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 thanks for providing this great resource and your advice.
. Not for any terroist related purposes! Which of course would be illegal.
Today i was passing a small peaceful demonstration outside a local college in town. It was about paycuts, teacher jobs… Anyway i had my dslr with me and started to take a couple of pics when a police officer approached and asked me was i with the press, i siad no. He then asked me could i not take any images that would include him or his colleagues, he went on to say that he was concerned about being targeted. I was a bit taken back by this and what i thought he was implying by it. I was taking the images thinking i might be able to use some of them for the new editorial content opening soon on a well known stock site
Anyway my questions are, does being a member of the press make any difference in this situation, why would he ask this?
Is taking images of demonstrations that may include police in the images illegal?
Would there be any legal problem preventing the use of such images for editorial purposes if they contained police in them?
By the way this was on the public street in Belfast, Northern Ireland if that makes a difference.
Thanks for your time, Jim.
Hi Jim,
As you probably read in the pdf, s.58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (inserted by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) makes it an offence to “elicit information” about present and former members of the police force, the armed forces and the security services, where the information “is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”. It is also an offence to publish or communicate such information.
Information would include a photograph, and the section is very broadly drafted, as it doesn’t suggest that the information needs to be intended for terrorist purposes, only that it is of a kind likely to be useful for those purposes. That might in theory include any photograph from which someone might be identified as a police officer, and some police officers seem to be interpreting it this way.
However, the same wording about information “of a kind likely to be useful” is contained in the original section 58. And the House of Lords has interpreted that to mean “information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism”.
So, in short, no, there is no blanket legal ban on taking photographs with police in them and nor would there be a problem in using such photos for editorial purposes. The same laws apply to the press as to anyone else, though a press card would be an indication to the police that any photographs were for the purposes of news gathering and reporting and not for any other purpose.
Thanks for clearing this up, i thought it would be something like that but wasn’t sure.
i’ve just returned to the UK after many years living in asia and in three weeks have been told, on more than one occasion, not to take photographs in certain areas.
first was outside a church. we were basically sightseeing but my brother, using my camera, took a photo that had children in it (they were gathered inside an adjacent building). we were told we shouldn’t do that because of the child protection act and i promptly apologized, saying that we meant no harm. as we walked away the kids came out and screamed “PAEDOS!” after us which really upset me.
second was inside the supermarket. we wanted to show family and friends back home how different things are here in the UK but the manager asked us to refrain from taking pictures. at this point i decided it was best to just leave the camera at home.
today we were asked by a mall guard to not to take video inside the mall (we were playing around, videoing ourselves with an iphone). we were asked to delete the video (although he didn’t insist that we do so in front of him).
all to say that, as a visual artist (still in tourist mode, i might add), i feel very sad about the restrictions. as a father i can understand the need to protect children and look our for their welfare. but to be screamed at in the street or “spoken to” in public when you really didn’t mean any harm – it’s just sad.
thanks for this site and the many others that detail our rights as amateur photographers in the UK.
heroman,
Very late response if you are still checking this:
Photo outside the church – there’s basically no legal issues here.
However, supermarkets and shopping malls are private property and the owners are entitled to decide what visitors can and can’t do whilst on the premises. They can decide photography isn’t allowed, and throw you out if you break the rules. They cannot require you to delete any images, but could of course say that you won’t be thrown out if you do delete your images.
Hi there,
Im a very amature photographer so im pretty new to all this, but my basic interest lies in taking pictures of the public in normal situatuion, so say a guy sitting on a bench in the park for example. Ive read the PDF you did and its very imformative and i thank you for taking the time the write it, but i was wondering if you or anyone could clarify a point for me. If i do take a picture of someone and then say eventually make a book of my pictures, do i need permission from the subjects in it to publish the book or can i just do it regardless? common sense says always get permission but sometimes its not pratical, and what actually counts as permission?
Thanks in advance Tom
Hi Tom,
You would not necessarily need permission from your subject to publish their picture in a book. If permission was always necessary to publish someone’s photo then the newspapers would have a hard time of it.
As things stand in this rather fast-developing area of the law, as long as your subjects are in a public place and not doing anything of a essentially private nature, there probably isn’t any infringement of a right to privacy. It’s a little hard to be specific though, because, as I said, this area of the law is still uncertain and is developing. Data protection issues are unlikely to arise where an image is used for artistic or literary purposes.
When it comes to permission, consent would normally need to be informed consent, i.e. consent to the photo being taken would not imply a consent that it could be used however you want, the subject would have to be given an idea of what it was to be used for.
Contrary to popular belief, consent does not have to be in writing. Oral consent is enough; the reason written consent is recommended is that it can be hard to prove that oral consent was given if the subject later disputes this.
Hi, re children
I write for local education authorities, who require a Parental Consent form to be signed for each child in any photos I provide to support the article.
I am told this is because of the 1) Children’s Act; 2) a Model release signed by Parents is Best Practice and what Editors/Publishers require; 3) It shuts the stable door or a later writ for “payment in respect of models under 16 years” AND any violation of Human Rights/Privacy/Use of image etc. 4) it specifies the USE OF THESE PHOTOS (article about Boys Talking, Communication Language & Literacy) with permission. Q1. Is this really necessary? Q2. Is the above correct?
Q3. If a person takes some photos of children, at the childrens request as they are on holiday on that persons’ land (such land being part of the persons’ B&B and Llama walking experiences businesses) and the children and parents agree they be used in “a business brochure” and the person posts photos to parents & children with a letter vis “… here are the photos I took, you requested and agreed they may be used for the brochure which I am sure they will look great in” Q3.a) Can this be accepted as Parental Consent? Q3.b) Should a Formal Parental Consent be obtained? Q3.c? may this be stretched to include “website” and “adverts and Editorial” ? or Q3.d. There is a verbal contract and thats good enough?
Q1 – Well, some of it might not be strictly necessary, but it is pretty standard – local authorities, government agencies and large businesses understandably prefer to cover all the possibilities rather than risk litigation or other disputes.
Q2 – I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. It is correct that editors and publishers may require releases (they don’t want to face possible litigation either) and a written release does protect everyone against later legal action on the basis of all the possibilities mentioned above. I’m not sure which Children Act they are referring to above – there are several, none of which specifically deal with this issue. The Protection of Children Act 1978 applies only to indecent images and pseudo-images, and you cannot legally escape its provisions by means of consent, so I doubt that is the one being referred to.
Q3. The answer to this is similar to the one I just gave Tom, above. Oral consent is legally enough, written, signed consent is better only because it enables consent to be easily proved. It is hard to prove what was said between two people, especially if those people are not in agreement about what was said. It is a matter of evidence rather than a legal requirement. However, if a person consents to his image or that of his child being used in “a business brochure” that is a fairly specific use and would not naturally extend to use on a website, etc. A consent to use for, say, “publicity purposes” or “marketing” would be broad enough to cover the other uses.
Having a particular issue at the moment on a recent visit to a famous location and thank u for the info
Hi, re publishing photos on a commercial web site.
I recently took some good shots at an airshow. I like the photos so much I want to use them as a theme on my commercial web site. The photos include the Breitling wing walkers and old Spitfire / Hurrican aircraft etc.
My question is can I use these on my web site without any additional permission from the owners of the planes? I don’t imply that I am endorsed by any company involved with the planes shown or that there is any link between us, they are just good photos.
What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
PeterM
Peter, I would advise you to seek permission and also to put a disclaimer on the site. Because your intended use is on a commercial web site, the images may be taken to imply some connection between your business and the organisations that own the planes, even if you don’t otherwise suggest this. From the point of view of the owners of the planes, this could be regarded as passing off (though in fairness a passing off action can be difficult and expensive to bring, and they may have difficulty in establishing that they have suffered a loss). In addition, implying a business connection that does not exist may be an offence under The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as it may mislead consumers – hence the need for a clear disclaimer.
Over the past couple of years I have been doing some freelance work for a local racing team. They have been a good source of features for me. During that time I have taken numerous photos around their workshop for them as a ‘goodwill gesture’ while I was there for other reasons. I was not actually paid directly for the photos in question and they certainly never had my written permission to use them. I no longer carry out any work for the company.
However they are now using around 25 of these photos on their websites.
I have asked them/ their internet host to either pay me for their copyright or remove them. I have received no response from the company (as expected) although the hosting company say they race team are going to dispute ownership.
I have copys of the photos with my name embedded in the copyright box on the Metadata profile – but I was shocked to discover that it’s very easy to wipe that out and even change it!!!!
I assume my next step is to take legal action? How? Am I likely to win? Is providing photos with my name in the Metadata copyright box enough to prove ownership?
Thanks
Simon
Hi Simon,
With respect, this is a very specific set of disputed facts that is really beyond the remit of this comments section. You (I’m assuming nothing to the contrary was agreed) will own the copyright to all the photographs you have taken of the racing team. I’m also assuming that you entered the copyright information in the metadata. It’s not difficult to change that, as you say, in fact I think it is automatically stripped out by the Save for Web function in Photoshop (at least it used to be). Providing the images with the Exif data is not in itself enough necessarily to prove ownership of the copyright but it would be indicative, especially if you had other similar images taken at the same time and bearing the same data.
It is possible that the team will not dispute ownership of the copyright but will claim they had permission to use the images. This may be more difficult to contest since you presumably gave them copies and it might be implied that it was for this purpose.
If you seriously intend to bring a legal action for copyright infringement against the company concerned, I suggest that you see a solicitor with experience in this area. It is not really something I would advise undertaking yourself. Be aware that, even if you win, damages are unlikely to be very high, since you can claim based on either the amount you lost by not selling the photos (and hence your usual price) or the financial gain they made from using them (which is likely to be nil).
My ex-web designer has copyrighted all photos on my website including one of myself. I’m not bothered about the others but can they legally keep/own the one of me? I am afraid that it might be misused in the future.
Hi Peter,
The usual rule, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, is that copyright would belong to the photographer, or to his employer if they were taken in the course of employment. In other words, if your web designer or his employee (NOT freelance contractor) took the photos, then copyright belongs to him. This would include any photograph of you. So yes, he can legally own the copyright in it, but this does not give him the right to use it as he wishes. It could not be used in a defamatory way, for example. And photographs of identifiable individuals are personal data under the Data Protection Act, and anyone processing such data must do so in accordance with the data protection principles.
Many thanks for that. My ex-webdesigner is claiming copyright of the pictures which I took, on the grounds that he has tinted and resized them for use on my website. I took all the original photos apart from the one of myself which was taken in a studio. Can the web designer claim copyright of my photos which he has tinted and cropped then put on the website?
Thanks again.
No.
Sorry, I was tempted to leave it just at that. It is actually possible for someone to own copyright in a derivative work they have made based on another copyright work. The maker of the derivative work would need to have had the permission of the owner of the copyright in the original, which I assume your web designer had. But the derivative work must also be substantially original in order to attract copyright protection. Minor adjustments would not be enough. In addition, the new copyright only applies to the new work. Usual examples of derived or adapted works would include, for example, making a painting from a photograph or making the screenplay of a film from a novel. It is obvious that these are substantively different from what you are describing. Another example might be incorporating part of an existing piece of music within a larger new musical work. In none of these cases would the new copyright give the creator of the adaptation any rights in the underlying photograph, novel or music.
Your photograph, however, is still your photograph. The cropping is irrelevant and the only addition is the tinting.
Is the designer claiming copyright in the website as a whole, and thus including the photographs as part of the overall design? It would be possible for him to have a new copyright in the design as a whole, but this still would not give him copyright in the photograph elements themselves.
Thank you so much for your prompt response. The web designer has put copyright to the design,which is Ok but has claimed copyright on his “doctored” versions of all images I gave him which he cropped and tinted. He has copyrighted the web design to himself and the content to me. As I supplied the original text and the original photographs, I would have thought that both these constitute content?
In a web discussion about the attempt by English Heritage to claim copyright on images of Stonehenge, I quoted Linda MacPherson’s statement in the Guide; “It is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises that are open to the public.”
The person I was discussing it with suggested that the legal principle counted for little or nothing if a quango or local authority decided to take legal action against you if you couldn’t afford to defend yourself. Would it be the case in Britain, that such bodies can exert de-facto ultra vires control over photographs simply by their financial clout with respect to legal costs, like this?
regards
Peter
With regard to Stonehenge in particular, English heritage do not claim copyright on images of the monument. There is a sort of apology and comment about this on their website. They do, however, have the right to exercise restrictions over photography on their property. They cannot restrict photography or the use of photographs of Stonehenge taken from outside the boundaries of their property.
“Ultra vires” control over photographs through using the legal system? Not exactly. Legal Aid is still available where a person qualifies for it. And anyone can represent themselves. Most importantly, it would be a foolish waste of money on the part of any plaintiff to attempt to bring an action that had no legal merit, such as claiming copyright in all images of Stonehenge.
Hi Linda
I worked for a company for several years and during this time they took photos of my daughter to use in advertising.I never gave any form of writtern conscent.
I was made redudant as the company went in to adminstration and the company was sold.
I now discover the new company is now using images of my daughter in their advertising.
What is my legal postion
Barry
Hi Linda,
I recently came into possession of an old film SLR. Being relatively young, it was my first time shooting film. I jokingly asked my friends if any were up for posing for some tasteful nudes – and to my surprise two agreed. So, on separate occasions, I took nude photos of them. With one friend, they are all from behind so nothing private can be seen. The other friend was more open, and so most shots include the breasts, and one shows the groin area (though too underexposed to be seen).
I understand from your PDF that I own the copyright to this image, but I think details regarding publication (say a portfolio, online or otherwise) could be a bit murky. What are my rights in this area?
Cheers
Hi Linda
I’m a documentary film maker and on Saturday I was following a street photographer in the centre of a large town.
At one point a young mother came up to me and told me I wasn’t allowed to use film of her and her son because it may be seen by the child’s father and their location would be revealed.
They appear in the background of two clips and they could possibly be indentified by anyone looking very carefully. One of the clips is important to the film and is impossible to re-shoot.
Should I include the scene in my final edit?
The film will be hosted on Vimeo and the photographer’s website.
Having rights is all good and well, but if you have to spend hours at a police station and probably have your gear trashed as a result of exercising those rights (which is the current status quo in the UK and other countries, sadly) they’re pretty theoretical.
I’ve luckily not experienced that myself (I’ve not visited the UK or US in recent years but know from others who have (as several other commenters here) been arrested or otherwise detained for simply taking pictures in public places and being spotted by a rentacop, police person, or “concerned citizen” thinking they must be doing something wrong because they have a camera with them (of course under current anti-terrorism and child protection laws having a photo stored on that camera which shows a child, bridge, bus stop, train, police car, almost anything can be reason for arrest, however spurious, and it can take a long time to get rid of such charges.
Dear Linda,
This is hopefully a very easy and quick question to answer.
I am new to event photography and have been asked to photograph an event in London. it is for a charitable cause and the photos will be used on facebook to show the attendees to the event etc. Do I need to get a model release form from every guest at the event if the images will be posted to Facebook or similar social media website by a 3rd party, i.e. the party host?
Many thanks for all your great advice on this page, it is truly appreciated.
Brandon
Hi Linda,
Thanks so much for writing this incredibly useful guide. I’m struggling a bit though, as there is lots of guidance around for freelance photographers, but little for in-house photographers. I don’t know how much it differs, but if you have a spare moment, I’d be grateful if you could tell me if the below is correct.
Scenario: I work in the Marketing dept of a leisure centre and want to take photographs of sports classes, involving adults and occasionally children. Are the following statements correct?
1.) We are not legally required to ask either the adults or children permission to take their photos, but it IS advisable for good relations.
2.) The only caveat to this is if any of the children are on the Child Protection Register, therefore we should always seek parental / guardian consent to be on the safe side.
3.) If we use the photos for informative purposes (eg, ‘here are some photos from our sports class’), then permission is still not required.
4.) If we use the photos in an advert or poster for our next sports class, that is seen as inferred endorsement, and therefore we should seek permission from the subject(s).
5.) Photos taken by us in our centre are on private land but in a building open to the public, therefore public property photography rules apply, except in areas where a degree of privacy is expected, such as changing rooms or toilets.
6.) It is ok to add into the sports class booking form that “by booking this class, you understand that authorised centre staff may occasionally take photos of the session for the purposes of marketing”; i.e. an opt-out tick box is not required.
Apologies, I know that’s a lot of info, just want to make sure I have everything right!
(All comments are my own and not my employers’!)
Best
Luce
Hi Linda, firstly thank you very much for providing such an informative page and resource on a subject which is often somewhat murky for most of us!
I’m a professional photographer and have just found out that a print company I use to produce my marketing/promotional materials is now using the photographs/artwork I supplied for the print job on their website to advertise their services. I’ve called them and pointed out that not only do they not have my permission to do this, but no one even contacted me to request it. In the meantime, I checked their T&Cs on their website and found this section:
ARTWORK AND PRINTING
The entire copyright throughout the world in all printing plates, litho positives and negatives, artwork, designs, photographic transparencies, negatives or positives and any other artistic craftsmanship made by or for xxxxxxx Ltd pursuant to or in implementation of any contract with the customer shall belong to xxxxxxx Ltd. xxxxxxx Ltd agrees that unless the customer becomes in default of any obligation to make any payment to xxxxxxx Ltd, it will not reproduce any such items for any competitor in business of the customer.
The first paragraph also states:
These Terms and Conditions apply to all orders and supersede all others. Receipt of acknowledgement of order by you, constitutes your acceptance that our conditions are the only conditions that apply to the contract notwithstanding any purported terms put forward by you.
They do provide their own inhouse artwork department as an option, but this section of the T&C doesn’t appear to differentiate between that and anything that a client might have supplied themselves (as I have). It reads to me as if they expect full copyright assignment of all material that’s supplied to them – is this right? And if so, does that mean I don’t have any rights to ask them to remove the images/artwork? It seems ridiculous that I can be paying for them to do a job for me and yet they can takeover my copyrighted material and use it for advertising without me explicitly granting my permission.
Many thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex,
It would be incredibly odd for a company to claim a copyright assignment on material that had been supplied to them by a paying client. And further, a copyright assignment requires a signed document. But, though the terms might appear to suggest this, I don’t think that is what they are actually claiming.
They are only asserting copyright in those materials listed where those materials are made “by or for” xxxxxxx Ltd. I would contend that this would include, for example, copyright in artwork or photographs made by them or commissioned by them from a third party in the implementation of a contract for a client. In other words, where they provide the artwork or photography, they retain the copyright in it.
In addition, if you supplied the photographs and artwork but they designed the materials, then you would retain the copyright in the photographs and artwork but they would have copyright in the overall design (this does not imply any copyright in underlying works in which someone else has rights). If, on the other hand, you supplied the materials and specified the layout/design, and they simply printed it to your specifications, then you are the copyright owner of the entire work.
Hi Linda,
Thanks very much for getting back to me so promptly and for such succinct advice.
I thought it was very strange that it would even imply copyright ownership. Interestingly, I think it might be a standard contract that print companies employ as when I googled excerpts from it, I found many other print organisations who have the exact same wording, not just for those sections, but for 90% of the entire contract.
Thank you also for clarifying the specifics of how copyright has to re-assigned i.e. unless I explicitly sign something, it won’t be transferred – that’s very useful to know.
I escalated the issue with the company and this morning the MD called me directly and apologised for not asking permission. He offered to either remove the artwork from their site or to process my next order free of charge. I’ve gone with the option to leave them up and take the print offer so problem solved.
Many thanks again for your time and detailed information.
Alex
Linda,
A friend of mine saw two work colleagues in a pub garden kissing, embracing and by their general demeamour demonstrating that they were in an intimate relationship. Both parties are in senior posts one being the manager of the other. My friend took picutres of them on his phone/camera.
Would he be able to use these pictures as evidence to confirm his assertion that the people involved were in breach of company policy?
Situations like these fall within some grey areas, Kath. As with any photographs of people, and as often commented on here, two areas of the law that might be applicable are privacy rights as provided for by the ECHR and the Data Protection Act.
In respect of the former, a pub garden would not be generally considered as a place where people would have an expectation of privacy, for all that it is private property. Although the House of Lords held in 2004 (in Campbell v MGN) that photographs taken of someone in a public place could infringe their right to privacy in some circumstances, the infringement was not in the taking of the photographs but in their widespread publication. This still appears to be the legal position in the UK, though the law relating to privacy is continually developing.
The Data Protection Act applies to personal data which is processed or intended to be processed electronically, or which is kept in a “relevant filing system”. A digital image of an identified or identifiable person is “personal data” within the meaning of the Act and would therefore be subject to the data protection principles – it must be processed fairly and lawfully, which basically means that at least one of the conditions set by the Act must be met. A lot of people think that means that there must be consent, but in fact there are a number of possible conditions.
Hi. I need some advice. I am taking photographs for a magazine on a freelance basis and some of the photographs that I need are some candid street photographs to illustrate a particular story or idea. I live in northern Ireland and my question is. Do I need a model release form for these photographs? The style of photographs I am taking its almost impossible to get a model release form from people as they are usually long gone by the time I get close to them or it would be simply impractical to get it before as it would no longer be people acting natural. Also so I need a model release form for the following scenario? I was at a pipe band contest in Lisburn and it was being held on a council leisure centre field. I took several shots of people playing there instruments. A few of these shots could be used in the magazine to illustrate some articles. One of the shots is looking through a see through base drum at a bag pipe player ( this could be used to illustrate the music section of the magazine). The next is a man using a bag pipe tuner to tune up the bag pipe ( this could be used to illustrate the “staying in tune” section ) and the next shot is a head and shoulders shot of a man with his hands cupped over his ears, the shot is taken from behind.( illustrating the “news” or “listen up” section.
Thank you very much for your help!
Mark
Hi Mark,
Sorry for the delay. Such photos as you describe are unlikely to cause any legal problems. Certainly the pipe band contest should not, since it is a public event and the images are being used for journalistic/literary purposes. The exception would be if there was some restriction placed on photography by the council or by the organisers of the event.
The same would generally apply to street photography where an individual was not the focus of an image. Even where an unidentified individual is the focus of an image, there would generally not be a problem where the use is an editorial one such as you describe.
Hi Linda,
Just wanting some guidence please. We own a photo studio, if children come in for a photo shoot can we then use the pictures on our website or in local advertising without parental consent?
Many Thanks
Claire
Hi Claire, and sorry for the delay in responding to your question. Although you own the copyright in the photos, where photographs have been commissioned for private purposes you require the consent of the person who commissioned them before you can publish them or display them to the public.
In addition, for use of images of people in advertising, the CAP Code requires in most circumstances that you have the consent of the subject (or, in this case, the parent/legal guardian of the subject).
Greetings,
I appreciate all the useful advice on your site.
I’m a sometimes hobbyist photographer who takes photos at dog shows of the show dogs. I’d like to publish a book of my favorite photos – sans identification of the dogs (simply because I cannot ID all of them) and simply for the pleasure of a collection of beautiful dog photos. I would probably sell this book online at some point.
Do you foresee any issues in publishing without release/permission of the owners? My understanding is that if the dogs are not identified (in print) and are unidentifiable (that is, there is no physical or cosmetic mark that would enable absolute identification of a specific dog) then I would be free to publish my own photos without permission/release of owners.
Thank you in advance.
I think that many owners would in any case claim that they could identify their own dog from a photo. However, you can legally publish the photos, even if they are identifiable, provided there were no restrictions placed on photography for publication at the events in question (there sometimes are). Some owners may be pleased at the inclusion of a photo of their dog, and others might be aggrieved at the idea that you are profiting from it. In the UK, however, one does not automatically have image rights in one’s property (and for these purposes, a dog is legally the property of its owner.)
Hi Linda,
I need to take exterior photographs of a client’s premises for advertising purposes. Being a street photograph, it may accidentally include logos and trademarks of other businesses. Would this be considered copyright infringement ? And what about passerby accidentally included in the photographs ? Many Thanks
Ines, provided the focus is the client’s premises and any other copyright material is incidental to the image, there shouldn’t be a problem with the logos and trademarks.
Since this image is to be used for advertising, you should avoid having identifiable people in it unless you have their consent.
Hi Linda,
Firstly thanks for the fantastic article and responses to comments. It is a great help to all the amateurs out there who can only grasp at legal straws otherwise.
I have a question about one area you touched on in the pdf: if you are stopped by the police for questioning (under the banner of national security), I see you do not have to consent to a search if they have Section 44 powers. Do you have the right to ask for confirmation that the officer has been granted authorisation, and does “search” extend to looking through digital photos, or just your bags?
Thanks again, Andy.
Hi Andy,
I really need to update the .pdf in this regard, because powers of stop and search under s.44 were suspended after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights rules last year that the powers amounted to an infringement of the right to privacy (effectively, that they were disproportionate). I commented on here at the time, but it’s a bit much to expect anyone to trawl through all the comments!
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial Order) 2011 replaces s.44 powers with more restrictive ones. Searches can still be carried out in areas where an authorisation is in place and the police officer still does not need to have reasonable suspicion that articles intended for use in connection with terrorism will be found, but the circumstances in which an authorisation will be granted are much more restrictive. Under ss.44-47, an authorisation could be granted where the person giving it thought it expedient for the prevention of terrorism. Authorisations require a reasonable suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place, and the authorisation is necessary to prevent it. The area covered by the authorisation, and the length of time that it remains in force must be no greater than necessary for the prevention of the suspected act of terrorism.
Hence, the continuous authorisations that covered most of London and parts of other cities have come to an end and there should be fewer incidents of the kind of stops and searches that photographers were subject to for several years. Note that it is not the individual officer that is granted authorisation, it is any person with the pwoers of a constable in the relevant area. And the search could include viewing photos on a digital camera or phone, but officers have no power to delete them or to require that you delete them.
Hi Linda,
i recently took my children to an ice rink and was stopped from taking photos from a member of staff, i asked why and she pointed out a sign ( which i honestly did’nt see) saying no photograghy unless prior notice from the manager, so i asked to see the manager, and he said it was company policy and no photograghy was allowed because of the childrens protection act. Could i demanded that it was my right to take photos of my children whilst it was open for the public?
Hi Sally,
I’m sorry but the short answer is that no, you couldn’t have demanded that you had the right to take photographs of your children in the ice rink. Although open to the public, it is private property and the owners have the right to impose whatever conditions of entry they wish, including preventing photography.
I will explain in a little more detail, though. It is now common for sports venues (and other venues that are frequently visited by children) to prohibit or restrict photography. Staff often explain the prohibitions/restrictions with reference to either child protection legislation or data protection legislation. Neither is correct. The Data Protection Act does not prevent taking photographs of people where these are for personal or domestic use and it certainly would not prevent someone taking photographs of their own children. None of the various Protection of Children Acts prohibits the photography of children, though the 1978 Act makes it an offence to take or make an indecent image of a child.
However, concerns about child abuse mean that most sports and leisure organisations have introduced child protection policies which include a policy about photography or filming. (Bodies that receive any kind of public funding MUST have an effective child protection policy in operation.) See the NSPCC recommendations for policies applying to photography and filming: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/cpsu/resources/briefings/PhotographsAndImagesOfChildren_wdf60645.pdf
For companies such as the one that owns the ice rink, it is generally a simpler proposition to prohibit photography altogether than it would be to effectively administer a system that permits some photography and prohibits the rest. It is a great shame for parents, who naturally want to be able to photograph their children in such circumstances. On the other hand, it is understandable that the owners of the ice rink would not want to be seen as putting children at risk, and possibly also incurring some liability as a result. In addition, the company would be likely to receive complaints from some parents, who might be wary of someone taking photos when their own children were present.
Hi Linda
You have probably been asked this question millions of times but i was at my sons football game today which was being played in a public park, i was taking photos mostly of him when i was asked if i had permission to do so.
Please correct me if i am wrong but i was under the impression that there are not any laws preventing photography of children unless they are indecent images also permission is not needed in a public place. I understand most sporting organisations have a child protection policy in place am i right in understanding that said policy over rides my rights to take photos in public?
Hello Michelle,
Not exactly millions of times but this is a question that comes up time and time again, and it is rather sad that parents are now often prevented from taking photographs of their own children playing sports.
You are absolutely right that there is no specific law that prevents someone photographing children. Though the police will take an interest in, and may investigate, someone who appears to be behaving suspiciously around children (and this may include taking photographs), the general law is the same for children as for adults.
It’s also correct to say that permission is not generally needed to take photographs in a public place.
As you say, most sporting organisations have child protection policies in place; with regard to photography the polices vary quite widely from one organisation to another. However, the Child Protection in Sport guidelines suggest that codes of practice require anyone intending to photograph (including parents) to pre-register. When events take place in closed venues this is relatively easy to enforce. With an activity such as canoeing, which may take place over a lengthy stretch of public waterway, such a policy is simply not possible. A football match in a public park falls somewhere in between. The park and the football pitch is probably maintained and run by the local authority, and local authorities encourage or insist that sports clubs using their facilities have an adequate child protection policy in place. A park may be public, but the local authority has the power to regulate its use.
Even in the absence of any such regulation, the organisation concerned can usually enforce its policy in other ways. I have, for example, heard of cases where the referee simply stopped the match and refused to resume it until the unauthorised photographer (a parent) stopped taking photographs. It would be a very brave (or foolhardy) parent who would stand by their right to to take photos in public in such circumstances.
You don’t say who actually asked whether you had permission or whether they asked you to stop. If you have concerns about this, it would be best in the first instance to contact the sports organisation/club and find out what their child protection policies in respect of photography actually are, and how those policies are enforced. Not all clubs, etc, restrict parents from taking photographs.
Hi Linda,
My hobby is visiting various vintage/commercial vehicle rallies during the year as i am interested in all sorts of vintage vehicles,as part of this hobby i list some of the photo`s that i have taken on a well known internet auction site for sale,please could you advise me if there is any law against me doing this as a couple of times in the past i have had an owner of a vehicle contact me to say i don`t have thier permission to list these photo`s, as they are on show at an event that is open to the general public with no signs to say no photos is this right,the odd time this has happened to keep the peace i remove the photo,most owners either don`t bother or some even contact me to ask if they can have a copy of the photo because they like it so much,i attended a show this last weekend where there were two trade stalls that had thousands of lorry photo`s for sale!! surely if they had to get permission from every owner they would never be able to sell this many photo`s on a trade stand? interested in your view on this situation, cheers andy.
In the UK there is no general restriction on taking photographs of things that belong to other people, or on selling them in the way you describe. Though it is understandable that people resent seeing someone profiting from selling images of their property, and it might be diplomatic to at least speak to them and/or offer them a copy of the image.
Such images cannot however be used for marketing/advertising without consent. You should also be careful to ensure that there are no restrictions on photography (or on commercial photography) imposed by the organisers of the rally or the owners of the land.
Note also that there may be data protection issues involved in selling images that include number plates.
Hi Linda, Thanks for your advice on this matter, when i have had owners contact me in the past i am always very polite and am happy to remove any photo if they object to me listing it and i always offer them a free copy of the photo if they want one,regarding vehicle number plates i always cover the number plates of all the vehicles to stop anybody using them for illegal purposes. thanks again for your advice,cheers andy.
Hello Linda
I just want to make sure I’m doing the right thing:
I work in the marketing department and I’m currently creating news stories/ case studies for our website. My company have recently supplied equipment to a filling station and also at an event taking part in nearby park (therefore we have a business connection) and I was wondering if I would need consent from the organisation or manager at the site to use a photograph of the station/ park? As far as I can see there are no restrictions placed on photography at the site but what if they have their own policy/ guidelines on photographs- would I need to check this with them?
I have already contacted the organisations and asked for consent but is this necessary?
Furthermore, would it be a problem if I captured then uploaded onto the website a picture of a petrol station which the company in question own but is not the one that we worked on?
Last question- For images where there is a business connection (e.g. the event in the park) can we use in company literature and on the website without referring to where it is or what it was for?
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Hi Marianne,
If you have asked for consent and get it that is always a good way to go since it avoids any argument (whether it is strictly legally necessary or not). But, to answer your questions:
Firstly the petrol station. If the images were taken on their property, you should obtain permission or consent. If they weren’t, then you may be able to, but it depends on the use. If you are using images of anyone’s identifiable property for advertising or marketing purposes you should obtain their written consent. You should also be careful not to imply a connection that does not exist, for example using a photo of a petrol station you did not work on in a way that might imply, from it or any accompanying text, that you did.
With regard to photographs of the event, if these contain people you should have their consent if the images are to be used for marketing/advertising purposes (this would not apply to a general crowd scene, though). There may be data protection implications if the images focus on any individual or small group of individuals. Again, you should be careful not to use the photographs in a way that suggests some kind of endorsement or connection that does not exist. The right to take the photographs would depend on any conditions pertaining to entry to the event.
There would not be any obligation, generally speaking, to caption the image or state where it is or what the event was for.
I thought I’d let you know the organisation that own the petrol station granted me permission to use the image (even though it’s not at the site we carried out work- found this weird).
Thank you for your advice
I’m glad the issue is resolved. Permission is the easiest and safest way to go, where possible, as it was here.
Hi Linda
My question is we had a family photo taken by the studio back in april. we spent £300 in the studio and got DVD and some other photos.
few days ago the photo studio rang and said to my wife we have a halif price offer on the frames would you be interested to buy it my wife said no thanks, and then they said why not your kids photos in the frame and they are on display in our shop.
When i heared my kids photo were on display without my knowledge i went mental and thought how could they display them without our consent!
So i phoned and ask the studio why did you display my kids photos without our consent. They said we have a the copy rights so we can print display or publish on the net you can’t do anything. So when i request them to take the photos off the display they said either buy it or we rip the photos and throw them outside.
Sorry i almost wrote a full story here!!!! My question is does the copy rights allow them to dispaly re print & publish the phots on net etc without our consent.
Thanks
Jado
The photo studio is correct to say that they have copyright in the work, but not correct to say that this entitles them to do whatever they like with the photos. Under section 85 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a person who commissions a photograph for private and domestic purposes has the right not to have copies of the photograph(s) issued to the public, or exhibited or displayed in public, or communicated to the public.
The right can be waived, however, so you should make sure that you didn’t inadvertently do this, for example by agreeing at the time the photos were taken to terms and conditions that allowed the studio to use the photos in this way.
Hi Linda,
I have been thorugh the document and most of the answeres you provided. I am still not clear about a photo that i took and published recently.
This was at a public function, a regional competetion event, took many photos, including two or three photos of judges at the competetion. As there was a dispute regarding their qualification and their favouritism towards one team, and the complaint I made was simply ignored, I wrote an article to a media and they published the article along with the photo of judges in which they were seen sitting carelessly without much interest in the programme on the stage. this was just to show how bad the judgement was at the competetion. There was no photo restriction at the function.
What does the law say? Your advice and clarification will be much appreciated.
Thanks
Hi Sam,
As there were no restrictions on photography at the competition, the only issues that might arise are those that always arise in connection with photographs of people, i.e. privacy and data protection. Since this was a public function, one at which the judges might reasonably expect to be photographed, they would not have an expectation of privacy here. And the processing of personal data as necessary for the purposes of journalism is exempted from the provisions of the Data Protection Act. So the law does not prevent the publication of the photo as such.
However, if your article or the photo gave a false (untrue) impression of the judges or their actions, such as could damage their reputations and amount to defamation, one of them could potentially bring a libel action against you.
Hi Linda.
A question regarding photo’s of buildings. I am producing for sale a range of greetings cards with mostly rural scenes. However I have been asked to do some in our local area that would include one or two local “chocolate box” cottages – clearly identifiable.
I understand that if photographed from a public place there is no issue with actually taking the image in the first place but whatis the position if I then turn that into a greetings card that I want to sell. The card would ideally be captioned with the property name
The cautious advice would be to obtain a release whenever possible. But, strictly speaking, there is no general right in the image of one’s property in the UK. An image of a building taken from a public place can be published and even put to a commercial use, such as on a greetings card, without a property release. There are exceptions – many image libraries will not accpet such images without a release. They cannot be used for advertising, either. If the use is defamatory then a right of action by the property owner may arise. And if there are elements that are subject to copyright, and these are more than incidentally included in the image, publication may amount to copyright infringement.
Hi Linda, I need your advice. Outside my childs school, one of the local residents are taking photographs of car number plates. This is happening, when I’m dropping and picking up my child from school. Is this legal? I’m worried the resident in question is taking pictures of the chilren!
Hi Steve,
It isn’t strictly illegal to take photographs of car number plates (though there may be issues depending on how these are intended to be used). It sounds, to be honest, as if the resident might have concerns about the traffic or the way people are parking in the area.
It isn’t illegal, as such, to take photographs of children in a public place, either. But of course there are sometimes concerns about paedophiles collecting photos of children and if you believe that the person is behaving suspiciously then the best course is to inform the school and the police of your concerns. They can then monitor the situation.
Hello,
Just a little something to add here..was taking a simple little shot of some birds on the grass of a small “park” in Huddersfield City Centre when a guy working for the town told me cameras where not allowed in the city and I’d be fined if spotted by the CCTV folks.
I emailed the council and in the reply they stated that indeed cameras are prohibited in the city centre. Thats how they put it. I’d copy and paste the whole thing but there is also a prohibition on me disclosing what they said to anyone else.
Hi David,
The local authority could, in theory, have made a bylaw prohibiting photography in the park. I suppose they might just possibly have made one prohibiting photography anywhere in the city centre, though that seems somewhat extreme. I suggest that you contact the Council again and ask where you can see the relevant bylaws preventing photography in the City Centre. You should then be able to find out what the scope of their prohibition actually is.
Hi Linda, I hope your well.
I wonder if you could help me with a question. We visit a certain roller rink week in week out, this establishment if full of mixed ages ranging in age of anywhere between 1 and 80 years old. there are a lot of children with parents, a lot of adults on their own, a lot of over 50′s so on and so on. The current owner has a rule stating no photography can be taken inside the roller rink due to child protection. Would this be correct? many parents would love to be able to take pictures of their family day out and lots of the kids want to take pictures of them and their mates out having fun but as soon as a camera comes out the staff members are there to tell you it is illegal. can you please help clarify this for me and the other families.
Kind Regards, and thank you for your time.
Simon.
Hello Simon,
When you ask if the owner of the ice rink is correct, well, he is correct that he has a rule prohibiting photography. The bottom line is that the ice rink is private property and he can impose whatever conditions he wishes on its use.
If you are asking whether there is a general law against taking photographs of children in these circumstances then the answer is no, there isn’t. However it is becoming increasingly common as a child protection measure. In fairness to the owner, he has a fine line to tread. If he allows people to take photographs, some parents will complain that photographs are being taken that include their children. Naturally enough, many other parents would like to take photos of their own children skating. Most organisations are now erring on the side of not allowing photos.
So, in short, it isn’t “illegal” as such, but the owner is entitled to impose a ban.
Hi,
I am in a bit of a pickle,2002 I took a set of photos of major floods in Glasgow,took them to newspapers to try to sell them, got one in local rag.My problem now is that I stumbled across a document on the internet the other day and it turns out the council,scottish water and a few other bodies that have been set up to spend 50million+ getting the sewage in glasgow right over the coming years, have been using more than 6 shots in quite a few mass produced leaflets and 24 page documents,8 page docs and umpteen files on internet and also added words to my pics ,I have never gave them permission to use these ,Scottish water is wanting to discuss terms now that I informed them,but I dont know how to rate what they should be paying me because as yet i dont know 1,where they got them. 2,to what extent they have been using them 3,should I be asking for extra compensation as they have been using them illegally 4,I cant give exclusivity as it seem a few gov bodies have these,I even discovered a foriegn document that was using a pic,
thanx Davie
If you want to push for compensation it really sounds like you should seek legal advice on this matter.
Indeed.
Giving general comments here on a website is all very well, but there are a lot of specifics involved in this, David. I really would advise that you see a solicitor if you aren’t confident setting out your terms.
In general, though, you should be looking for compensation for all the unauthorised uses, but be sure to check the terms on which you sold them to the local paper, in case you gave more rights to them than you thought you had.
Compensation should reflect what you would have been paid in use royalties had they sought your consent to use the images in the first place. Punitive damages – i.e. damages intended to punish the infringer rather than simply compensate the copyright owner, cannot be claimed under UK copyright law.
I recently enagage a photographer for my bb shooting and he didnt mention about to use the photo for marketing purspose. I didnt sign up or agree anything. he then insist he has the right for the photo, does he has the right to publish the image without the parents consent?
Hi,
Well, he does have the copyright in the photo but this does not necessarily mean he has the right to use it as he wishes. If his general terms and conditions didn’t retain the right to use the photo for, say, marketing purposes, then s.85 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that a person who commissions a photograph or film for private purposes has the right not to have that work exhibited or shown in public, or communicated to the public or issued to the public. There are some exceptions but none of those would apply here.
If the photographer’s terms and conditions stipulate that he can use the photos for marketing, or whatever, then he may have the right if you are bound by those terms and conditions. Depending on the circumstances, you may be deemed to be bound by contractual terms and conditions even if you didn’t actually read them, provided their existence was adequately brought to your attention.
Hi Linda,
Many thanks for all these useful info you are sharing . My question is this: I was photographed (together with my partner) during my convocation ceremony by a school-hired photographer without explicitly asking for that. Recently, I saw a Newspaper advert in an international Newspaper in another country advertising the school and seeking for prospective international students to come for interview at an appointed date and venue, with my picture(showing me with my partner) used boldly for the advert without my consent. Is this right please? i was really shocked to see this! Thank you.
Hi Ogo,
As with many of these situations, much depends on the circumstances. Being photographed at a convocation ceremony would not generally be regarded as an infringement of any rights of privacy, since a person would not generally have any expectation of privacy at such an event. If the images were then used for journalistic purposes (news reporting), for example, there would not be an infringement of your rights. Also, though this may not apply in your case, it isn’t uncommon for the informational materials issued for events like convocation ceremonies to state that photos or videos might be taken and that these might be used by the school for publicity purposes – attending the ceremony may then be taken as an implied agreement to this.
Outside of this, the Committee of Advertising Practice Code states that express written consent should be sought before depicting individuals in advertising and marketing materials, though this is not an absolute rule, if the advertising portrays nothing that is contrary to the person’s views or position it may be permissible without consent. A further problem here is that the Code is not legally enforceable and it is enforced by sanctions – e.g. publications refusing further advertising from that advertiser. Since the advertisement in question appeared in an overseas publication, the British Code could not be effective, and you would need to discover what rules govern the use of images in advertising in the country concerned.
My girlfriend and I recently did a photoshoot in a private club, to help an ex-friend of ours who is a professional photographer. We did it for free, no money changed hands, no contract or anything. It was purely on the understanding that we could have unrestricted copies of all the photos of us. after the shoot he refused to give us any photos and told us they were his property and he owned the copyright and he was able to do whatever he wanted with them. this is quite distressing because most of them are pretty raunchy. he has started to display them on at least 2 websites. he has since after several months given us some, but they have so many restrictions on them we cannot use them. any ideas where we stand legally please.
Steve, it’s a little difficult to be precise without knowing more details, but I will make some general points, at least.
First, the photographer is correct that he owns the copyright in the images unless there is an agreement to the contrary.To a degree, this does mean he can do what he likes with them, unless you had an agreement with him that restricted what he could use them for. (Though the market for non-model released photographs of people is not exactly vast.) And there may be issues under the Data Protection Act, where the images are used on a website.
When you say you did the shoot “on the understanding” that you could have unrestricted use of copies of all the photos, did the photographer expressly say this? Because when you say there was “no contract”, if you, your girlfriend and the photographer verbally agreed that you and your girlfriend would model for the shoot and the photographer would give you a copy of all the images, with unrestricted use rights, then you effectively have a contract, though proving the terms of it might be more difficult than if you had a written agreement in which the terms were clearly set out.
So your legal position really depends on what was actually said by both sides. This applies to both your rights to copies of the photos and the scope of his right to use them. You said that you did the shoot to “help” the photographer, so I am assuming that something was said at some point regarding the photographer’s intended use of the photos?
Hello Linda. My local pub landlady asked me if I would be prepared to pose for a charity naked male calendar, nothing shown of course, I agreed. but next thing is a young female customer, lets call her Amy, has got herself involved with organising , a professional photographer, a friend of hers and turning up on the day of the shoot and organising who does what and where. As the photographer was setting things up some full frontals were taken. A great show was put on by Amy about averting her eyes or running outside when the order to drop them was given When I phoned the landlady to find out when we were going to decide which photographs were going to be used for the calendar, I was informed that Amy was going to decide. The photographer has sent all the photos, full frontals included to Amy, so much for the big show when the photos were taken. I consider the photo’s should have gone to the person paying for them, who most certainly was not Amy, and wonder if the photographer has breached the privacy act by sending them to someone like Amy as I wouldn’t be suprised if she was showing them to all her friends. Can you advise please
Hello Leslie,
As with Steve’s question above, it’s really quite difficult to answer this without knowing who said what and to whom, as it were. Particularly so in a situation like this, where a project ends up being organised by a kind of informal committee, and not only is nothing committed to writing but often not even set out verbally in express terms. If organising the photography was more or less informally delegated to “Amy”, and she was in any case present at the shoot, with the knowledge (and thus implied consent) of the participants, then it is unlikely that sending the photos to her would be construed as a breach of anyone’s right to privacy. (Note that we do not have a Privacy Act, it is Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights which provides a qualified right to privacy, and which the courts are obliged to take account of in legal proceedings. The actual basis of any such legal proceedings in circumstances like these would be a common law action for breach of confidence.)
However, as you clearly agreed to pose for the purposes of a charity calendar, if the photographs were used or published, without your consent, in another context, then you would have the foundations for an action of breach of confidence. The same would apply if the full-frontal shots were used without your consent in the calendar when it was agreed that only non-explicit images would be used.
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions.
The copyright law would appear to be fairly complex and too much for an ordinary lay person to understand. I think the best thing I can do is let my solicitor know all the details and see what he has to say.
It rattles me that the people who posed for this calendar have no chance of seeing all the photographs but this girl has them all on her PC, leaving all the posers vulnerable. As I have said, she could be selling copies of them to gay magazines, showing them to all her friends or even use them for blackmail if the situation should arise.
The copyright law is actually pretty straightforward. Unless there has been some agreement to the contrary, the photographer owns the copyright in the images he takes. However, owning the copyright does not necessarily mean that the images can be used in any way he or anyone else wishes.
Do you have some reason to believe that “Amy” having the photographs on her computer renders you and the other subjects more vulnerable to the misuse of the images than if anyone else held them? The photographer, for example, clearly has copies. If the charity calendar was a joint collaboration, and some of the other people who posed are equally uncomfortable, it might be worthwhile attempting to resolve the issue by means of a mutual discussion involving all the participants.
Hi Linda
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to answer so many questions on this subject.
I was wondering what the position was specifically to leisure centres? I have recently been informed that a release form is required to shoot sports in the indoor sports hall by my local centre’s management. This particular centre is classified as a social enterprise: privately owned but with a commitment to maintaining public facilities/upholding the image/values of the local council.
My question is does this fall under public property (as it is a public facility) or private (as it is not run directly by the local council) and how does it affect the photographers standpoint accordingly?
Many thanks in advance.
Hi Stephen,
There isn’t a specific law relating particularly to leisure centres, but many sports facilities, leisure centres and the like have introduced prohibitions or restrictions on photography, probably owing to a mixture of privacy and child protection concerns.
There also isn’t any all-encompassing legal definition of a “public place”. Some criminal law statutes define a public place as anywhere to which the public have access – this would apply, for example, to the offence of carrying a knife in public (Criminal Justice Act 1988). That doesn’t mean that some of those places wouldn’t be private property, to which the owner would be entitled to refuse admission, and in which they could ban photography. And a lot of public buildings have a photography ban for one reason or another.
For the purposes of having the right to take a photograph, a public place basically means the public highway, and not even there if you were causing an obstruction or other safety hazard.
Hi Simon & Linda,
Many thanks for the very informative responses you have given to peoples queries on this site.
I would like to know if you are planning on updating the UK Photographers Rights Guide in light of the changes that have come about following the suspension of some of the Police’s powers under s44 of the Terrorism Act?
I look forward to reading more comments and advice.
Ed
Hi Ed,
As you are obviously aware, but for the benefit of anyone who is not, in July 2010 police powers to stop and search individuals under s.44 were suspended, and in March this year we got the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial Order) 2011 which effectively repealed ss.44-47(g), but replaced them with s.47A. This effectively brings back stop and search, but with the restriction that the police officer concerned now needs to reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place. The search must only be for the purposes of discovering any article that might constitute evidence that the person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, but the police officer need not reasonably suspect that any such article will be found.
I will update the Terrorism Act information in the Guide to reflect this as soon as I can.
I was given permission to take photographs in a public dance performance. I have since put some of these on my website as samples of my work and also for sale in different print sizes. One of the choreographers from the different dance companies has asked me to take them off my site because she feels they don’t represent her company in the best light. I am open to discussing her concerns but at the end of the day I believe it is my right to display and sell these. Am I correct?
Hi Brian,
Yes, you probably do have the right. Although Performance rights give performers a right akin to copyright in their performance, and this includes a reproduction right, the right is infringed only if the whole or a substantial part of the performance is reproduced/recorded. “Substantial part” is judged qualitatively rather than by the quantitative extent of the original performance that was recorded, so it may depend on how many photographs you took and how much of the performance they show. It is unlikely that a few still photographs would infringe the right. There are also moral rights in performances which include the right to object to derogatory treatment of a performance. So if the photos that are objected to represent a distortion of the performance as a whole, or prejudicial to the reputation of the performer, then the choreographer may have some rights. Note that the intention to exercise moral rights must be asserted – i.e. notice must be given, generally in writing.
Hi Linda,
Firstly i’d just like to say that the advice you give on this site is greatly appreciated.
My question to you is as follows.. I am a photographer looking into providing content to a few adult content providers. All of which refer to “Title 18 USC 2257″ which require me to be the “custodian of records” and also to provide a valid address for my “custodial records”. (The 2257 law is simply copied documentation requirements for proof of age). I am based in the UK and my photography is a hobby which is possibly turning into a business, so as yet i have no registered business at a specific address.
What is the ‘valid address for my custodial records’? Would this simply be a registered business address, or is this some legal thing that i am unaware of?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Michael,
Your own address will be fine (though, ahem, if you are providing content for money then you should probably be registered with the Inland Revenue, in which case your address would be a registered business address anyway).
Technically, 2257 and its accompanying regulations (28 CFR 75) have no application in the UK and could not be enforced here. However, if the adult content providers are US based, then they must be able to show compliance with 2257 and this means they must seek compliance from those providing content to them. The photographers and videographers who create the content have to be custodians of records because they would generally be the only people who could check that a model/performer was of legal age prior to creating the content, and obtain copies of the relevant documents.
As for the address, they simply need the address at which the records are kept, so that the records can be called for if a query was raised with reference to the model/performer’s age.
Hello Linda
Further to my previous questions about the “naked calendar” .
The photographs have now been chosen for the charity calendar and we are now awaiting the proof copy. Although the photographer has copyright on these photographs, they were taken solely for this calendar. Would I be in my rights to now ask him to delete all photographs with me on them which would no doubt cover Amy and have her delete the same photographs.
Apparently he cannot use these photographs for promotion or publicity without my written permission so they are no good to him anyway.
Les
Hi Leslie,
You can certainly ask the photographer if he will delete the photographs, and if they were taken solely for the purposes of the calendar then he may well be willing to comply. I’m afraid you don’t have the right to demand that he delete them, since legally he owns them, even if he cannot use them for any other purpose.
In all honesty, it is pretty much impossible for the photographer to prove that he has deleted them anyway, since he could not possibly prove that he didn’t have copies. You would pretty much have to rely on his good faith, just as you are similarly reliant on his good faith now that he will not publish them anywhere.
do photographers have the right to sell on your photos to companies for use on packaging of their products?
wouldn’t you as the individual be entitled to some compensation
Can you give me some more information, Luke? It rather depends on the context in which the photos were taken, what was agreed between the photographer and the person in the photo and whether the person in the photo is the subject of the photo or is just incidental to it.
Hi Linda & Simon,
Firstly thanks so much for this brilliant resource of information about photographers rights in the UK and the responses you’ve given individual questions. Its much appreciated! I’m a pro photographer and you’ve helped me a lot with this info.
I’ve read down all the questions and answers however the question I want to ask hasn’t been asked before. I watched a video on YouTube where a person was filming on a plane of a UK airline. They filmed a guy getting arrested and the flight attendants told the guy he had to stop taking photographs. Even though the plane is full of members of the public could the plane be classified as private property and therefore the owner (or their representatives) have the right to ask you stop photographing on it? Would they legally be able to remove you if you didn’t comply? I guess it could also be argued that there are similarities to that of a concert where people are not able to take photos however wouldn’t that need to be stipulated before the person buys the ticket and therefore accepts those conditions at that time. Since I’ve never seen on any airplane any restrictions in the use of photography on the plane, I would think that it would be hard for the airline to enforce. This maybe too detailed and I apologise if its not appropriate for here. Just wanted to know as I love photographing on planes and wondered about this specific instance.
Thanks
Hi James,
The plane is most definitely private property and to that extent the owners (or their representatives, in this instance the cabin crew) would have the right to dictate acceptable conduct for those aboard the plane. As to whether a prohibition on photography would need to be stipulated in advance, it could be argued that your contract with the airline is a contract for travel, and not one for filming or photographing on the plane, and that whether other conduct is permissible on the plane is at the discretion of the cabin crew – i.e. they would have the right to stop you, if they wished, since filming or photographing on the plane is not what you contracted for.
In reality, the terms and conditions of most airlines would cover this. Most airlines have a contractual condition which allows the crew to prevent or limit the use of electronic equipment. In addition, most airlines have a contractual condition under which the crew can take whatever measures they deem necessary to prevent the continuation of conduct that they reasonably believe may cause discomfort or inconvenience to any passenger or crew member. This doesn’t amount to an outright ban on photography, obviously, but it does give the crew considerable discretion to prevent it if they felt it was inconveniencing other passengers/crew – there might thereby be a difference in their reaction depending on whether the photographer was taking photographs of scenes outside the plane, or taking photographs of the interior, and hence other passengers.
Airline tickets would not generally have the full list of terms printed on the ticket, but tickets are sold subject to standard terms and conditions that are accessible to the customer. There is a lot of case law specifically dealing with the importation of standard terms and conditions into travel contracts and it would take a very lengthy post here to deal with the details of those case; in general, however, passengers would be regarded as bound by the terms, even if they had not read them, so long as the existence of the terms was brought to the ticket purchaser’s attention, e.g. by a notice printed on the ticket, or on the website where the tickets were purchased.
Thanks for the detailed and quick response Linda, I appreciate it. Yes, I guess even though the photographer in this case wasn’t disturbing other passengers the flight attendant didn’t want any potentially reputation damaging footage to be taken. (The guy getting arrested and being filmed had tried to open the door of the plane whilst in flight and it was a struggle getting him hand cuffed and off the plane). Thanks for enlightening me about the terms and conditions.
I am wondering if there are any particular Law firms or Solicitors who deal specifically with Photographers and assaults from the Police?
I’ll divulge my story.
On Sunday evening last (27th Nov 2011) I had spent all day at a local Christmas event photographing actors and the event and a little bit of landscaping in between.
When I left I decided to go to my local for a drink and to view the Photo’s of that day.
I left around 2115hrs and had all of my camera gear with me, including a rather large bag with lenses and tripod, I was even wearing a black puffer jacket, with the word “PHOTOGRAPHER” embroidered on the front, and even bigger on the back, I bought it so I could point to the word “PHOTOGRAPHER” when approached by excitable security or Police and simply say, ‘it says photographer, not terrorist’.
Anyhow on turning into my road, there was an Ambulance and one Police car parked behind it at an address known locally as a ‘half way house’ for teenagers, so thinking it might be of news worthy interest, and wanting to further increase my experience of night photography with fluorescent vehicles, I took off my bag, took out my DSLR and took two very very poor shots of the somewhat, growing incident.
There were now three Police cars and a Van that had arrived at the scene, so by now I definitely believed it was of some interest for the local paper, who have published a number of my photo’s previously.
I was approached by two Policemen who demanded to know who I was and why was I taking pictures of Police vehicles, which I wasn’t!
Before I could formulate an answer, one of them mentioned ‘suspicious’ and ‘terrorist’ which got the other excited, and when I told them I did not consent to give them my name or address because I had committed no crime, this simply excited them more, and then one of them said they were going to search me, I asked under what Law they were going to do so, to which they replied under s.44 of the Anti Terror Act, I smiled and pulled out my video camera to film the search, which had them practically foaming at the mouth, and I was then told that “Right now you are being detained for the purposes of a search therefore you have no right to film us” and I was placed in Handcuffs.
One searched me, whilst the other searched my camera bag, and viewed the images on the camera that I had been using all day, even then it would have been crystal clear to him, that any images I had taken of Police vehicles (2) for any terrorist related act, were rubbish and were of no use to anyone.
I maintained my refusal to consent, withholding my name and address, obviously on searching my wallet which had my bank card in it, they had my name.
They would also have been able to view my registered ‘disabled’ card along with another card, which informs others that “I am a brain injury survivor and that I may have problems with my speech actions or memory and to please be patient!.
Before I was allowed on my way due to the lack of any terrorist related material, one of them politely informed me that I would be unable to make any complaint as I had not co-operated with them and provided my details, I retorted ‘really?’ and with a friendly wave walked the 100 yards to my front door.
So far I have made a complaint to my Local MP, still yet to reply, and the Professional Standards Department for Hants Police, again waiting for a reply.
Other sites have said that s.44 of the terror act is suspended?
Therefore the act of handcuffing and searching me is unlawful, and that it is in reality an act of assault on their part, unlawful detention and unlawful search?
I’m not interested in compensation, I just want to make enough noise to get this back in the press and in the Commons for yet another debate.
I would like your valued advice and any other comments that others may have as to the best way forward? Thank you once again in advance for your time.
@ Leon,
Hi Leon – I’ve just been reading all of these comments with interest as (With a big thanks to) Linda’s responses are very informative and useful as a hobbyist photographer. Now, I’ve just read your comment and have noted that a recent article has been published via Amateur Photographer magazine of which may be quite helpful to you? They have offered a downloadable pdf of a credit card of your and the police officer rights in regards to photography which has in particular one rule about searches and another of photographing front line officers. Now, I’m not sure weather linking is allowed, but as I’m not sure if the article will be published for much longer I feel it right to offer it here to you.
It may be also handy to you (Linda) so that maybe this could be shared vis this site? I’m not sure, but no harm or business plugging is intended!
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/uk_photographers_rights__print_them_out_and_keep_them_handy_news_300122.html
Best regards,
Sam
The card is a useful reminder, Sam, of the guidance that is supposed to be given to police personnel regarding photographers and photography. (I don’t think it goes so far as to set out the legal rights of photographers and the rights of the police, which are rather more detailed than that, but in fairness Amateur Photographer is not claming that it does, and to do so would need a lot more space than a credit card sized document, or even the A4 size pdf on here.) It’s still a handy thing to carry though.
Leon, s.44 was suspended in 2010 after a decision by the European Court of Human Rights. Stop and Search was brought back in a more restricted form in March this year with the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial Order) 2011. This repealed ss.44-47(g) of the 2000 Act, but replaced them with s.47A. Under 47A the police officer concerned now needs to reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place. The search must only be for the purposes of discovering any article that might constitute evidence that the person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, but the police officer need not reasonably suspect that any such article will be found.
There still needs to be an authorisation in place in the area before police can stop and search under the Terrorism Act, and the circumstances in which these are issued is also more restricted than before.
I can’t give any recommendations as to a solicitor since I have no idea where you are located and I would be disinclined to name anyone on an open forum like this. But, coming back to Amateur Photographer magazine: they have been gathering reports of incidents like these for some years now, and would probably be interested in hearing about yours. You could also try taking your story to your local press. If they print it, it may be taken up by the nationals.
Thank you Linda,
I have had a positive response from my local MP and he has instructed the chief constable for Hampshire to provide me with an apology and compensation regarding the unlawful detention and stop & search.
I will get onto my local press today.
But thank you once again and for the link added by Sam which I have printed off more for their education rather than my own as I am very confident in my rights now.
@Leon,
Good that you’ve had a positive response.
It might also be worth getting on to Mark @ SceneThat.co.uk (he also posts on the Amateur Photographer forum under the username “Mark”), who is interested in cases like these, and helping to prevent them. In his own words, “All I would do is to urge anyone who experiences anything .. to report it, as soon as possible after the event, to SceneThat or to AP. Either of us (or both of us) are then able to follow up as appropriate. At the very least, we are able to record a contemporary account of ‘the incident’ which can then be used in our regular contacts with the Police / Home Office / Dept. of Justice / etc. At best, both groups have had significant success in escalating the issues, obtaining apologies, changing policies and influencing future direction.”
Not sure if that’s of help/interest …
Yes thank you, have been in touch with Mark and sent him all the relevant info, had a reply from the PSD today stating that they have recorded my concerns as a complaint against the officers concerned, and giving the usual spiel about the IPCC etc.
Further to my previous questions about the “Naked Calendar”. The photographer, who has copyright, has now published some of these pictures on his website. I have telephoned him and asked him to take the photographs, with me on them, off the site but he has informed me that “I have copyright on those photographs and I can do what I want with them” I informed him that he needed written permission from the people on the pictures and he told me that he only needed the permission of Amy who had booked him. I told him that he had been booked by the pub but he said “no I was booked by Amy and I refuse to continue this conversation” and he then put the phone down. As far as I can fathom it out, he is not allowed to use the photographs for promotion or publicity without the written consent of the people on them. Can you let me know if I am correct in my assumption please
Hello Leslie,
The CAP Code that applies to non-broadcast advertising urges marketers not to portray indentifiable people or their possessions in marketing or publicity material without their written permission, though the Code is a Code of Practice rather than law and the sanctions for breach are extra-legal. There may, however, also be data protection issues where personal data collected for one purpose is used for another. Though it may be viewed that consent to publication would also cover publication on the web site, web publication can be problematic for data protection as a website is generally viewable throughout the world. The Office of the Information Commissioner is responsible for dealing with breaches or possible breaches of data protection law and can contact the Office or make a complaint via their online form.
Hi
A few years ago I did a stint of concert photography … some in small venues such as pubs and clubs, others at larger venues. Some of the bands were quite famous (in their day), and others were not … but they all performed the genre of music.
I never ever sought permission, but also never saw any restrictions on tickets or booking forms (I did check). Security guards, performers and organisers often saw my equipment (pro grade) and most of the time I confidently blagged my way into some key positions … including up on the stage at some gigs!
So, no permit, no release forms … just a big camera, a smile and plenty of cheek! On the larger gigs I never went in the photographer’s pit and was never given a “two song rule” as I was never there professionally.
Anyway, I now want to exhibit the photos (as opposed to publish in the press). But are there restrictions and will I be allowed to sell prints (as artwork)?
From what I read, it seems that in some (only some) cases I unknowingly broke committed trespass, but would a music promoter/band/label really have any case against me – and if so, what?
Thank you
Hello Paul,
If you were at a venue where entry was by ticket, and there were terms and conditions restricting photography, you could be sued for breach of contract, and even where there were no such terms and conditions, if you were found to have been trespassing then you could be sued for trespass.
However, copyright in the photos you took will belong to you, even if you were trespassing when you took them.
Hi again and thank you for your reply.
Well, I’m pretty sure that the only time I saw any clause relating to photography printed on a ticket was at a rock festival … so I think I’ll skip those photos, but all the other times there was nothing clearly visible anywhere.
At one event, “Madstock” in Victoria Park, London … I was told by a security guard that “you’ve had your two songs” and “stop or I’ll confiscate your gear” even though I was in the audience and not the pit … but again, there was nothing on the ticket (wristband), I saw no contract and even had my bag searched on entry and they saw my gear. Nothing indicated a photography ban, but the security guard saw my gear and assumed I was there for professional reasons and thought it was his job to threaten me with “confiscation”.
But generally speaking I don’t think I ever trespassed as such … I mean, I paid for tickets where needed, walked in without hiding equipment and in most cases pretty much had free reign of the venues.
Even ordering online tickets don’t seem to state any rules about photography – not even in the website terms and conditions.
Another question … if a gig is in a normally public place, such as a park, and it gets used for a one off festival (such as madstock), does the place get reclassified as “private” for the duration of the gig?
Again, thank you.
I have just recently found a website similar to google maps, that takes photos of streets and publishes them on the Internet as a street view. They have taken a close up picture of my street and my car registration number plate, make and model of my car is in clear view. Can they do this without my permission? I have asked the, to blur out my number plate but they have refused.
Do this company not have a duty and responsibility to blur out number plates, and protect my identity? Also, can they use my car and property on a website without my permission?
Hi Laura,
Car number plates and building exteriors would not be regarded as personal data in themsleves, though they may become personal data if they can be matched up to other information to identify a person. (Hence privacy issues surrounding number plate cameras used by the authorities, as these images can be matched to information held on databases by the DVLA, etc.
However, the Information Commissioner had grave concerns about the privacy implication of Google Street View when it first went live in the UK and these concerns were satisfied when Google agreed to blur faces and number plates, and to remove images of property when requested. If you are concerned about the activities of this website, it would be a good idea to contact the Information Commisioner’s Office: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 69 trackbacks }