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 →
Very interesting, I will download and absorb this information.
A couple of queries regarding aspects which don’t seem to be covered by the guide.
1. The press over recent years has featured various cases where people have been taken to court for having a camera in a bag of some sort and taking “upskirt” shots. While I would expect this to be illegal, what restriction covers it?
More worryingly, other cases have featured photographers who have filmed at normal eye level but are claimed to have been filming women’s bottoms in tight trousers etc. Since, unlike the upskirt shots, the “bottoms” are on public view to any normal people, how is this deemed to be illegal? (I have read of camera equipment being confiscated in such cases).
There was a famour bus photographer called Robert Jowitt who a few years ago produced several books on the subject ob Buses and Women which contained a variety of shots of attractive (and some not so attractive!) women throughout the world, all included in photographs of buses. Would this be now deemed illegal under some law? I very much doubt he had the subjects’ permission as he wouldn’t even speak their language in many cases!
2. Recently a number of newspapers and magazines where including photos of celebrities and their children, have pixelated out the childrens’ faces. But it is not always done, so why is it done sometimes? Is it a legal requirement? Or does it possibly depend on which country the photo was taken in??
Thanks.
Gordon,
First, remember that there are two parts to the CDPA provision about electronic right management information. First, the removal or alteration of the information, and secondly, the person or organisation responsible must “know, or have reason to believe, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright.”
You would need to be able to show that both parts were fulfilled in order to bring an action.
Assuming you could, then the answers to your questions 1 and 2 would be that these alterations would come within the provisions of that section of the Act.
The activity you describe in question 3, adding the agency as joint copyright owner would, if carried out without authority, be within that section and also probably an infringement of copyright in its own right, since the agency is claiming copyright for itself.
BUT, you can contract out of almost anything, and it would be perfectly legal to have a contractual term allowing alteration or removal of metadata, or allowing the agnecy to add its name as joint copyright holder. Also, a contract that permits the agency to alter its terms and conditions by notice would also be legal, though it would be unwise for anyone to agree to such a term unless there was also an escape clause for anyone who was unhappy with an announced change.
Fotoman,
The “upskirt” pictures and filming you mention would be regarded as a common law offence of “outraging public decency” (the offence in Scotland is “public indecency”).
I’m not aware of the cases you mention involving “women’s bottoms in tight trousers”. I would be glad if you could refer me to these. It might be regarded as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.
In both cases, there could also be a criminal charge of harassment if the same woman was targeted more than once.
There is generally no illegality in taking a photo of someone on a bus. If the photographer is a passenger on the bus, the bus company has the right to prohibit all photography, or to remove the photographer if he is annoying other passengers. There may be some restrictions in the UK under the Data Protection Act as to the use to which the photographs can be put. A book of artistic photographs would probably be allowable by the Act. I say probably because the issue has not been brought to court as yet.
As for the children of celebrities in newspapers, it is not a general legal requirement to obscure the faces. Some newspapers may do this from choice. However, much also depends on what is depicted by the photograph or any accompanying article. The Press Complaints Commission Code does not allow the publication of photographs of a child where the subject involves the welfare of the child, unless the parent consents. Hence, an image that might embarrass the child, for example, where an accompanying article is about the break-up of the child’s parents’ marriage, might be found to breach the Code.
Thanks, Linda.
Absolutely fantastic and handy reference guide to our rights. Only two days ago was I “Stop and accounted” for my actions, when I had been taking photographs in a public place, of the police dealing with a member of the public. And was requested to “delete” certain photographs of the member of the public being grilled by the local constabulary, when I replied that I had every right to take photographs of whatever and whoever in a public place without anybody’s permission, I was threatened with arrest. With that I merely chuckled at the inept Police and handed them the “photographers rights” which I had printed off that morning and remarked that if they were to arrest me I would be more than Happy to come quietly and Sue them for wrongful arrest!
It should never be underestimated that to be forewarned is forearmed and knowledge is a very powerful weapon. If I had not come acroos the rights of UK photographers prior to this I would have been very intimidated and simply deleted all of the photographs on the memory card, so I thank you for taking your valuable time to produce such a fantastically handy tool! Cheers!!
Hi,
Do you think that the recent paparazzi cases involving JK Rowling and Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley might have some effect in street photography? Both seem to push the privacy thing up a notch, expecially the Rowling case. Many people do street photography and put their pics up on websites, I can’t help wondering if that could now be seen as a breach of privacy if there are children included in it.
Cheers
Andy
Hi Andy,
Good question! The short answer is that it remains to be seen and I can see potential problems for street photographers if the law moves much further along this path.
However, the cases by themselves don’t really have this effect. The Hugh Grant/Liz Hurley case is much more along the traditional lines of cases where there would have been said to be an expectation of privacy (private resort, long lens photography).
The Rowling case is much more important, legally speaking. In many ways, the Appeal Court decision is not surprising given the ECHR decision in Von Hannover v Germany. That case does not bind the UK courts but they will have regard to it.
The Rowling appeal is being presented by some elements of the media as a complete victory, but this is not actually what has happened here. At the risk of boring people with legalese – at the original hearing the judge struck out the claim, basically saying that there was no case to answer – i.e. no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. So the case was not actually tried. The appeal was against the striking out of the claim and that in essence is what Rowling, or rather her son, has won: the right to take the case to trial. The Appeal Court has held that there is an arguable case. If the case is tried, we might get a definitive judgment on whether there was a breach of privacy in those circumstances. There is a good chance that Big Pictures might now settle the claim, which will leave us without such clarification.
The Appeal Court judgment says that children will not have a guarantee of privacy. Even where the right of privacy under Art 8 is engaged, this must be balanced against the right of free expression under Art 10. The question of where the balance falls in these particular circumstances is a question of fact to be decided at trial.
The only guidance the Appeal Court gave on this in its judgment was to say that it believed that if the ECHR was to hear the facts of this case, on the basis of Von Hannover they would hold that the balance fell in favour of the child’s right to privacy.
Even then, that does not mean that every street photograph of every child would be subject to the same considerations. The Court said that each case fell to be determined on its circumstances. A major consideration was the protection of children from “intrusive media attention”. It was not so much a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place as an expectation of not being targeted by photographers because of the fame of the child’s parents. (Note also that it was the publication and not the taking of the photograph that was regarded as possibly invasive of privacy.)
As it stands, this would not affect most street photography that included children. Though bear in mind that photographs of individual identifiable children, published on the web, may in some circumstances fall foul of the Data Protection Act.
I recently took some pictures having asked permission to go on private property… I posted the picture on the Web and the guy has asked me to take it down as he does not want it on line… I should not have put it there, It got put on in error as part of a batch upload… so fair cop and have taken it down.
However he is claiming I have no right to post a picture taken in 1998 of his property even though I was stood in the middle of a public road junction??? If I am correct he has no legal right to demand that… is this correct? From the piece above I believe I am right….
Hello, Ian.
This property is what? A house, a building? I’m assuming you weren’t taking photos of his house interior though his windows, using a long lens. Assuming this, there are some restrictions (in the ASA Code of Practice, rather than in law) if the image is to be used for advertising/marketing purposes. Otherwise, you are correct. He doesn’t have image rights in his property if you have taken the image from a public highway.
I thought so…..His property is a converted Tin Mine and I am interested in such things so took the pic from the highway…. There is nothing whatsoever iffy re the pic just a standard 3/4 view of a building from 40ft away with a standard lens!
Thanks for your advise….
V.much appreciated. Regs Ian
I often surf the web viewing CCTV images that are available. I recently found one site, where they stated that the images had been deliberately degraded “to comply with the Data Protection Act”, by avoiding images of faces or of car number plates that could allow the individual to be recognised. Some of the above responses seem to indicate that these sites may be acting over-cautiously. Could you give me your take on this.
John, they aren’t really being over cautious. CCTV images of individuals do come within the Data Protection Act and, unlike convention photographs or videos that are taken and published for journalistic or artistic purposes, there are no special exemptions from the Act for them. The Information Commissioner has published a Code of Practice for CCTV operators which deals with the issue of disclosure of images. In effect disclosure must be consistent with the purpose for which the CCTV system was established – e.g. the protection of property or prevention and detection of crime. The use of images for entertainment purposes, or publication on the internet, is regarded as inappropriate if it contains identifiable individuals.
There are also privacy issues. The ECHR ruled in Peck v United Kingdom that a person’s privacy could be invaded by the widespread publication of CCTV images. Though ECHR decisions are not binding on the UK courts, they must be taken into account by them when deciding future cases.
Sorry to be a dim, but I am still unclear regarding the issue of photographing people in Public places.
Am I right in thinking that in a street scene for example, if I wish to sell the image in any form I would need to have release forms from everyone in the photo whose face can be seen? This would obviously be totally impractical.
Linda,
As most people carry mobile phones nowadays, would it be possible to have a version which could be read on mobiles?
… or a short version, an aide memoire?
Hi,
On a slightly different note but related subject, could someone clarify the following:
What is the legal position with regard to security guards taking video footage of members of the public (minors)?
My son was recently asked to leave a private car park where he and a couple of friends were riding their BMX bikes, the security guards pursued them from the property and filmed them..
It seems that the police & PSCOs use the “terrorism Act” to frighten photographers into submission.
But it states in the Act that a Police officer or PCSO must have reasonable cause to suspect an act of terrorism is being or about to be committed. He must have real reasons too not just a whim or fancy in his mind and under no circumstances can using a hefty SLR to take photos be construed as a act of terrorism.
Next they can only use the power in an authorised area (sect 44-45 of the act) and this authorisation must be on the orders of a superior officer and is in force for only 28 days and if not ratified within 48 hours by the home office fails and cannot be re-applied for 28 days. London is not an authorised area per se as the authorisations only to certain defined areas for a limited period. So next they quote “Terrorism Act” ask for or if you are in an authorisation area and the offier authorising it.
Hi Nick,
A couple of errors in your original post, yes. Authorisations can given where this is regarded as “expedient” for the prevention of acts of terrorism. It does not require a belief that an act of terrorism is about to be committed. Once authorisation is given, searches of individuals can be carried out only to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism, but the police officer does not need to have reasonable suspicion or belief that the person concerned is actually in possession of any such articles.
On paper, the powers appear to be heavily restricted by the need for authorisations that apply to a limited area for a limited time. But authorisations can apply to an entire police area and they can be renewed. It is my understanding that both the City of London Police area and the Metropolitan Police area have authorisations in place and have had since the July 7 bombings. (I’m a long way from London, so perhaps they have now been lifted).
Using a camera is, of course, not an act of terrorism in itself, but the argument appears to be that the camera, or images taken with it, could be used in connection with terrorism. At least the police have to have a reasonable suspicion that this is the intention before they can sieze a camera, film or memory card.
Further to my previous comment (went up twice, sorry)there were a few errors as I did it from memory so here is the relevent sects of the act (44-46) note: sect 46 on authorisation of an area and its time limits plus the limitation on searching.
_____________________________
44 Authorisations (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.
45 Exercise of power (1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—
(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.
(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.
(5) Where—
(a) a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(b) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),
the written statement shall be provided.
(6) An application under subsection (5) must be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the vehicle or pedestrian was stopped.
46 Duration of authorisation (1) An authorisation under section 44 has effect, subject to subsections (2) to (7), during the period—
(a) beginning at the time when the authorisation is given, and
(b) ending with a date or at a time specified in the authorisation.
(2) The date or time specified under subsection (1)(b) must not occur after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the authorisation is given.
(3) The person who gives an authorisation shall inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(4) If an authorisation is not confirmed by the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when it is given—
(a) it shall cease to have effect at the end of that period, but
(b) its ceasing to have effect shall not affect the lawfulness of anything done in reliance on it before the end of that period.
(5) Where the Secretary of State confirms an authorisation he may substitute an earlier date or time for the date or time specified under subsection (1)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State may cancel an authorisation with effect from a specified time.
(7) An authorisation may be renewed in writing by the person who gave it or by a person who could have given it; and subsections (1) to (6) shall apply as if a new authorisation were given on each occasion on which the authorisation is renewed.
Alex, the issue of photographs of people is complicated and getting more so as court judgments appear to be developing a stronger right of privacy.
But in general, you would not always need releases for everyone whose face could be seen in an image taken in a public place. Stock image libraries will normally demand releases for every indentifiable person in an image. Data protection law will operate if the image is of an identifiable individual, but, at least according to the ICO, group or crowd shots will not be regarded as personal data. An image of a public scene which incidentally includes people would not generally be regarded as invading the right of privacy of any of those people, but watch this space on that last comment, since this area of the law is developing all the time, most recently in the case brought by J K Rowling in respect of her young son.
It isn’t dim not to understand it, the problem is that some of it is still pretty vague.
Dave Taylor,
Usually anyone would have the right to take photos or video footage on their own property (or on behalf of the owner of the property, in the case of a security guard) and in a public place. But if the video is of an identifiable individual (i.e. your son) it would be personal data under the Data Protection Act and would therefore have to be processed in accordance with the data protection principles. In other words, there would be limitations on what could be done with the video. It would breach the Act, for example, if it was posted on a web site, since the video was presumably being taken for a specific purpose, to protect the owner’s property, prevent trespassing, etc.
Having been in the profession for over 20 years, I find that the local policeman on the street, does not know the rules/laws on professional photographers going about their lawfull role, ie, gathering news pictures etc, We are all aware, and understand what we can photograph and what we can’t. I just wish the police did too! Many times I have been asked not to take phptographs, when clearly there is no reason why I should’nt take photographs! It all depends on the police officer at the scene! clearly this is not good enough! When will the police work to proper guidlines regarding this matter! I live in hope!
Hello again Linda
Many, many thanks for getting back to me. Having checked (as I wasn’t sure!), I will not be photographing the Crown Estates, I am actually referring to entities such as the Howard de Walden Estate, the Cadogan Estate, the Grosvenor Estate, etc.
I am not sure whether these roads are legally private or public. If you have any knowledge of this I’d be most grateful.
Also, would the membership of any organisation (ie Association of Freelance Photographers, Press Photographers, NUJ, etc) provide sufficient authority to reassure the police, should they stop me?
If you have any time, I would really appreciate any information you can give me on this.
Thank you in advance
Lots of comments and answers about photographing from public places. What about my taking photos from my own private property of someone else’s property. Is that legal? Are there any restrictions vis-a-vis use of such photos, taken in order to provide evidence to a local council of planning abuses?
Thanks for this document. I’ve printed and laminated it, and it now stays in the car.
To my mind, a major result of the government- and media-generated hysteria over subjects like paedophilia and terrorism is the steady rise in power of petty officialdom. The kind of jobsworth characters who used to be limited to making a nuisance of themselves in carparks and shopping malls can now exercise their petty power to an unprecedented degree. Unfortunately, these days, one must count many police officers among this type.
How wonderful it must be for the petty ego of Mr Jobsworth to go from public nuisance to ‘protecting the public from terrorism’ in one easy bound!
And what a colossal waste of time and resources.
Thank you so much for this guide, it is exacly what I’ve been looking for.
I do have a quick question, bearing in mind it is dated 2004: have there been any changes we should be aware of?
Thanks, Mark
Hi Mark,
Watch this space, because I am working on an update, honestly I am! I am concentrating more on some of the issues that seem to be of greatest concern and this means reworking the whole document.
In the meantime, the only real changes are not to the taking of photographs but to possible use. Recent decision in the area of privacy law mean that publication of images of people may sometimes infringe privacy rights even when these are taken in a public place.
Michael,
Assuming you would be taking images of a building, not of people on the property or in a building, there are unlikely to be privacy issues here, particularly as the images are for use for a specific purpose and not general publication.
You are not in a public place, but you are on your own property and therefore not trespassing, so there is no problem there.
My question is similar to Kenny B. We have received a complaint from a mother that we have taken and published a photograph in our company literature of her daughter and step-daughter without her knowledge or consent. The girls are on fairground ride and we are a holiday park and the literature is promotional for the business.
My understanding from your literature is that we have acted correctly and have not broken any laws. Please advise me if I am right or wrong!
Linda
Thanks for your comment, but I didn’t think about people getting into shot. Sometimes it’s unavoidable although they will mostly not be in focus. Does that present a privacy issue or an unlawful issue? Or are both one and the same?
I was working at a hotel in Scotland in an entertainment capacity and to fill up my night I started taking pictures of the guests and their children on the dance floor at the functions. Which could be a wedding or a birthday party or such like.
During the buffet I would go round the tables and take pictures of the guests posing for the shots.
Then I would show the pictures that I had taken up to that point on a projector screen in the function suite for a bit of fun.
This led to people asking me for copies of the pictures. Which then led to the setting up of the website to display them for anybody to look at after the event and also to buy a copy of the DVD with all the pictures taken that night on it For a minimal fee just to cover costs.
It has now been pointed out to me that I have been breaking the law in doing this because I have put pictures of children some times on their own and adults on the web without first seeking there parents permission.
I did seek permission of the people having the function and I had the permission of the hotel management, which I thought was enough. I also put in the slide show the web address where people could view the pictures after the event.
When I went round the tables taking pictures of the guests I did ask if anyone didnÂ’t want there picture taken and I wouldnÂ’t take it.
Very few people objected to it and I didnÂ’t take their picture if they did. After having looked through many websites including your own I canÂ’t find any definitive answers that covers this point and I feel that I have done no more wrong than any other photographer at a wedding or party would have done.
Since hearing this information I have taken down the site and removed any pictures of children from the server but I havenÂ’t removed them, from my PC in case someone official comes knocking on my door and I will be happy to show them all the pictures I have taken.
I await your answer with interest as I feel like IÂ’m treading on egg shells and I donÂ’t know which relevant authority to speak to concerning this matter your answer on these points would be very much appreciated.
Linda and Simon, thanks for providing this valuable information and forum. I am planning a trip to England & Wales and have been concerned about restrictions on photography at National Trust Properties. I have three of questions and appreciate your help:
Are there any unique laws regarding US citizens taking photographs in UK?
The township of Lacock is owned and managed by National Trust. Will I still have freedom to shoot any buildings from streets or sidewalks?
Is there any legal distinction between fine art photography and commercial? I shoot black and white infrared film, which has a very unusual artistic look. I sell limited edition framed prints in galleries (when people are buying). I don’t sell to stock houses or advertising agencies. It seems unfair that I face same restrictions as “commercial” photographers.
An interesting note here: I have asked several UK photographers about shooting at NT properties. The majority concensus is to ignore their restrictions and not worry about them. One believes NT are unable to afford resources to persue legal actions and that it would make them look bad. I think that their restrictions are unrealistic, but within their legal rights. I want to do what is correct and am seeking permission from the NT. CADW (Wales) has similar restrictions, but granted me permission.
One more question: I shoot in many cemeteries here and abroad. I know that Heathrow Cemetery has restrictions on photography. Are there any legal restrictions regarding public cemeteries?
Michael,
People incidentally getting into the shot shouldn’t be an issue when the purpose and use of the images is to show a contravention of planning law – i.e. you are not seeking to identify individuals or say anything about them, but to show something about the construction or works.
I don’t actually see any problem with this.
KennyB,
The website display is the biggest potential legal problem here. This is because it is accessible anywhere in the world, including places that do not have adequate data protection provisions. In the circumstances it would be safer to ask people who are happy to have their photo taken if they are also happy to have it displayed on the website/recorded on a DVD. Then if anyone objects you can either not take their photo or just not include their photo on the website and DVD. You do not technically need to have written consent, though if you wanted it for evidence you just give people a short form to sign.
To be honest, there have been no cases on this issue, but better safe than sorry.
Claire O,
I guess there are several issues here. If the children are incidental to the image there may not be any data protection issues here as you are using the image to say something about your business and not something about the children.
But if you are using the material for marketing/advertising the ASA Code of Practice says that, in general, the use of photographs of people and their identifiable possessions should only be used with consent. If the children are young, this means the consent of the parent or legal guardian.
James,
Kind of ironic, isn’t it, that there should be restrictions on photography in a place associated with one of the founders of photography!
Visitors from the USA have the same rights to take photographs are any UK citizens, there are no special restrictions.
Whether you can take photos for commercial purposes (e.g. for possible resale) of the Lacock Village buildings from the street will depend on whether the street is owned and maintained by the NT or by the local authority. I’m sorry, I don’t know the answer to this and you would have to check with the NT.
I know it does seem unfair, but have you tried to find out if the NT will give you permission without charging their usual fees/imposing their usual conditions?
I do know that the NT sometimes chases up photographers when they discover images of their properties being sold. I imagine they will not expend the fund when the return is likely to be small or non-existent, and it wouldn’t be my place to comment on whether they would be likely to find out about or to chase up someone in the USA who has sold a limited number of fine art prints!
I can only tell you that legally they are entitled to impose conditions on photography when you are physically on their property.
As for cemetaries and graveyards, there are no general legal restrictions but again it comes back mostly to the rights of property owners – the church or other organisation that owns the cemetary can place conditions on photography there. Local authorities can also impose conditions on graveyards managed by them through regulations and bylaws. With the latter, the onus is on you to discover whether any restrictions exist, but for the others, it would be up to the property owner to make you aware of any restrictions.
Linda and Simon,
Wow! what an epic read and excellent resource! Thank you very much for all of your valuable time which you have given of so generously.
I was wondering if I could offer a suggestion or two?
A number of folks have asked for an updated version of your extremely useful guide. You have stated that there are minimal if any changes required. If there are none would it not be possible to simply update the line which states “…is accurate at 31 August 2004, it does not provide a comprehensive…” to a more recent date? A simple edit of the date? No major rewrite required? I might help reduce the “Please can you update it it must be out of date by now..” type requests.
Should you, in time, do a rewrite might it be possible to provide a second version the same information in a subtly different format? Could it be arranged so that it could be folded in two and read as an A5 pamphlet? Would make it easier for folding and popping in a camera bag.
Thanks again for all the information it has helped point me in the right direction for a “you cant take photos here” incident I experienced on Saturday. I now know that I need to check with my local council on their policy regarding photography on their playing fields.
All the best Mike 8-{>
This is the text of an article in the British Journal of Photograph
dated today 1st July,08.
Basically it seems to give the police carte blanch to make up the ‘rules’ on whether you can or can’t take photographs in any given circumstance.
Link and full text follows:
http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=801977
Home Secretary green lights restrictions on photography
Local restrictions on photography in public places are legitimate the Home Secretary has stated in a letter to the National Union of Journalists.
While Jacqui Smith reaffirmed that there are no legal restrictions, she added that local Chief Constables were allowed to restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances.
The letter dated 26 June, which BJP has seen a copy of, is in response to correspondence sent by the Union secretary general, Jeremy Dear, who expressed concern at police surveillance of journalists, in particular photographers.
‘First of all, may I take this opportunity to state that the Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press, and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public places,’ Smith writes. ‘Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.’
However, the Home Secretary adds that local restrictions might be enforced. ‘Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.
‘It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.’
The Home Office does not produce any guidance on photography in public places, and has not produced any specific guidance to [Forward Intelligence Team] officers, the Home Secretary says. ‘I recommend, therefore, that the questions in your letter are best put to the Commissioner.’
The NUJ is expected to meet with MP Tony McNulty – Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing – to discuss the issue, the Home Secretary confirmed.
In May, Dear had written to the Home Office after press photographers noticed that the Metropolitan Police’s FIT was monitoring them.
Linda – Thanks for the informative site
Our neighbour has recently produced some photographs he took in 2005 of the hedge between our properties – some of the photos were clearly taken from within our property
Early this year a dispute has arisen over the boundary. Are the photos taken by our neighbour whilst trespassing in 2005 permissible evidence?
If not would this only apply to all photos or just those taken from within our property?
All photographs are dated the same day
Jonathan,
The question of admissibility of evidence obtained while trespassing is an interesting one. There is no definite yes or no answer, I’m afraid. In Jones v University of Warwick (admittedly a case with rather different circumstances)the court admitted evidence obtained while trespassing because it was in the interests of justice to do so, but showed its disapproval of the trespass by awarding costs against the trespasser. It does not follow from this that all evidence obtained by trespass would be admitted. Each case would be decided on its merits.
If the images were regarded as inadmissible, it would only apply to the ones taken while trespassing. It would not be a trespass on your property to take photos of it from an adjoining property or the public highway.
Linda,
Thank you very much for providing this information. I’m definitely going to carry a copy with me in my bag wherever I go along with a disclaimer form for people to sign should I wish to use their photo online or in print etc.
I am far from an argumentative person and I really don’t like to be confronted but if I’m within my rights and I’m not breaking the law, I will stand up to my rights.
Thank you again,
Alex.
Thank you for all of the research and time you have put int this document and website.
Can you tell me if you know of such a document for Photographrs in Germany? If you could direct me to the site (if it exists), I would appreciate it!
Thank you again!
Cherie
Thanks for a great site and very useful source of information!
I’m a photographer in Edinburgh who was recently harassed by a member of HSBC bank because I was taking a photo in a public street that had their bank in the background.
This is ridiculous beyond words, and as a mark of protest and “civil obedience”, I’ve created a flickr group to encourage people to do what they have every right to do: take a photo in a public street, even if it has a bank in it….
http://www.flickr.com/groups/hsbcphotos/
Can I just add that,
Austin Mitchell’s EDM ( Early Day Motion ) calling for a Code of Practice for police dealing with photographers.
Is really dead in the water as the Government web site states that most EDM’s never get discussed.
The Trafagar Square and Parliament Square Garden ( Amendment No 1) Bylaws 2002
Can be downloaded from http://www.thecameraclub.co.uk
There is a very usefull resource on Photographers Rights here
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
Linda can I just thank you on behalf of all photographers everywhere as you seem to be the only person anywhere
interested in our rights. Why isn’t the Government doing more to help, especially as photography is within everyones
grasp with the advent of the compact camera and mobile phone. Samsung have produced a 10 megapixels camera phone.
http://www.esato.com/news/article.php/id=1165
We all await your updated UkphotographyRights.pdf
I feel that new Government legislation is on the cards, just when this will be announced I’m not sure.
Frank Wallace
Hi,
I’m not a photographer but my hobby – Living History/Re-enactment is one which attracts photographers. Therefore, when I am dressed as an Elizabethan or Tudor Lady, I accept that I WILL be photographed and that those photographs are very likely to appear somewhere.
I have frequently found images of myself in my Elizabethan character on the internet – usually on flickr or some other online album. This I have absolutely no problem with.
However, what rights would I have, if any, if someone had taken photographs of me in my costume at an event (the event is on private property but photography is allowed) but the image is then found on something like a book cover or published in something like a magazine or book? I am not referring to something like a news article or photo journalism – I am referring to the use of an image which perhaps could generate royalties for the photographer.
This is something that has happened recently (but not to me personally) that has raised the ire of some of my re-enactment friends and I have been trying to find out how the law would stand on this issue.
I assume that a model release form would be the best option for the photographer and that the publishing house would not have wanted to risk using the images without one? I also assume that it is not necesarily a legal requirement TO obtain one? In which case, who would then be at fault if I had objected to an image of myself being used in this manner? The photographer or the publisher? Or neither?
Many thanks for your advice.
Elizabeth Chilver.
my stepdaughter was photographed as a bridesmaid, my husband and i were not present. Her mother was present,however photographs of her wearing no top now appear of her on the photogtaphers website for all public to see. Her mother was not asked permission for this. In one picture she is topless wearing a tiara, she is 3 years old. Is this legal?
Elizabeth,
You are quite right that a model release is not necessarily a legal requirement in the UK for many purposes, but many publishers will require one. The areas of UK law that affect the use of images of people are the law of privacy (effectively the law of breach of confidence, as developed in line with the Human Rights Act) and data protection law.
The first of these is unlikely to have any application in the circumstances you describe. The Data Protection Act might apply, however. It is impossible to discuss all the complexities of the Act here, but, in brief: Images of people are capable of being personal data, though the Information Commissioner’s guidance suggests that they are not always personal data. (The issue has not been determined by a court, as yet.)To be personal data within the meaning of the Act, the image must be one from which the individual concerned can be identified. Group or crowd photos are unlikely to be regarded as personal data. In addition, the Act only covers personal data which is processed automatically (i.e. by computer) or which is stored in a relevant manual filing system (one structured by reference to individuals).
There are also exceptions where the processing of the data is necessary for the purposes of journalism, literature or art, though it has to be said that the “necessary” condition may not be easy to fulfil. The fact that the photographer will earn royalties from publishing the photo is not a factor (and remember that photographers will normally also earn money from an image when it is published in a news report or photo-documentary). Publication by an amateur on the internet is, if anything, more likely to fall foul of the Act than publication in a newspaper reporting on the event. There can be a fine line as to whether a photograph of a person falls within the Act or not, but in individual cases that cause concern it would be worth contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office. If they feel there might have been a breach of the Data Protection Principles they can pursue the matter further.
squiz,
It isn’t necessarily illegal, though it might be. Assuming you are in England, The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it an offence to take an indecent photograph of a child (the law is the same in Scotland but under different legislation). Not every nude or partially nude image of a child will necessarily be considered indecent, the question of indecency is one of fact to be decided by a jury according to “recognised standards of propriety”. The age of the child is also a factor, but the motives of the photographer are irrelevant (in other words, it does not matter that the intentions of the photographer were innocent, so long as the photograph was taken intentionally and not accidentally).
Another factor worth considering is a right granted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Although the photographer will have the copyright in the photos, the Act grants a right of privacy to certain commissioners of photographs. A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of
a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the
resulting work, the right not to have -
(a) copies of the work issued to the public,
(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or
(c) the work communicated to the public;
Although, in this instance, the permission for the photos to be displayed on the website would come from the person who commissioned the photographs in the first place, not the subject.
I’m not sure if this is the appropriate forum but here goes. My question is regarding the rights that photographers have when other websites inline link (embed) their photos?
For example I grant a Creative Commons non-commercial license on most of my images, and they are displayed on a number of personal blogs, and educational websites, both in the UK and abroad, by using inline linking. Which is fine.
However, from time to time I find images being displayed on commercial sites, which usually results in the site responding that anything on the internet is ‘public domain’ its not, but even microsoft seems confused on that count.
Breaking the URL to the image is not really feasible, as it will also break the legitimate uses.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 69 trackbacks }