (and increasingly the development of privacy law). A person’s image is part of his personal data if he can be identified from it, but the scope of this has not been determined by the court. There are exceptions for the so-called “special purposes” or literature, art and news reporting, where the use of the personal data is necessary for the purpose. Much of the street photography that is published (and selling prints is a form of publication) would fit within the exception. Street scenes that include people, where they are not being processed in such a way as to find out more information about the people, may not be regarded as falling within the Act. As I said, the courts have not given a definitive explanation of the scope of this yet.
Hi Linda
Privacy in public places is obviously a minefield, from all your helpful comments here. This is another element, regarding video rather than photography but I guess the law applies to moving images much the same as stills.
I have filmed a full-length dvd-video (1 hour; now on sale) of various people in different locations, on holiday, all in full public view and in public places. The approach is tongue-in-cheek, sometimes poking gentle fun at what people do but all in public view to any casual observers; no arguments, indiscretions, unacceptable language, bad behaviour or mode of undress are observed. The ‘candid camera’ element is pointed up by a voice-over script and music but not to misprepresent what occurs, which is never offensive behaviour; it simply emphasises what is obvious to anyone watching anyway.
No permissions were obtained from people being filmed, as there was no attempt to conceal the video camera, which was generally in each location for 1 – 3 hours. When asked, we explained the filming was for a dvd which would be available at a later date. I thought I’d checked sufficiently in advance that the ‘filming/photography’ in a public place principle would apply.
Now, 5 months after the dvd went on sale (online till now but planned for limited shop distribution), one of the people filmed has objected to being filmed ‘without permission’ and demands to be ‘removed’ from the video.
She was in a group of about seven which we filmed for about an hour, it being perfectly obvious what we were doing; she even smiled and played up to the camera and appeared to be enjoying the experience. Nothing in her behaviour exposed her to ridicule and she comes across as a ‘fun’ individual. At least one member of her party asked what the filming was for and we gave the answer outlined above.
Does she have a legal case? Not only would it be detrimental to the final production to ‘remove’ her; if the precedent enabled others to receive the same treatment it would destroy the video completely.
Admittedly we weren’t completely frank about the final production or its intended commercial marketplace. But is that relevant anyway, since a photographer won’t necessarily spell out chapter and verse about future publication?
Sorry .. lengthy .. but advice would be much appreciated.
Yours, Gabriel
Hello, Gabriel
The law is constantly developing on these issues, and is somewhat in a state of flux as far as privacy is concerned. Where it would have been reasonable to say a few years ago that anything happening in a public place was fair game for the cameras (still or video), court decisions have restricted that considerably. However, it is still the case that publication of a person’s image without their consent does not automatically or necessarily infringe their right to privacy.
Publication of a video where identifiable individuals are shown also comes within the purview of data protection, since a person’s image can be regarded as personal data. A key point here would be whether the video might fall within the exemptions from the Act applicable to the “special purposes”, the relevant purpose in this case being an artistic one.
If the person concerned takes the matter further, I would really advise that you see a solictor. In the meantime, if you have not already done so, seek the opinion of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.gov.uk).
Thank you, Linda, for your speedy response
We have meanwhile obtained online legal advice (with disclaimers against it being interpreted as a full legal consultation), which comes to a similar ‘grey area’ conclusion. It seems the ‘significance’ of an individual in the video is also a factor. In this instance, this person was no more significant than many others, did not speak to camera and was only overheard in a couple of brief, inconsequential phrases.
We’ll also consult the ICO at your suggestion: thanks for that.
I should add – probably irrelevantly – that others who were filmed for the same video have been delighted and amused at their inclusion.
All very helpful. Thank you.
It really is a grey area, and one which is probably going to give a lot of business to media lawyers for some time to come, until the law is more settled, if it ever is.
The significance of a person in the video is an issue, but “significance” would relate to a variety of factors and not simply how long the person appeared in it as compared with others. Where a person is simply one of several faces in a crowd, for example, the inclusion would (probably) be regarded as insignificant. If the camera focuses on them, even for a short time, that would be more significant…and so on. But that brings us back to the grey area of what a court might or might not regard as significant.
I’m sorry that it is impossible to give a definitive answer!
Hi. I have aquestion? What is the release photographic release requirement when photographing inside a nightclub for club nights when you have been invited by the ents. manager. This would invoke the usual DJ and crowd shots. Does the club need a sign informing customers that they may be photographed for club publicity purposes. People are generally soiling to have the of pap type shots so any advice would be great. Thanks mike…
Hi Mike,
As I’ve said here before, the law relating to privacy is still being developed by the courts and the circumstances in which people have been held to have a reasonable expectation of privacy are growing increasingly wide. Crowd shots shouldn’t pose a problem with that, but I think it would be wise of the Club to have a clear sign at the entrance informing people that they may be photographed for publicity purposes. That way, agreeing that you might be photographed becomes a condition of entry and people can be deemed to have consented.
I attended a dance show in a local community hall last week, the venue had hired a “pro” photographer I was there with some friends and family. Before I entered I asked if could take some photos they said yes no problem apparently the parents of the children performing had “signed there life away” and so no problem taking photos. Am I right in thinking I am ok in posting some of these photos on my website, flickr, forums? I don’t have a model release form but don’t intend selling them but I might include a few in my portfolio?
Also not all the performers were children.
What can and cant I do? Oh I also live in the UK if that would make a difference.
Regards.
Dave
Hello Dave,
It was a performance at which people knew they were going to be photographed, where the parents had signed permission for the children to be photographed and where you had the permission of the venue.
In those circumstances you will be able to use the photographs on your website and post them on Flickr. You would also be able to use them for something like an exhibition or in a book. You would not be able to use them for the purposes of advertising without consent that specifically covered that.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 69 trackbacks }