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
{ 1087 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Linda, you continue to give outstanding advice and support on matters which affect us all, and I’m so grateful for your help. Last year you clarified the matter of publishing client images on professional photography websites, and the message I gained was that given a professional photographer’s website is a commercial endeavour the client must consent to publication of their likeness (when the images have been commissioned for private/domestic purposes) – and a clause regarding such consents is of course built into most portrait and wedding photographers’ Terms and conditions, as is the case with me. My question is this: whilst I appreciate that under a particular clause of the Copyright Act, a client has the right to request that images of them are not published where the images have been commissioned as stated, when the client has agreed to the photographer’s Terms (containing such a Release) does such a contract bind the client, or do they still have the right “after the fact” to ask that images are not used for promotional purposes?
Where the shoot has been conducted for the purpose of building a portfolio of a new genre, and fees have been waived as part of the arrangement, it can be irritating if such a client should decide they do not want photographs of themselves on a public website. Could you tell me where the photographer stands please? May I also ask if a signature is necessary (difficult when so much business is conducted over the Internet) because generally when I send my Conditions to a client via e-mail I clearly inform them that should they proceed and make a booking it is considered they have read and agreed to the attached Terms.
May I say that I am mindful of clients’ feelings and would always remove images if asked, however it would nevertheless be extremely helpful to at least know what the actual legal position is. If you could clarify that Linda I would be most grateful.
Hi Lin,
Your query hints at two separate issues, really. There is the copyright issue (or, more accurately, the issue of moral rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act) which provides that, in respect of photographs commissioned for private purposes, a copyright holder who wishes to publish them needs the consent of the person who commissioned the photos.
There are further issues of data protection, and also the possible application of the Committee of Advertising Practice Code, where images of individuals are used for promotional purposes.
But where a release for publication and/or use, limited or otherwise, is contained in the photographers terms and conditions, and the client is aware of the existence of the terms (whether he/she actually reads them or not), then the client is bound by the terms they have agreed to. They form part of the contract between the client and the photographer. So the client could not demand, after the fact, that the images couldn’t be used for those purposes. (Exceptions would arise if there had been misrepresentation, or fraud, or undue influence, all of which are very unlikely in the circumstances you describe, and which in any case would affect the contract as a whole.)
A signature is not legally required for most contracts, including one of this nature. The e-mail you describe is sufficient, it makes clear that any contract will be on the attached terms and conditions. Web bookings can be similarly handled by having the usual check box with “I have read and agree to the terms and conditions” with a link to said terms and conditions. Whether the client actually reads them before agreeing to them is up to him, he will be bound to them if he signifies his agreement to them.
Obviously, from a business perspective, it is often more beneficial to comply with the client’s request, especially if there has been change of circumstances that might make the publication of the images difficult for the client. But this would be a decision based on goodwill rather than a legal requirement.
Linda I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate your help on this matter and others – I know I speak for every reader. Thank you very much indeed for your response, I am most grateful. Kindest regards, Lin.
Thanks, Linda, for illuminating what is to many of us a grey area. I am a former press photographer, now retired, and I’m working on a personal project that involves candid photographs of people taken in public places that I plan to incorporate into a collage, which might end up in a gallery if I’m lucky. Does this constitute “publication”? And, if so, have I upset anyone’s right to privacy? The pictures would not be demeaning, but the people in them would be recognisable.
Hi Michael,
Infringement of the right to privacy? Probably not, if the people involved are in a public place and not engaged in an activity of an essentially private nature. I say “probably” because it’s a little hard to predict the future of privacy law after Murray v Big Pictures (the case involving images that included J K Rowling’s son) and also various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. But, as things stand, this would not infringe the right to privacy. And the Data Protection Act has an exception for the processing of personal data (including images) where this is necessary for artistic purposes.
I’m very grateful to have that issue clarified. Now I feel I can pick up the project again. Thank you.
Would this status change however if Michael’s work was to be brought by a private collector?
In what respect, Hannah? The Data Protection status would not change, insofar as if the processing of personal data fell within the “special purposes” exemption, it would remain within the exemption even if the work was sold.
As I said, privacy law is a difficult one to predict because it is continually developing. But if the right to privacy was not infringed by the display of the work in a gallery, then it would not be infringed by the sale of the work to a collector. The UK courts have so far based findings of infringement of the right to privacy on the publication of an image, not on the taking of it. The exhibition of the work is arguably a wider publication than the work would have in the hands of a collector. The factor of there being a commercial sale of the work, or that the photographer profited from it, is not particularly an issue here. Privacy actions in the UK are brought on the basis of an action for breach of confidence.
I have recently been harassed by a group of teens gathering outside the house. So have decided to take pictures to gather evidence for the next stage. ( police will not do anything unless i have proof, contacted previously). Next thing i have police round, telling me can’t take pictures of children and have taken the film for destruction. how the hell can i gather evidence. made me feel dirty and like a criminal. i’m a victim, don’t know if i should follow it up to find out what’s gone on record as i’ve been CRB’d for other things that i do in the community.
Hello Paul,
If the police told you that it was illegal to take pictures of children then they were wrong. It is true that taking photos of children might put one under suspicion and possibly investigation, depending on the circumstances, but it is not a crime per se to take photographs of children. Nor do the police have the right to take your film for destruction, just as they cannot demand that you delete digital images. Either the film provides evidence of some offence on your part, in which case it should not be destroyed, or it does not, in which case it should not have been taken. Destruction (or deletion)requires a court order.
I work as an art photographer, mainly landscapes and abstracts and sell my work in the form of prints and cards. About 15 years ago I took a couple of photographs of a Highland Estate from a public road. Part of the estate owners home is visible as in this shot -
http://www.gordon-c-harrison.co.uk/product/m00769_flowerdale_in_autumn/
The owner of the estate phoned to ask me to stop selling the images on the grounds of privacy. He actually volunteered the opinion that I was legally entitled to sell the photographs but asked me nonetheless to stop doing so.
What is the law with regard to this? If I had been on a commercial shoot where the photographs were to be used to advertise or promote something then maybe the would have the law on his side? But I work as an artist, not as a commercial photographer, and simply sell artworks as prints and cards.
Hello Gordon,
Though other jurisdictions very in their laws relating to this, at present in the UK a person does not have image rights in his property. It could be an infringement of a person’s right to privacy if you were taking photos through a window, for example, but a photograph of a building, taken from a public place, in such a manner as the photograph you have linked to, will not be an infringment (not yet, anyway!). There could be potential legal problems if, as you say, the images were to be used for advertising or promotional purposes (such images would probably also fall foul of the CAP Code in those circumstances).
If publication of an image that includes a person’s property were actionable, Google Street View could not operate in the UK. Hence, the landowner is correct that you are legally entitled to sell the photographs. Whether you choose to comply with his request as a courtesy is up to you.
Hello Linda,
Thank you for that very helpful response, and for the generous giving of your time and expertise in this column, hugely appreciated.
Linda,
Please can you give me clarification on what RF photos from sites such as iStockphoto really mean? Does it mean that I can reprocess, reprint and resell the photo many times? Also I have a friend who would sell me his photos direct but is unsure what a RF contract would entail. Can you help?
thanks,
Phil.
Any stock site has it’s own license agreement. For iStockphoto please read this page http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
A Simon has pointed out, it depends on the terms of the royalty-free licence; these differ from one site to another. The concept of royalty-free is that a single licence fee gives you the right to use the image (or whatever) with no further royalties payable for future use. But the licence can restrict the actual use – making and selling prints of the image is not permitted under the royalty-free licences with which I am familiar. Printing the image onto items for sale, such as post cards or t-shirts, usually isn’t allowed either. But, in short, it depends very much on the individual licence.
Dear Linda
I would like some advice with regards to Model Release.
An ex partner has set up his own website promoting his photography services. During my 4 year relationship with him, he took some Portrait photos (all above board!) whilst he was practicing and learning. I asked that he keep these photos private and not put them on any website, and he agreed saying they were personal photos.
I’ve seen recently that he is using these photos on his website where people can print them off to keep, and possibly purchase (but not quite sure). My face appears everywhere on his website promoting his services and portfolio. He has never asked for my permission to use them on a public domain, promoting his business.
I have contacted him several times asking that he remove them and he is ignoring all my requests. Do I have any rights over these images given I didn’t sign any ‘model release’ or give permission? I do not wish to be associated with him or his services.
I would appreciate any advice.
Thank you.
Hi Zenia,
A model release is not always necessary before an image of a person can be used, it depends on the circumstances in which it was taken and the use to which it is being put. The photographer has copyright in the image, but there can be potential data protection issues and privacy issues in publishing photographs of people, and, as I have said many times, there are still a lot of grey areas to this aspect of the law – i.e. it is an aspect of the law that is still being developed by the courts.
It is quite difficult to comment on your exact circumstances without considerably more detail. However, in simple terms, the photographs were takn in a private setting and it was agreed between you that they would not be published. This would appear to be a breach of confidence and of your right of privacy under Article 8 of the HUman Rights Act. If he is using them for advertising or marketing, he would also appear to be in breach of the CAP Code on non-broadcast advertising.
Zenia, you would need to consult a solicitor if you wanted to bring a legal action based on your rights under the Human Rights Act. In the first instance, you could try contacting the ISP that hosts the web site and explaining the situation to them. Images of people are, in many circumstances, regarded as personal data under the Data Protection Act. This is not inevibaly so and there are exceptions to the Act the scope of which have not been fully determined by the courts. But, bearing that in mind, you could make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office: http://www.ico.gov.uk
Hey,
I’m hoping some one can help me. Citizen’s Advice and The Copyright Licensing Agency didn’t seem to hold much useful information and when I emailed “Anti Copying in Design” they never got back to me, so I’d be very grateful if anyone could shed some light on what my rights are in this situation.
Back in 2007 a French band called emailed me asking to use a photograph I had taken on a random self portrait shoot, for their album cover. I agreed to let them use it but so long as these conditions were met:
>1) I am clearly credited for the photography on the album/CD cover
>somewhere with
>“© Photography by L.J.Hooper at {email removed}”
>
>2) That you do not edit the image apart from putting a title or writing
>over it.
>
>3) The picture is only used by you and the band and it is not sold to
>anyone else
>
>4) I keep the rights to the image
>
>5) Please send me a copy of the final CD!
These conditions they agreed to, however I later found that they had altered the image by changing the colour of section of it. I mentioned this to them and they apologised and we left it at that and exchanged a few emails regarding the progress of the album. I have also never received a copy of the CD to check if I have been properly credited – my name is most definitely not mentioned anywhere on their website.
They contacted me again in 2009 to ask if they could call me in regards to the rights of the image. I agreed and we spoke over the phone, however being young and naive at the time, I did not make any notes as to what was agreed about the image, nor can I remember what was said. I know I would never agree to let my image be altered, nor would I give full copyright away.
I have revisited this band’s website in the last couple of months to find that they have altered my image by taking the main silhouette of the figure in my photograph, (which is me as it is a self portrait) and put it on to their new album cover, posters and leaflets and also, much to my outrage, on their band merchandise (t-shirts, badges, pants!)
I did not agree to any of this and am quite angry that I was not contacted or asked about this before hand, and there is no credit given to me still on their website.
I would like to know what my rights as the image creator are and would any verbal agreement I previously made with the band become a problem
(considering I can’t remember what was agreed over the phone) if I want to ask them to remove the image/pay me/should I be receiving royalties for the use of my image (particularly on their merchandise!)
I would appreciate any and all help you can give on this matter. Do I have a leg to stand on? I haven’t emailed them as I just can’t clarify what my rights are and cannot afford a lawyer.
Many thanks in advance.
Lyndsay
Hi Lyndsay,
This is a rather more difficult situation to assess than if you had discovered that the band were using your image without your propr knowledge and consent – that, of course, would clearly be copyright infringement. In this case, however, you did agree that they could use the image, subject to conditions, but you have no written record of what the conditions were, and in some instances no recollection of what was actually agreed. This does at least mean that you did not “give your copyright away”, since an assignment of copyright is required to be in writing. But the terms of what you did licence them to do with the image, while not required to be in writing, would need to be proved if you wanted to bring an action for infringement against them – something for which, frankly, you would really need a lawyer. Proving it would be difficult if it basically comes down to who said what in a phone call – it is essentially your word against theirs.
You said the initial communication was by e-mail, so if you still have copies of what was agreed in the original e-mails that would be a starting point. If the later communciation was purely by means of a phone call, it is possible/probably that they have no record of exactly what was agreed either.
Putting the image on merchandising does not necessarily infringe your initial condition that the image is only used by the band and not sold to anyone else, since this is a use by the band – they are not selling any rights to the image as such. However it does clearly infringe your condition that the image was not to be edited.
In addition, by placing a condiiton that you be identified as the creator of the image, if this is in writing (e-mail), you could be regarded as asserting your moral right to be indentified as creator under s.77 of the CDPA. Though a court would take into account that you haven’t done anything to enforce that right since 2007.
You also have the moral right to object to the derogatory treatment of your work – which includes the mutilation of a work where this is done without your consent.
If you ahve the original e-mails, and you are not able to consult a lawyer, then you could still contact the band and remind them of their obligations under what you originally agreed, in particular, the agreement not to edit the image. Well, you can remind them of that agreement even without the original e-mails, but then you are faced again with the situation that the substance of what was agreed is very much their word vs yours, and proof is difficult.
So, yes, you do have rights. Whether these can easily be enforced or not is another matter, but contacting the band in the first instane will cost nothing.
Dear Linda
Having recently become Secretary of a small shooting club I would like to put ‘head & shoulder’ photographs of existing club members, and new members to the club, on our notice board to assist in identification and allow members to get to know one another. Is this permitted or do I have to get permission from each individual to display their photographs. The club is not open to the general public. Many thanks, Iain
Iain,
Photographs with names would definitely fall to be considered as personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. If the club is a non-profit organisation and collects and retains personal data (i.e. details of members) for administration purposes then the club is unlikely to be registered on the data protection register, but it still needs to abide by the data protection principles for the processing of personal data.
For this reason, existing members should be asked for their consent – asking them to sign a brief consent form would be best. A brief consent could be incorporated into membership application forms for new members (assuming you have forms). It seems unlikely that anyone would object, to be honest, but it is the safest course of action.
Hi,
Do you know if filming rights are the same as photography rights?
Also if I was to photograph a modified car in a public place, am I then allowed to make money from the images? And do you know if I would be required by law to mask numberplates?
Thanks Jake
Hi Jake,
Yes, for the most part the rights are the same (though CCTV used for business purposes is subject to codes of practice).
The number plate issue is a bit of a grey area. A numberplate is regarded as something from which personal data can be obtained, hence the reason that Google Streetview was required to blur numberplates as well as faces to avoid falling foul of data protection law. Images sold as artistic works or for editorial use would probably be exempt from this, but it is safer and very easy to mask them.
Many stock agencies would not accept images of modified cars for sale without a property release. If you are selling, for example, prints, you would not need permission from the car owner unless the car had been modified to a degree (e.g. with artistic paintwork) that would qualify it for copyright protection as an artistic work or a work of artistic craftsmanship. Outside of the legal requirements, however, there are good ethical arguments for seeking the agreement of the owner.
Hi
Is it illegal to take a photograph of your colleagues at your place of work? The colleagues in question were actually not working at the time, but were still in the work building during work hours. Their permission was not sought when the photograph was taken. After reading through the work’s policies and other documents, I can find nothing to say whether it is legal or not.
Hi Des,
Sorry but I can’t really answer your question in simple terms without more information about the circumstances – such as who took the photograph and what for. Simply taking photos is not, in general, illegal. It depends who was taking the photographs and what they were taking them for. If this was a private photograph taken by a worker of his fellow workers, then it more an issue for the employers to deal with by means of a policy, than it is for the law. The work place is presumably private property and the employers are entitled to prevent photography there as any owner of private property is. They also have a duty to implement policies to protect the rights of their workers.
But without more information, I really cannot say. There is no general, all-encompassing right, at present, to not be photographed.
I have a long-standing issue with children kicking footballs outside my house regularly hitting my car and causing scratches and scuffs on the paintwork or landing in my garden or hitting the house. A neighbour had his windscreen broken and another his roof dented by balls being kicked high into the air and landing on his car. Requests for them to stop or move elsewhere have been met with rudeness and denials of blame. Their parents have been invisible and uninterested. The police too seem unconcerned about the nuisance caused despite the matter being reported to them. As always lack of evidence or proof is cited as a reason for inaction.
Incensed by another evening plagued by the sound and sight of balls being kicked high into the air and landing on my and neighbours’ cars, I decided to take some photos from my house of the events taking place – making sure the children could see me. Within minutes I had one of their parents hammering on my door (I didn’t answer) followed by the arrival of the police. The police officer advised me it was illegal to take photos of children in the street as it was against human rights. She asked to see the photos I had taken and the requested me to delete those which showed only children and not the car (one or two only).
Am I really a criminal?
No you are not a criminal.
It isn’t against anyone’s Human rights.
You have fallen foul of another uneducated Police enforcement officer, who cannot demand the deletion of any photographs without a court order.
I would be making a formal complaint to this force about this officers actions and remind them that it is in now way a criminal offence to take photographs in a public place, regardless whether or not the image shows children.
Hello Tim,
This is the second time in the past month that I have heard of people being told by the police that it was an infringement of someone’s human rights to take photos of someone in the street. The other instance did not, incidentally, involve children.
No, you are not a criminal, and furthermore you would not be “a criminal” even if you were infringing the human rights of the children concerned. Despite the impression that is sometimes given (not least by some police officers) it would be a civil matter – the children concerned, or more likely an adult acting on their behalf, would have to raise an action against you.
There is a perception that it is, in general, illegal to take photographs of children in a public place. This is also false. Parents and police tend to be suspicious of someone who is seen photographing or filming children because it is an activity carried on by paedophiles, and the police may sometimes subject someone discovered taking photographs of children to further investigation. But this should not happen when the reasons for taking the photographs in question are clearly for a different purpose altogether.
I hope the police officer in question “requested” that you delete the photographs and did not demand that you did so. You can choose to comply with such a request or not, and may choose to do so simply to avoid hassle, but the police do not have power to order the deletion of images – this would require a court order.
Hi Simon, I have some specific questions about a body f work I’ve created which may be a bit of a grey area. Do you have a contact email address to could get in touch with you?
Thanks!
Please use the contact form.
Hi
I have appeared in a commercial magazine riding to school with my two children through a council owned country estate. The article is about being able to continue mountain biking with a young family.
I was totally unaware that my photo was being taken, and it was only by chance that i know of the image through an acquaintance who spotted it.
The magazine said it came through an agency, and would look into it. Neither my, nor my children’s names are mentioned, nor the location, but the person who saw the picture, knew exactly where it was.
I understand that it is not illegal to take pictures of people in public, but do I have the right to ask the photographer to remove this photo from distribution and further publication? Should I have been asked permission, and can he benefit financially from this without my consent? Basically I just want to know what my rights are – I don’t like the idea that my children have been photographed, and for commercial gain, without my consent. It will also help inform me of my rights, and those of others, when taking pictures.
Many thanks
I know I keep saying that issues relating to the publication of images of people form a grey area of the law, but I’m afraid it’s true. The law relating to privacy is still developing. As it stands, however, an image used for editorial purposes, taken in a public place where there would be no expectation of privacy, and where the people concerned were not doing anything of an essentially private nature, could be published without incurring legal liability. It would probably fall within the “special purposes” exemption in the Data Protection Act and is unlikely to be regarded as a breach of the right to privacy – though I am hesitant with regard to the latter, since the Court of Appeal decided that the right to privacy of J. K. Rowling’s son had been breached by publication of an image of him and his family walking down a public street. There were, however, certain special circumstances to that case, in that the court held that the child had been targeted by photographers because of the celebrity of his mother. There is not, at present, a general restriction on publishing images that include people where these are taken in a public place. The law is different in France and Germany, and UK law may eventually develop along the same lines, but at present it is in something of a state of flux, being court developed law rather than something specifically covered by legislation. You can request that the magazine recall unsold copies, and that the photographer and the agency withdraw the image from sale. They may be willing to comply. If they are not then you could, as J.K Rowling did, fight the matter through the courts, but enforcing, or attempting to enforce, one’s privacy is something of a pastime reserved for the very wealthy, I’m afraid.
Picture agencies do not generally accept images of people unless they are model released, but images of people for editorial stock are sometimes accepted without releases.
Bex, as I understand it from what I have learned in reading these pages, we all have the right to take pictures in a public place, or in any place where photography is not prohibited. Those images can be published and sold for artistic or newsworthy purposes, and under those conditions the consent of individuals within the images is not required (if it were, our news industry would not exist). There are no separate rules for minors.
However images containing clearly recognisable individuals or property may not be used to advertise something (like a business, product, or service) without the consent of the individuals or property owners. It appears the images containing you and your family were not used in this way. But I am interested in the magazine’s statement that the image came from an agency – generally a stock agency will require a signed Release from the subject if they are clearly identifiable because such agencies often sell images on to businesses who might use them in advertising. Perhaps that is something you could clarify with the agency.
My apologies to everyone who has posted queries that I have so far not answered. I’ve been really busy over the past couple of months. I will work though the posts over the next couple of days and try to give answers where I can.
Hi Linda,
I wonder whether you can possibly offer any advice on this issue. I work in the editorial department of a commercial publishing company. Recently, my employer decided that our online publications would show photos of editorial staff. Most of us felt we were being coerced into this and a number of us had objections to this plan and indicated our views to our line managers. Our employer appears to have dropped this plan – but we fear it may be revived in the future, once the fuss has died down and memory of it has been dimmed by the passage of time. So, my question is, does our employer have the right to publish our photos alongside our names, in the “editorial credits” section of these commercial publications?
I’d be most grateful for comments you can offer on this.
Hi Harry,
Photographs of individuals, as you probably know, fall to be regarded as personal data under the Data Protection Act, and in Murray v Big Pictures the court suggested that, insofar as a photograph reveals information about the enthic origins of the subject, it constitutes sensitive personal data, the processing of which must meet at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 of the 1998 Act. For your purposes, the only condition that is likely to apply is that you have given your explicit consent. Publication on a website that is visible throughout the world also gives rise to a possible conflict with the eighth data protection principle – personal data must not be transferred to a country outside the European Economic Area unless that country ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights of data subjects in regard to the processing of their personal data. Again, this can be waived by the consent of the data subject.
So, the general rule would be that what you describe would be something that your employer does not have the right to do without your consent, and this would have to be express consent (not implied from the circumstances). However, I can’t give a definitive answer, because consent to the use of your personal data may be contained in your contract of employment. Or you may have agreed to some kind of separate data protection consent. It would depend on the wording of any consent/agreement whether the consent is broad enough to cover publication of your photograph.
Does the company also publish print publications? And do these contain photographs of editorial staff? I ask because some form of consent would (or should) have been required for this publication also.
Hi Linda. I’m due to shoot a wedding for some work colleagues in May. I’m not a professional wedding photographer, and don’t earn a living from photography, although I’m very competent in my skills. This will be my first jump onto the wedding photography ladder. My colleagues are very aware that I’m an amateur, and I am under no illusions on how difficult wedding photography can be and the equipment needed to produce professional standard images (for which I have). However, this has not deterred me from considering this as a career and have studied it considerably.
What I’d like to know is, would it be right to charge them for this (they have offered), and if so, should I draw up a wedding photography contract. Would I be doing anything illegal by taking money for providing this ‘service’ seeing as it’s not a dedicated or registered business of mine?
Many Thanks
Dale
(ps, I’ve read many many posts about pro photographers shooting down amatuer wedding ‘toggers for thinking they can compete with them, and while I’ve seen an equal amount of posts pertaining to amatuers taking up wedding photography after ‘reading a book’, I’m very aware of the skills and creativness required to make it a business….but we all begin somewhere!)
Hello Dale,
Whether it would be right to charge the couple for photographing their wedding when you haven’t done one before is entirely up to you and whether you feel your photography skills in this area are good enough. That, hahaha, is not for me to judge. As you say, every photography business has to start somewhere.
But yes, it would be perfectly legal and yes, you absolutely should draw up a contract so that everyone involves knows exactly what to expect and what is expected of you. It saves a lot of potential arguments later on.
The reason that one is legally required to register a business with HMRC is for tax purposes. You are required to do this within 3 months of commencing business. There is no other requirement to register anywhere unless you decide to carry on business as a limited company. Since this is not, at present, an actual/regular business for you, but more of a one-off, you don’t need to register with HMRC, but they will still expect you to declare any profit you make from the shoot, naturally, so they can take some of it off your hands.
I am currently looking at selling images, postcards etc in Scotland. I have taken an external shot of a railway station from the public highway can I use it or would I need to contact the relevant operator, in this case, ScotRail? And would they have the right to ban me using it commercially?
If the photograph was taken from a public highway, and the image is not being sold for a use that would imply a connection with ScotRail or be defamatory (i.e. postcards would be ok), then you don’t need permission from ScotRail. They don’t allow commercial photography without permission, but this applies to photography on their land or premises. If you are sure that you were on the public highway, then no, they can’t stop you using it, except as I described above.
Hello Linda, you sound like just the sort of helpful person who could help me find a little clarity in the muddled photography laws.
I’m attempting to organise an exhibition at an arts festival in my local town using photographs taken by a friend of mine, who passed away a couple of years ago. There are over four hundred photos and they are all close ups of eyes. I’ve trawled the internet trying to find clues about whether or not I need model release forms, and though it is possible, I don’t fancy having to chase after all those people! From what I have found, you can publish photos of people without needing a form as long as they are unrecognisible.But do these high resolution photos of eyes class as unrecognisable? I know my friend asked all of his subjects for their permission to publish these pictures before he took them, but was far to artsitic to think about signing pieces of paper. They all gave consent, with the exception of one whose image I will not publish.
Many thanks,
Hannah
Hi Hannah,
There are clearly no privacy issues here as the people involved consented to their images being taken and all but one to them being published.
Data protection laws apply to data relating to a living individual from which the individual can be identified. It is arguable whether a person could be identified from a close up of their eyes, but in any case the Act has an exemption for personal data the processing of which is necessary for one of the “special purposes”, that is, literary, artistic or journalistic purposes. The exhibition you describe would fit within that.
In addition, he did, in any case, have consent. Written consent is not legally required under the Data Protection Act. It just makes it easier to prove that there was consent if someone later denies that they consented.
Excellent news, thank you very much for your help
Hello Linda,
Is the information in the link to the ‘UK Photographers Rights’ up to date as at April 2012?
Kind Regards and Many Thanks,
Paul
Pretty much up to date, Paul, except for the replacement of stop and search powers under s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with s.47A, which restricts the circumstances under which authorisations can be granted allowing stop and search in a particular area. Authorisations that remain in force almost interminably should mostly be a thing of the past. s.47B provided for the drawing up of a Code of Practice, which can be found here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/terrorism-act-remedial-order/code-of-practice?view=Binary
The Code does reiterate the right of photographers and videographers to photograph and film, though it does not prevent them from being stopped and searched.
Hi Linda, I live in Belfast, couple of Sundays ago I was out in belfast city centre photographing sunday shoppers as it was a nice day some of the ladys were wearing short skirts/shorts, i photographed some of them. I was there from lunch time till around 5, just before 5 two police officers drove up, got out and informed me that some people and shop staff had phoned in and complained that i was taking photos of them. I was informed that it was illeal to take pictures of specific individuals and was asked after showing the officer the pictures to delete them. as the pictures are not for publication, they are only for to use to learn how to use photoshop was the officer within his powers to ask me to delete the pictures, both me and the people i photographed were in a public area. what the best way to deal with the police in future.
Thanks Chris
Hi Chris,
At present (though this could change as the law relating to privacy is developed) it is neither criminal nor actionable to take photos of an individual in a public place, provided this does not amount to harassment. (Note for Scotland – the same generally applies, but be aware of the extremely broad application of the concept of breach of the peace up here.)
And no, a police officer does not have the power to require you to delete images. It requires a court order. If it was a crime to take the images, then they would be evidence and should not be destroyed in any case.
The best way to deal with the police is to be reasonable and polite so far as possible in explaining your rights to them. Most police officers, in my experience, are reasonable if you are reasonable with them (there are always exceptions, of course).
Hi Linda
its regarding the taking of photographs at my young sons football matches,I used to take photos for his club web site but would always ask parents and staff of both teams,today I did not bring my camera to his game but noticed a parent from another team taking photographs I asked him politely if he had asked permission to which he replied ” I don’t need permission to take photos in a public place” this accept to a point but is a County FA football facility public or private ?
On leaving his wife pointed out to me he was a local magistrate so he knows the law.
Many thanks Tony
I had perhaps better not express an opinion on the legal expertise of magistrates. Suffice it to say that magistrates are not legally qualified, which is why they have a legal advisor present in court, and they are trained to deal with minor criminal matters.
The public/private place issue is always a thorny one. I stress, once again, that “place to which the public have access” is not the same as a public place. If this is a facility that is owned by a private organisation then it is up to that organisation what they allow or don’t allow on their property.
Even when matches are being played in public parks, some councils have policies that prohibit photography of children on or in their leisure facilities and many sports clubs have child protection policies that require permission to be obtained before photographing or filming. These policies do not represent the law, insofar as one does not commit a crime by ignoring them. However, one can be ejected from premises, banned from attending future matches, etc, for failure to comply. If the property is private property then refusal to comply means you become a trespasser. I have heard of instances of matches being stopped until the unauthorised photography ceased.
Hi Linda/Simon,
I’ve got a client who wants me to shoot images of models wearing their clothes outside famous London landmarks for commercial use. From what I’ve read on here I understand that as long as there are no other companies trademarks etc in the image, we shoot from public space (except Trafalgar Sq) and don’t obstruct the footpath we should be able to use the images commercially without restriction/fees/applications etc from the owners of the landmarks. Is this correct?
Many thanks
James
That’s pretty much correct, James, except for the possible issue of passing off/misrepresentation. If the images are used commercially and they suggest that your client has some connection with the landmark or is endorsed by its owners then that would be potentially actionable. This is a separate issue from trademark law.
It really depends on the way the image is shot and the general context. Suggesting “London” by having well-known London icons present in the background is unlikely to be problematic. Featuring the landmarks as prominently as your comment suggests might be more so. In short, you can sell an image of a London landmark shot from a public place, but suggesting a connection between your company and the landmark is a different matter.
Thanks Linda. I hadn’t thought of that. I think my clients main aim is for the images to feel like London so perhaps if I throw the focus out with a shallow depth of field or have a small part of the landmark in the background of the shot so it’s not dominating the image or have the landmark small & behind that should be ok?
Also, I know this is slightly different as they don’t have a commercial product in front of a landmark but I noticed a tea/coffee company using an image of the Palace of Westminster on its tins. The shot was taken from Westminster Bridge. That type of thing is used on a lot of tourist merchandise. I hadn’t thought about it before but I guess in that context they wouldn’t need to pay any fees to landmark owners?
Many thanks
James
Hi Simon
I have been searching the list of copyrighted buildings in london and rest of the UK. Can you suggest where I can find the list?
Thanks
You won’t find a list of “copyrighted buildings” in the Uk because there isn’t one. Technically, any building the design of which is still in copyright – i.e. where the architect died less than 70 years ago – will be protected by copyright. For photography and filming purposes, however, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act gives an exception to copyright in s.62 – it does not infringe the copyright in a building to make a graphic representation, photograph or film of it.
Hi,
I am an amateur photographer. Today I took a picture of the prison wall from outside, from a local, but still public road, leading to the prison. I didn’t see any signs saying NO PHOTOS etc.
I was surrounded by security, asked about deleting photos, asked about ID and then released.
Were they allowed to do it?
Thank you for answers.
Regards
Pawel
I’d like to leave some additional info. Place where it happened is here: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.634632,1.319926&spn=0.001934,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=52.634884,1.319747&panoid=dS8XtE4H3L108HmyPQj39g&cbp=12,340.34,,0,-2.5
Now I am not sure who was right because Google doesn’t keep any photo from that place… Maybe it means I wasn’t allowed to take photos? But… I’d like to say again – there was no signs like private road or no photos etc.
Thank you.
Regards
Pawel
Hi Pawel,
There are security issues inherent in photographing certain places – prisons and militory establishments being two obvious ones, even when photographing them from a public place. This does not mean that doing so is an automatic criminal offence, just that you can expect to be questioned by the police or security guards about who you are and why you are there. The police and security guards do not have the power to compel you to delete your pictures, though the police could seize your memory card if they had reasonable grounds to believe you were committing an offence. A prison officer, while on duty, has the same powers as a police constable.
Hi Linda,
Thank you!
Dear writer
i have read with much interest your article on the Internet after searching under Google.
the reason being that i feel i may be a victim of misuse of photography by my employer for disciplinary purposes whereby i feel am being victimized and my rights as an individual have been infringed upon.
Background
Recently my supervisor visited an industrial site where i am working as a security officer.The site is a large private steel rolling/casting company with all round 24 hour activity.
i was not feeling well after taking medication and therefore i was not particularly alert.
the supervisor managed to take a photo of me unobserved showing myself not alert or appearing to be asleep on my chair in the security cabin at 0125 am in the morning.my main job is CCTV and alarms monitoring and electronic access control.
All access points are alarmed and no one can get in or out without first alerting me
He did not tell me he had taken my photo in that situation.
The following morning i was asked to report to head office for disciplinary procedure after being suspended without pay for three days.
The human resource manager took me to a room and showed me the photo, asking me to explain myself.
i later gathered nearly all the office and field staff had seen/shown the photo even before me.
After explaining my situation, i was allowed to resume work under caution pending further actions.
The photo was taken using a personal mobile phone owned by the supervisor and not company provided equipment.and furthermore there are no written rules in our contracts stipulating photographs will be used as part of human resource disciplinary procedures.
Requests
At the moment i need to be advised on
1) the legality of this ?
2)have my rights been infringed upon?
3)can i demand this photo to be deleted from my records because it was taken unlawfully?
4) how i can take action against the supervisor for taking a photo of myself without my knowledge and using it to justify his job practises and possible financial gain.
please send me any other relevant information.
am no celebrity or famous individual but just a worker earning a living and feel very vulnerable because i do not know what else or where the photo will end up being used for.
please advise me on this matters
i will be very appreciative.
Thanking you in advance
In the case of places open to the public but owned by companies, eg shopping centres, etc, just wondering-
WHY ado they always ban photography? Why are they so against it?
Why do they never put up signs telling one that photography is banned there?
Hi Linda,
What would be the law regarding taking photos in a public place of individuals without their consent, such as on a high street or in a park, and then using it in a publication for commercial gain whereby you then parody that person under a real or fictional name?
I have been informed that this could constitute as harassment. But what I don’t understand is that there are many professional publications and websites that routinely use images of famous faces taken at public events, or Paparazzi snaps, that are often used to parody and ridicule that person (Such as Private Eye and Viz) and yet I have never heard of any of these publications being sued for using the likeness of somebody without their consent.
As it’s also clear that many of these photos are journalist or Paparazzi shots, how is it that model releases could possibly have been obtained? If George Clooney waltzes up the carpet to a premier, he’s not going to be signing off individual release forms for every flash-bulb that goes off.
So what’s stopping the famous from screaming harassment and being taken seriously when their likeness is used unflatteringly, but Joe public seems to be taken very seriously when they make a complaint about their likeness being used?
Hi,
I came across the site of a microlight crash on a Scottish hillside. A mountain rescue team were there, including a police officer. The police officer told me not to take photographs of the crash site. We tried to make our way past it and then he came to me and asked to see the photos on my camera. I had not taken any of the crash itself and he then told me to go away.
Did he have any right to stop me taking photos, or to look at them?
Thank you,
Alistair MacLeod
← Previous Comments
{ 79 trackbacks }