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 →
if you are out taking photographs with a small compact camera or phone camera, usually nothing is said or noticed. however, if you are using a large slr, much notice is taken and comments made of “what are you up to”. yet it changes nothing in front of the lens. I carry ID but only once have I been challenged. afterall this is my hobby, not my living.
very helpfull
thanks
Thanks very much! I wander round Edinburgh taking photos and so far, no one’s asked me to stop, though I’ve had some people look at me weirdly. This is an extremely useful guide.
We are constantly (north of the border) being made aware of the differences in law between Scotland, and England & Wales. more so when it comes to criminal offences.
Now, I’ve spent 9 years in the uk Armed forces in Scotland, and from that I am more than aware that there is no trespass law in Scotland, even for the uk armed forces there is plenty of restrictions due to precisely this.
What is really on my mind is to what extent does this affect our rights?
The Guide I feel is not clear on this.
I would really like some clarification (and an updated guide too please…) on where we stand in Scotland, and how this differs from our rights in England.
Ta Muchly.
I honestly thought I had made the differences reasonably clear, within the confines allowed by a short pdf. But I will try to clarify it further.
Trespass is rarely a criminal offence, but in some restricted circumstances it is, as with trespass on railways. This is the case in Scotland as well as in England & Wales.
The common assertion that “there is no trespass law in Scotland” comes from the fact that, in England & Wales, it is possible to sue a trespasser for damages for the simple act of trespass, whereas this was never possible in Scotland. It did not mean that anyone had the right to go on property belonging to another, and such a person can be asked to leave, and reasonable force used to remove them if they do not.
The big change in Scotland came with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which from 2004 gave a right of access to most land and waterways in Scotland. Buildings and the curtilage of buildings (reasonable garden space, industrial yards, etc), are excluded, and if you went wandering around someone’s front garden, for example, they would still be entitled to ask you to leave, and to use reasonable force to remove you. Otherwise the access rights granted by the Scottish legislation are very broad.
The English legislation, The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, gave access to certain private land from October 2005. The approach was different to Scotland, where the idea was to give universal access with some exceptions. In England and Wales the right is limited to land mapped as access land, and, unlike in Scotland, the access cannot be used for any commercial activity, such as commercial photography.
Hi,
Just looking for some up to date advice please re a situation I found myself in taking pictures of my son’s football team on a public accessable playing fields. The opposing coach who was clearly looking for a fight told me I had no right to take pictures without permission and verablly threatened and abused me calling me a pervert when I explaned it was a public area and I did have a right. Unfortunately even an off duty policeman present said I needed permission. From the guide, unless anything has changed, I would appear to be within my rights, there was no commercial interest, purely private photos mainly involving my 12 year old son. I am thinking of making a complaint. Can you please advise
Thanks
Jon
Hi Jon,
I’m afraid there is a distinction between a publicly accessible place and a public place. Most playing fields are owned and maintained by the local authority and many of those have in recent years imposed conditions regarding photography of children playing sports. This has been done as a child protection measure, but it is sad when it prevents parents taking photos of their own children playing sports. You are not the only parent or grandparent I have heard from on this issue.
I would suggest contacting your local authority, if these were council playing fields, and asking what their policy is on the matter. Also the football club itself, to see whether you would be affected by their regulations, which may provide for matches to be stopped where someone refuses to stop taking photographs (I have heard of this happening).
If there are restrictions, then unfortunately you have little option but to abide by them, or seek permission. That does not excuse the behaviour of the coach or the language used by him, and I can see no reason why you shouldn’t complain about that.
Great pdf. I’m gonna post a link here on my blog. Keep it up guys.
Linda,
Many thanks for your response. On researching this issue, I was led to believe that any event that was likely to invite public attendance on even local authority or private land (such as a childrens football match where friends relations and casual public could attend,but equally could have been say a carnival travelling through a park) was more or less accepting this was public for the purposes of photography. There was clearly no intention of expected privacy in terms of the activities undertaken (even if there were local FA rules re photograhy with which I was not familiar) Do these take precedence over a member of the public’s right to photograph in an entirely reasonable and overt manner in a public venue (irrespective of LA, private ownership)?
Thanks
Jon
Jon, you are quite right that there is no privacy issue here, nor any data protection issues, come to that.
The only issue would be whether or not the local authority concerned has placed any restrictions on photography in these circumstances. You would need to contact your local authority, or whoever owns the land, to find out.
If both the coach and the off-duty policeman were implying that permission is ALWAYS needed to photograph children in public, this is completely incorrect, though commonly thought to be the case, even by some police officers.
Therefore, if no restrictions are imposed by the landowner, you should not have been prevented from taking photographs.
Linda,
Many thanks for your further useful comments and especially so promptly. Could I please bother you further as to say that if a local authority or private land owner has made no clear efforts to communicate any restrictions (eg showing signs giving fines for dog fouling)could it reasonably impose any sanction on someone who contravened any restrictions who has acted in all good faith, in other words is there an duty to tell by signs or other means someone who casually attends a soccer match on a privately owned field seemingly open to public attendance that they cannot take photographs without permission? My final question is can the local FA or club “rules” (of which I was not aware) concerning photography have any bearing when it comes to common law, (it is possible that I will be fined by the local FA through the club for taking best of intentioned pictures of my son when someone totally unrelated to the club could legally take pictures of a public event?)
I do not want to monopolise the subject but I am sure this will be an issue of increasing concern to many.
Thanks again
Jon
Jon, I suspect that the answer would be that once you’ve been made aware of the restriction you have the choice of ceasing your photography or face removal for trespassing.
AIUI signs only need to be displayed if there is a penalty of some sort directly related to the content, eg. dog fouling.
Very good article. I have been searching for some advise so that I can help photographers with info relation to photography and the law. You Site is a great source of Information. I will pass on your link to my members.
Regards
Niall
http://www.shuttervillage.com
Jon, Andy is correct. This is the kind of restriction I mean, picked at random from a Google search: http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/TendringDC/Leisure/Sports+Facilities/Welcome.htm
As for any FA or club rules, I was just speculating as to this possibility. As far as I am aware, FA policies are directed more toward ensuring that people coaching and working with children are appropriate people and that they behave appropriately. But I have heard of cases of referees threatening to stop a match unless someone stopped taking photographs. But no, they would have no power to fine you.
Hi Linda, Thanks for clarifying that point for me!
Wow…. well done for this very interesting resource.
My particular question has been touched upon, however I would like further clarification if possible please?
I take pictures at festivals and some musical events, the organisers have given me permission to take photographs, and on many occasions I have had festival goers etc request where they can see my pictures and if they could have copies?
I have seen this as a natural business venture and I am in the process of having a website designed for the sole purpose of uploading pictures from various festivals and musical events and for members of the public to be able to select pictures and pay a fee to download them. I believe (but will check) that the small print on a festival ticket says that images and video may be used for the purposes of marketing and commercial use.
I guess my question is similar to previous ones, do I need to get individual consent from everyone in a picture or am I covered by the organisers consent and or the ticket small print?
Many thanks… I guess my new business venture may depend on your advice……!!
Simon, you are correct in that it mostly depends on your permissions and on the terms and conditions of the event tickets. Assuming you have the permission to take photographs for commercial and other uses, and the tickets provide that images and video may be taken at the event and used for various purposes, then festival goers are assumed to have given their consent to this by entering on those conditions. Obviously, conditions will vary from one event to another.
If tickets do not contain conditions along those lines, then there may be problems in selling images of individuals. Crowd or group shots are probably still ok.
I say that there “may” be problems and that group shots are “probably” ok because no court has yet decided the exact application of the Data Protection Act to circumstances like these. In addition, consent is not the only way in which the requirements of the Act can be satisfied.
The BBC just put up an interesting article entitled “Innocent photographer or terrorist?”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm
If anyone does get bullied into deleting photos from their camera, do remember that there is software available to recover them
SanDisk have been giving away such software with large memory cards recently, and it’s very effective. But don’t take any more shots until you can get the deleted images recovered from the card.
First, let me add my voice to the chorus of thanks for this extremely informative resource. If I can impose, I have one question:
How is the distinction between “commercial” and noncommercial photography defined in the U.K. (if it is defined)? Using a photograph in an advert is clearly commercial, and using it only in your family’s photo album is clearly not commercial.
What about things like selling a print–not a poster, but a print I make myself? Or selling an editorial license to publish a photo in a magazine? Or selling the same license for publication in an educational book?
Thanks very much for the information.
Bearing in mind the issues people have with being stopped and asked not to take photos (sometimes from over-zealous security persons), I think itÂ’s be worth having a notebook and pen with you to make a note of the incident, time, etc, plus details of the conversation. Could be useful as an aide memoir should there be any come-back.
Many thanks for your outstanding effort with this valuable resource.
As a professional cameraman for television, I am constantly stopped by CPSO asking whether I have the relevant permission to film. Simply walking into the city of London with a professional video camera apparently requires an application to film!!
Just to confirm, it is completely unnecessary to be required to fill out this application form, to film in the city of London, whilst filming on the public highway, without causing an obstruction.
Finally, I was stopped recently, whilst attempting to film on Tower Bridge, in London. In your opinion, as Tower Bridge has a road running over it, would it be considered to have a Right to access or a public highway?
Thanks again
Will Hutchinson
Thanks for this helpful guide. I always try to avoid any risk of offending people, but it’s good to know what is and isn’t allowed.
Interesting points about Trafalgar Square and Lulworth Castle/Cove…they are both owned and run by English Heritage. It’s seems large organisations like these are buying up all our heritage sites and then denying us the right to make our living photographing them. Soon there will be nothing left to photograph due to these greedy land grabbers!
I have read, with interest, the entire thread, making notes and learning along the way.
I have a question regarding young models. I have a small portrait studio in the centre of town where my staff and I take the usual family, baby, business type portraits along with model and glamour portfolios. Last week I had a 16 year old girl in the studio for a model portfolio who afterwards, asked about having a glamour portfolio done as well.
I told her that I could only do that if I had written consent from a parent or guardian, preferably her mother, and that the parent or guardian accompanied her to the shoot.
However, she said that she no longer had a father and that she was not living with, nor on speaking terms with her mother. She is a mature, intelligent and articulate 16 year old who I am sure is considering this path for the right reasons. For this reason I have no qualms about doing the shoot but without that parental consent, I donÂ’t know where I stand on the legalities. Can you help?
Peter W,
The distinction between commercial and non-commercial isn’t defined by statute for these purposes, but essentially a commercial purpose would be anything done for the purposes of “commerce” or, in other words, for financial reward. When the owners of property prohibit commercial photography, or demand a fee to allow it, they usually mean any kind of photography from which the photographer hopes to profit, this would include selling prints or selling the image for publication, not just use in advertising.
Dave T,
Well, you have a point, but as far as I know neither Lulworth Cove or Trafalgar Square are owned by English Heritage. Lulworth Cove is owned by the Lulworth Estate, and Trafalgar Square is managed by the Greater London Authority. The restrictions on photography at the latter are imposed by by-laws.
Will,
The road over Tower Bridge is a public highway. I’m not sure why you would have been stopped from filming there, unless you were causing an obstruction or your filming was presenting a potential safety risk to yourself or others.
RichardC,
When you say “glamour” are you talking about nudity or semi-nudity? I would advise you to be extremely cautious about this. The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it an offence to take or make an indecent image of a child. Whether an image will be regarded as indecent depends considerably on circumstances and evidence but it is a risk you might not want to take.
Although the 1978 Act originally defined a child as being aged under 16, it was amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to cover any child under the age of 18.
Video clip on Flikr of a shop security guard assaulting a photographer for taking pictures in the street. The incident took place in Teeside in the UK. Makes you feel proud to be English I can tell you 8-(
Story and clip: http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/
I have read the “Photographers’ Rights in the UK” article in this thread, but noted that it was a correct version as of 31.August 2004, and therefore is now nearly four years out of date. I do not know for certain, but suspect that there has been further legislation on the subject, especially in the context of the Anti Terrorism laws. Anyone taking the above version as gospel may be playing with fire. I’d recommend that you consult some recent legislation (if any), on the government websites, or a lawyer, to clarify the latest guidelines on taking pictures in public places.
Karel, the document may be 4 years old but it is not 4 years out of date. The only major change is with regard to the grant of rights of access to certain designated privately owned land in England and Wales.
With regard to the right to take photographs in public places, there has been no anti-terrorism legislation affecting those rights since the Terrorism Act 2000, which is mentioned in the Guide.
In fact, there has been no legislation of any kind that expressly or impliedly restricts the right of photographers to take photographs in public. It is simply police practice that has apparently changed, hence Austin Mitchell’s EDM calling for a Code of Practice for police dealing with photographers.
In general, however, I feel I must restate that the Guide is exactly that – a brief overview. It would be impossible to deal with all the possible legal ramifications of photography in such a short document.
Thanks for the reply Linda. The photos would be topless at the most. However, I wasn’t aware that the definition of a child was changed recently so I will reconsider.
Linda,
Many thanks for your reply.
I came across an interesting post on photo.net by a UK photojournalist. The full post is at http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Cve , but the following passage in particular struck me:
‘Lastly there is a “private place [invitee] rule” where-by if you are allowed access to a private place (e.g….someone’s garden) and not restricted in photography as a condition of entry…then you may photograph there, and publish, as if it were a place under the “public place rule”.’
He goes on to say that you can’t use the photograph for advertising or promotional purposes without the owner’s explicit consent, but that you can use it for editorial purposes provided there is not an explicit prohibition on photography.
True or false, from a legal perspective? Or what about just from the practical perspective of a working editorial photographer?
Peter
Can I suggest that you update this document?
The date of 2004 makes it seem slightly less credible/relevant.
Nonetheless, thank you for taking the time and effort.
Hi again, Peter.
There are a number of half-truths in the thread you refer to, to be honest. It is true, as someone said in the thread “a lawyer would tell you lots of pro and con facts which in the end also does not answer completely the questions posed”. But the reason for that is that there is often no simple black and white answer.
There is no legal “rule” as such that says you can take photographs freely if you are allowed access to a private place and aren’t expressly restricted as a condition of entry. Nevertheless, the concept is partly true. You are generally free to take photographs of anything, anywhere, except where the civil or criminal law prevents you. The law provides that owners of private property can restrict what someone can do on their property, so logically, if they don’t restrict photography you can take photographs and use them for whatever purpose you wish. (Though the CAP Code provides that, in most circumstances, express consent is necessary when portraying people or their identifiable possessions for advertising and marketing.)
But the law is not quite so straightforward as that. When you enter someone’s property by invitation the invitation may be express or implied. For example, when you enter a shop you are going into a private property and you are not usually expressly invited in, the invitation to the public to enter is implied. But it would be implied for the purposes of browsing or purchasing goods, and not to take photographs. The same would apply to a pub or any similar premises. Taking photographs in these circumstances could be regarded as a trespass.
If you were expressly invited in to a place, and the invitation was for a particular purpose, then doing something outside that purpose could be regarded as a trespass even if no express restrictions were made clear from the start.
In addition, an invitation to enter, without an underlying contractual agreement, can be withdrawn at any time. So if the occupier of the premises objects when you start taking photographs, he can ask you to stop or he can ask you to leave, effectively withdrawing your permission to be there.
Subject to all of that, though, the assertion that you would be entitled to take photographs if you were invited on to private property is correct.
I would like to read the down load but when I click on it nothing happens. The original page simply re-loads itself. Am I doing something wrong?
It should work, Peter. I just tried it and it worked fine for me. Are you right-clicking? Right-clicking will give you the option to “save target as”, and you can save the download to your computer.
Thank you very much for for putting together the Photographer’s Rights Guide. I will definately have a copy on me the next time I’m in the UK.
For anyone going to the US with a camera, here’s the place to download the US version of your rights guide:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Hello,
I have a general enquiry about art photography that depicts the general public.
I take photographs at motorcylce competitions and events that depict the riders, spectators and the general public. Invariably the images are taken at meetings held on privately owned farmland. The general public are allowed access free of charge and without restrictions on photography as a condition of entry, either implied or stated.
I do not ask permission from anyone when taking these photographs – either landowners, riders or spectators. What is the law concerning the publication of images taken in these or similar circumstances? My work is used for artistic purposes ie exhibition, book and magazine.
Any information would be much appreciated.
Thank you for an excellent point of reference.
Kind regards
Chris
Far be it from me to try to second guess the meaning of the words of a politician!
My assumption is that “responding to an offence or where they suspect an offence is about to happen in order to prevent it from being committed.” refers to circumstances where the photographer is involved in the offence. Though the police would also be able to take action against a photographer in circumstances where the photographer’s actions are interfering with an investigation.
Hi Chris,
This relates closely to the reply I made to Peter W’s post a couple of comments up.
Generally, if there are no restrictions you are free to take photographs. It is unlikely that restrictions would be implied at an event like that, where taking photographs would be a fairly natural thing to do. If the landowners or event organisers don’t want you taking them, it is really up to them to put up notices or ask you to stop.
And people would not generally have expectations of privacy at such an event where there was free public access.
No restrictions would also mean you are not restricted from publication, though if the images were to be sold for use in advertising, there may be issues regarding images of people and their identifiable possessions.
There may also be data protection issues regarding images of individuals from which the person can be identified. This would not apply to group or crowd shots. Publication for artistic purposes or purposes of news reporting is not likely to cause problems.
Linda: a very clear guide, I look forward to the updated version.
I am writing a historical article. I took some pictures of artefacts in a foreign museum (people were allowed take photos). Is it in order to use some photos of these in the article, while acknowledging the origin, namely name of the museum. The artefacts, like pottery, are centuries old, so presumably the creator’s copyright has long expired.
Thanks
Hi Linda,
Here is an interesting parliamentary questions and a written reply from the Home Secretary Tony McNulty. In what sense do to you think they are using the phrase ‘responding to an offence or where they suspect an offence is about to happen in order to prevent it from being committed.’ ? Does this mean that they could stop a photographer taking pictures of an incident that they are not directly involved in?
Peter
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Madeleine Moon (PPS (Jim Knight, Minister of State), Department for Children, Schools and Families; Bridgend, Labour) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will issue guidance to police forces on steps which may be taken against persons taking photographs in public places.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour) | Hansard source
The police may remove persons from public areas, prevent filming or confiscate equipment where they are responding to an offence or where they suspect an offence is about to happen in order to prevent it from being committed. They may also take action to prevent a breach of the peace. In such cases the police may require a person to leave a place or prevent them from entering a public area where their presence is likely to cause a breach of the peace. Police tactics and decisions on how to achieve these objectives are a matter for the independent judgment of chief officers of police.
Sorry if you’ve experienced any server issues. The guide has been getting a lot of traffic lately and I needed to upgrade the back end software and server it’s hosted on. All systems should be go now. If you see any more issues please let me know.
Michael B,
You are right of course that any copyright that might have existed in historical artifacts will have expired. Indeed, there may never have been any to begin with.
Thus, assuming the museum had no restrictions you would be able to publish, but I would advise you to be certain that there really were no restrictions at all. Many places permit photography for personal use but not for publication.
Peter Jones,
Far be it from me to try to second guess the meaning of the words of a politician!
My assumption is that “responding to an offence or where they suspect an offence is about to happen in order to prevent it from being committed.” refers to circumstances where the photographer is involved in the offence. Though the police would also be able to take action against a photographer in circumstances where the photographer’s actions are interfering with an investigation.
The police must of course act lawfully and within their powers when making “decisions on how to achieve these objectives”.
Dear Linda,
Within a couple of the groups I belong to there has been discussion recently with regard to stock agencies stripping out metadata embedded in images by photographers and replacing it with contact and copyright details of the agency concerned.
This has been done in one particular case even when a letter was sent to the agency instructing them not to do that. In some cases the active contracts with the agency predate the invention of metadata, and so in these cases there can be no question that a clause in the contract permits such behaviour.
In a reply you gave previously to a different question you said “A person who, knowingly and without authority, removes or alters electronic rights management information and who knows, or has reason to believe, that by so doing he is “inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright.” is basically in the same position as someone who infringes copyright. That is, the copyright owner has the same rights against him as he would against a copyright infringer.”
We photographers all believe that what the agencies are doing is illegal. Just to be clear about this is it illegal to -
1. Replace the photographers contact information?
2. To replace the photographers copyright notice?
3 To alter the photographers copyright notice by adding the agencies name as a co-copyright owner?
4. Have a clause in their contract that permits metadata to be altered?
I understand the above practices are common (not sure about point 4 though), and this may explain the regular cases of agencies being unable to find thousands of images that belong to photographers.
Next comes the question of what can be done. As a group we feel that bringing a case to court to prove that the agency ‘knowingly’ altered the metadata is likely to be extremely difficult and expensive. However, given that we know what the agencies are doing -we need only look at the images on their websites to see the altered metadata, is it feasible to think in terms of bringing an action to make them stop altering the metadata. That is, to simply ask them to obey the law and to reinstate the photographers metadata, we need not seek punitive damages, just a change of behaviour.
We are not looking for specific legal advice, just trying to sound out ideas to get a view on ways to approach this issue.
Something For The Weekend …
Have you got a hobby ? Do you need to carry a piece of paper with your human and civil rights documented on it just in case you get arrested or assaulted by a security guard ? That’s what more…
Good luck with the campaign.
I am a “bus enthusiast” and have been approached by both police and security guards several times in the Middlesbrough area while filming or photographing buses. I wrote a few years ago to the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police asking if I could be given some sort of letter to produce if I was stopped in the future but he was not forthcoming.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 79 trackbacks }