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
{ 862 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
You are right, of course. Just because something is on the Internet doesn’t mean that copyright protection does not apply, or that the images are in the public domain.
If you are using the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence, then the images should always be attributed to you, whatever the use. The Non-commercial aspect is a little less clear, since it only refers to use that is “primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation”. Display on a commercial/business website would normally indicate this, but it is arguable at least that it wouldn’t always do so.
Essentially, anything done with the image outside the terms of the licence would be copyright infringement and you could take legal steps to enforce your copyright. The cost and difficulty of doing so, however, especially if the infringer is overseas, means that, more often than not, they will get away with it. It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try, though. Even if only by sending warning letters to the company concerned, and to its ISP where the site is hosted by an external ISP.
Linda, thanks for an extremely valuable website, much needed and appreciated. I have 100+ photographs of certain buildings mainly on the southbank of London which I intend to publish and sell as stock images, I’m fairly sure by reading your comments and other websites that as they are public buildings photographed in public places with no trademarks or logos that I am safe in publishing, even though they may be recognizable as ‘iconic’ or listed like the Royal Festival Hall for instance. It would be interesting to know what could happen if an organization where to object, would I receive a request to stop selling, be asked for a percentage of the fees, or just be sued? Most of the photo’s are architectural details, i.e. I would not be selling as photographs depicting a specific building, as in a postcard, but as an artistic view of part of the building.
Not a question, just a comment, I went to a public event wearing a stupid costume and not looking my best and somebody photographed me and its now appeared on a few different websites, mostly in deflamitory ways! The comment is that I was a little suprised when a friend sent me a link to one of the sites, but I was not annoyed in the slightest as I was in a public place in a silly costume, so it was my stupidity for being there and I had a good laugh at it. Why can’t everybody be the same!
I remember going to a theme park in Southend and photographing my daughter on one of the rides, but some annoying woman came up to me yelling abuse at me as she was near the ride and was just in the corner of a couple of the pictures, at no time was the camera pointed directly at her! Some people need to get a life!
I recently photographed the naked bike ride in Brighton and I asked permission of everybody that I photographed up close and only one person said no. The daft thing is that she was saying no to everybody, just before riding naked through a major city center with hundreds of photographers along the route!!! I have since seen close up photos of her along the route on places like Flickr (taken while moving, so no permission asked), so what was the point of saying no??? I don’t understand some people!
Keep up the good work on the guide, its a great resource.
Hi Gerald,
You are quite right that there is nothing to prevent you taking images of buildings from a public place, though you sometimes have to be careful that you actually are in a public place and not on land belonging to the building owner. But assuming that, yes, you can take them and yes, you can publish them. There might be certain specific uses of the images, in advertising, that might amount to passing off, and some uses that might amount to defamation of the owner of an iconic building, but really these are issues for the ultimate user and they do not alter the basic legality of taking or publishing or selling the images.
In circumstances where an image had not been taken legally, it is most unlikely that an organisation/owner would sue as a first step. You would probably receive a request to cease future sales, and, if you had already profited from selling the image, an account of profits from the sale, or alternatively, an account of the losses the owner had suffered from lost sales of his own images of the building, in cases where the owner does sell images of his own building. These matters are usually negotiated out of court unless no agreement can be reached.
Thank you for this informative article and the guide.
I try my best to use it where ever it applies.
Keep up the good work on the guide.
Hey there.
Earlier today I took a picture of a particularly nice Harley. This picture was from the front, and no number plates were visible. Just as I was about to walk back to the station, a guy on some little bike parked next to it told me that ‘you shouldn’t take pictures of bikes or cars’ and I think he mentioned the law.
After a bir of a google, I’d not found any evidence supporting either case other than a couple people stating that if the vehicle is in a public, it’s fine to do so.
I’m currently compiling a small handbook to carry in my camera bag stating photographer’s legal rights in the UK, to a) stop myself doing anything legally objectionable with my camera, and b) to be useful when politely pointing out that I’m within my rights to take photographs, should any one care to question.
I’d understand if the owner didn’t want me to take a picture of his/her vehicle, and completely respect their wishes (and ask beforehand if they were nearby). However, this guy didn’t own the bike, and there weren’t even any plates (what about tax discs featuring in part of a ‘full’ shot of a car/bike by the way?), so I don’t see how I was doing anything unethical or unlawful.
Basically, is there any hard evidence I can print out that could back me up, should such event happen in the future?
Thanks in advance,
-CPOliver
There is absolutely no law to prevent you taking photos of bikes or cars. There might be some legal problems with certain commercial uses of such photos, since some manufacturers have trademarked various aspects of their vehicles, as well as the brand logo. Harley Davidson, incidentally, is renowned for strictly enforcing its trademarks. But none of this stops you from taking the photograph, it relates only to possible uses of the photo.
Tax discs with visible details may come within data protection law, but again this depends on the way in which the image is used. If used in such a way as to try to find out something about the owner, then it could be regarded as personal data. (Likewise the number plate.)
I’m afraid I can’t point you to hard evidence, since I don’t know of any cases where the issue of merely taking photographs of someone’s property in a public place has even been considered by the courts.
Thank you very much for your reply Linda. At least I have the confidence to know my rights now. It’s just a shame that either urban myths, or just sheer assumption gives some people the impression that photographying such subjects is legally questionable!
I have a new Nikon D60, which is a complicated computer program built into a camera. I heard loud music at the end of my street and walked 200m to try out the new camera. I did not pay to enter the festival site (premises licenced to sell alcohol), but took pictures through the fence from a public space. A man of about 20 years old stepped out of the enclosure onto public space and told me to stop taking photos of “people and kids” in the grounds. He called me a pervert and told me to f**k off. He was very belligerent and clearly looking for a fight. I told him that I was on public property, and breaking no law, but I left anyway and went home. More than a hundred yards further the same man accosted me again, and again I turned away from him and crossed the street. He stepped into two lanes of traffic coming towards us(dual carriageway), grabbed hold of me and physically, and brought me to a halt in the face of oncoming traffic. Then he went back to the pavement to avoid the traffic, and I crossed onto the island in between two lanes of traffic going each way. Then two police officers came up to me and started to interrogate me, with the young man aggressively telling them what to do. The police were not polite, nor courteous. I am a foreigner and subject to peregrine law, which means that I have previously been locked up for an entire weekend “on suspicion of being an immigration overstayer”, until the home office arrived on Monday morning and told them to let me go. So I did not argue or assert my rights in any way. I simply stated that I did not know that it was unlawful to take photos in a public place, and that every other person with a phone or camera was doing so too.
The police radioed their station to find out if I had a criminal record. The policeman look through all the photos I had taken and found none that he objected to. Then the policeman told me, quote, “I will let you off with a warning” and that I must not take pictures in public again. He said that they would issue me with (quote) “a written warning” and then they wrote out a form 5090 of which they gave me a copy. The policeman warned me that if I took photos in public again that report would be on file for the police next time, and that it would be on file “forever”. He used the word “forever”. He threatened me, and he meant to be intimidating.
The police wrote out a factually INCORRECT statement of what I had said, with blanks to fill in names later on, and told me to sign it. My plea: “I never said that” made no difference. i signed.
I asked whether the young man had any right to call me a pervert and to tell me to f**k off, and to physically assault me and bring me to a standstil in the road in the face of oncoming traffic. The policeman said: “I saw him and he didn’t assault you”.
Their form 5090 cites their “Grounds for search or reason for stop” as: “Was seen taking photographs of people at the WGZIMB Festival from accross Prince Georges playing field uppost Aston Rd”. Uppost is opposite, misspelled.
The officer who wrote the Form 5090 was Shoulder No 5628, of Merton.
I do not want any advice, as I am well aware that there was no question of terrorism, nor any possible risk of paedophiliac photos of people on premises licenced to sell alcohol.
The police were clearly wrong, and were harassing me unlawfully. in short, they ‘leaned on me’ because that is what they do. In this case they prevented an assault by picking on the innocent victim of an aggreessive bigot. I just want people to know that the police will now keep a record “forever” of the fact that I “was seen taking pictures of people”, and that I was officially given a written warning not to do so again.
Francois Greeff
Goodgreeff@hiddencode.co.uk
30 August 2008.
I have a new Nikon D60, which is a complicated computer program built into a camera. I heard loud music at the end of my street and walked 200m to try out the new camera. I did not pay to enter the festival site (premises licenced to sell alcohol), but took pictures through the fence from a public space. A man of about 20 years old stepped out of the enclosure onto public space and told me to stop taking photos of “people and kids” in the grounds. He called me a pervert and told me to f**k off. He was very belligerent and clearly looking for a fight. I told him that I was on public property, and breaking no law, but I left anyway and went home. More than a hundred yards further the same man accosted me again, and again I turned away from him and crossed the street. He stepped into two lanes of traffic coming towards us(dual carriageway), grabbed hold of me and physically, and brought me to a halt in the face of oncoming traffic. Then he went back to the pavement to avoid the traffic, and I crossed onto the island in between two lanes of traffic going each way. Then two police officers came up to me and started to interrogate me, with the young man aggressively telling them what to do. The police were not polite, nor courteous. I am a foreigner and subject to peregrine law, which means that I have previously been locked up for an entire weekend “on suspicion of being an immigration overstayer”, until the home office arrived on Monday morning and told them to let me go. So I did not argue or assert my rights in any way. I simply stated that I did not know that it was unlawful to take photos in a public place, and that every other person with a phone or camera was doing so too.
The police radioed their station to find out if I had a criminal record. The policeman look through all the photos I had taken and found none that he objected to. Then the policeman told me, quote, “I will let you off with a warning” and that I must not take pictures in public again. He said that they would issue me with (quote) “a written warning” and then they wrote out a form 5090 of which they gave me a copy. The policeman warned me that if I took photos in public again that report would be on file for the police next time, and that it would be on file “forever”. He used the word “forever”. He threatened me, and he meant to be intimidating.
The police wrote out a factually INCORRECT statement of what I had said, with blanks to fill in names later on, and told me to sign it. My plea: “I never said that” made no difference. i signed.
I asked whether the young man had any right to call me a pervert and to tell me to f**k off, and to physically assault me and bring me to a standstil in the road in the face of oncoming traffic. The policeman said: “I saw him and he didn’t assault you”.
Their form 5090 cites their “Grounds for search or reason for stop” as: “Was seen taking photographs of people at the WGZIMB Festival from accross Prince Georges playing field uppost Aston Rd”. Uppost is opposite, misspelled.
The officer who wrote the Form 5090 was Shoulder No 5628, of Merton.
I do not want any advice, as I am well aware that there was no question of terrorism, nor any possible risk of paedophiliac photos of people on premises licenced to sell alcohol.
The police were clearly wrong, and were harassing me unlawfully. in short, they ‘leaned on me’ because that is what they do. In this case they prevented an assault by picking on the innocent victim of an aggreessive bigot. I just want people to know that the police will now keep a record “forever” of the fact that I “was seen taking pictures of people”, and that I was officially given a written warning not to do so again.
Francois Greeff
Goodgreeff@hiddencode.co.uk
30 August 2008.
Francois, I don’t know if your comment regarding you being “subject to peregrine law” was angry or ironic, but, just to clarify for anyone reading, there is no such concept in UK law. With the exception of any immigration restrictions, foreign citizens are subject to exactly the same laws as any UK citizen, and have the same rights to protection under the law. I’m sure you know that.
And though you do not want advice, I would advise you to complain about the stop and search to the chief constable of Greater London Police. You can also complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
As an additional note on the issue of photographers increasingly being targeted by police officers, this was mentioned in the House of Lords on 16 July, where it was said on behalf of the Government that guidelines were being considered. The Government also reiterated that there are no restrictions on taking photographs in public places. Anyone interested can read it here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80716-0001.htm
(you will need to scroll down a bit).
The excellent guide addresses photography on private property – but only with respect to taking photographs on someone else’s property. What are the rights pertaining to photography (of people) on one’s one property – private and commercial?
I have recently put together a book on dance and it is ready for publishing. I just got a really angry and threatening letter from a dancer who thinks I have included her show material in the book. Which I have not but she does not know. She is threatening legal action but I am perplexed as all the images are mine as I took them with permission of the artists (not her at this point) and the only images I have of her are from a restaurant show where I was permitted by both her and the restaurant to take photos, she happily smiled for the camera.
My question is 1. Why is she threatening legal action before she even knows if I used any material with her in it and 2. Are the images from the restaurant mine or hers?
I know this is about public photography, but I cannot find anything about sound recording in public.
I was detained and questioned by a police officer, asked to give proof of identity, and issued a ticket to state that I had been stopped and questioned regarding the fact that I had approached a group of youth in a public park in Chelmsford, UK, and asked their permission to record the sound of their skate boarding. I gave my name to the youth, stated where I was from, declared the intention for the potential use of the recording to be placed on my website.
The youth were happy for me to record in the public park with hundreds of witnesses around. I made the recording, let some of the youth hear the recording I had made to ensure they were happy with it, and wandered off.
I was then approached and stopped by a police officer saying that their surveyance (!) (I saw no visible evidence of camera surveyance) and a call from a member of the public suggested I was acting ‘suspiciously’, that I had approached youth, was carring recording equipment that was ‘suspicious’, and would have to give a full account of my actions, proof of identity and undergo a home office check.
Following the check which took about 20 minutes by police radio, I was issued with a ‘ticket’ and allowed to go on my way.
At no point did the officer approach the youth to confirm that I had, as I thought, behaved fairly in requesting their permission to record.
This seems a very strong constraint to the right of freedom of association in public and the right to request permission to make recordings of people with their permission in a public place – if indeed there is a legal need to do so?
Could you please clarify the law on the matter of sound recording only in public. I was carrying no camera or video equipment at the time.
I was recently taking video of MY daughter on the stage in a dance competition using MY own camcorder in a public building (a Civic Hall) for which I had been charged an entrance fee. A professional photographer had been contracted by the organisers to take photos and video, which he would sell to customers for profit of course. On seeing me taking video he approached and told me in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to take video and that only HE could do so. There were no signs anywhere in the building warning that photography was prohibited. I spoke to the organiser and he felt that it was perimissable for someone to take video of their own child.
Can you please tell me who was right?
Thanks.
MRogers,
There is no law to prevent you taking photographs of people on your own property. But there may be legal issues with the way you use these photographs, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you took a photograph of someone at an essentially private gathering and then published this, there could be an argument that this was a breach of confidence. The Data Protection Act may apply to photographs of identifiable individuals depending on how these are used. The way the Act applies to photographs is rather complicated, but it will not in any case apply where the photographs are taken for purely private purposes, and there are exceptions for the processing of personal data for the purposes of literature, journalism and art.
Where possible, it would be advisable to get consent if you intend the images for commercial use.
Chris,
The images you took are yours and you have the copyright in them. If, as you say, you are not using any images that you did not have permission for, then I can’t see any legal problems from what you have told me. It really isn’t possible or appropriate to give detailed advice here on a very specific situation though, especially without knowing all the details.
Dallas, the law is very much the same in these circumstances as it is for taking photographs in public, i.e. it is not illegal to do so, unless there are byelaws in place for a particular area, or you are on private property and the property owner prohibits it.
Assuming neither of those apply, as you were in a public park, I would suggest that you were approached by the police because of the age of your subjects and that you would have had no problems if they had been adults. Photographers have also been questioned (and sometimes arrested and ultimately cautioned) for taking photographs of young people in public places. It is not an offence in itself, but fears concerning predatory paedophiles have made it something that the public rushes to report and that the police feel obliged to investigate.
Mike, this is really down to the terms and conditions of entry to the performance. If the organisers of the event, or the owners of the hall (presumably the local authority in this case) wish to impose conditions restricting photography and filming then they can do so. If the organisers were happy for you to film your daughter, and the professional photographer felt this was a breach of his agreement with the organisers, that should be a matter for them to sort out between themselves.
In short, your “contract”, which governs your terms of entry, is with the organisers and it is they who can impose terms and conditions.
Hi, First thank you for providing this great resource for photographers!
I was recently considering starting to shoot images of products for stock photography libraries when I was directed to your guide by friends on a photography forum. Your site has already cleared up my initial concerns about branding and logo’s in stock photography but I do have another concern.
I am currently building my own website, which will be a commercial site, where I also plan to include tutorials on photography freely available to the public. My concern is about the brand logo’s and trademarks on the equipment in my images that I’d use in the tutorials.
Is it okay for me to use my images in this way, with the branding/logo’s on display? If not then would it be okay if the images didn’t show the branding/logo’s?
Thank you again and keep up the good work. Mark.
Facts about New York City
For patients wanting to gain the self respect in society and lose the stigma of obesity, it is necessary to finish their weight loss procedure with body contouring. Contouring has to be done especially in body parts which sag most after weight loss. Th…
Hi Linda,
The city where I live has lots of Public Art on permanent display throughout the city. I thought it would be a good idea to photograph it all and produce a diary / calendar for sale. I wrote to the council for help on the project, they referred me to their ‘independent public art consultancy’ who replied stating that they will have to identify the artists and seek their approval. If the calendar is sold for financial gain, the artists and the commissioner or owner would need to give permission and the artist could be entitled to a royalty, since the calendar is a direct exploitation of their intellectual property.
I would have thought that if an artist sells a work to the council, they retain the copyright but give up all rights to royalties from the type of sales I propose. As is usual in these cases, there is never a mention of the artwork that the photographer creates i.e. the photograph. I would like to continue with this project but in no way can I pay an artist for something they have already been paid for by the commissioner of the work. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated.
Mark,
In most cases, brand names and logos are trademarks, which are infringed only by using the mark on the same goods or services in respect of which the mark is registered. There is an exception for so-called “famous” marks which can be infringed if they are used in connection with any goods or services, but only where this takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the reputation of the mark. It is most unlikely that using trademarked goods to illustrate photography tutorials on how to photograph the goods, if that is what you mean, would infringe the trademark.
If the logo consists of artwork that might be protected by copyright, the images might infringe the copyright, unless the logo was incidental to the image as a whole.
Gerald,
The answer to your query lies in the terms of the agreement under which the artist sold the work to the council. Normally, selling a copyrighted work only gives the purchaser the right to do what they want with that copy. It wouldn’t give the purchaser the right to make reproductions of the work, even in another form, unless this right was given under the contract of sale.
So you would need the consent, essentially a licence, from the artist, and whether royalties were payable and the amount payable would be a term of that licence, negotiable with the artist.
Copyright is not infringed by taking (or publishing) photographs of works of sculpture or works of artistic craftsmanship where these are on permanent public display, but it would be with any other form of artistic work.
Thank you Linda. I should have been a bit clearer in my post. I am talking about taking images of my photography equipment for tutorials on how I do the setup to take my photographs.
For example, images showing how I setup my flashes. The flash equipment has the ‘Nikon’ logo and the model numbers on display, which are specific to the Nikon flashes. If these appear in the images to be used in the tutorials would that be infringing the mark or copyright? If so then would removing the marks from the images be okay? I just don’t want to risk this causing any issues, so if it will be safest to remove the marks then I’ll do that.
Ah, thanks Mark. I did wonder after I had replied whether I had understood correctly. It is unlikely to be a trademark infringement in the kind of use you describe, but I suppose there is an outside chance, since Nikon Corporation have registered the trademark “Nikon” in connection with “Educational, training and instructional services, all relating to photography”.
I think it would be most unlikely, because you are not marketing services under their logo but erring on the safe side would mean removing the mark.
On the other hand, the company might be more than happy for you to show their equipment, since it is an implied endorsement and thus advertising for them. It would be worth contacting them.
Hi,
I recently got married and hired a photographer. The reception was in the grounds of a hotel.However, one of the guests took photographs of some of the children there, without seeking parental permission. The photographs have now been displayed on their business website gallery, again without the parenst consent. Where do the parenst stand? They do not want images of their children being used for advertising when they were not even aware that images were being taken.
Mnay thenks in advance
Hi Gerald,
Yes, sort of. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides:
(1) This section applies to—
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright
But people get confused by this section sometimes and assume that this gives them the right to photograph such works if they are in premises open to the public. It doesn’t, since the owner of private premises that happen to be open to the public can still restrict photography there. The Act simply provides that such photographs will not infringe copyright. The second area of confusion arises from the term “works of artistic craftsmanship” which many people assume means all artistic works. It doesn’t. Works of artistic craftsmanship are a subcategory of artistic works as a whole. It isn’t defined in the Act and some of the court cases aren’t always consistent or clear. It certainly covers creations that have an artistic quality but are also useful objects – it would include certain pottery, for example, or stained glass windows, or knitted toys and a myriad of other things.
So, a painting, for example, even on display in a public place, would not be covered by the exemption. It is a graphic work and not a work of artistic craftsmanship.
Linda, thanks for your clarification on photographing public artworks, I’m still slightly confused, it’s o.k. then to photograph public sculptures in public places ( and include them in a commercial publication like a diary ). I presume by ‘any other form of artistic work’ you mean two dimensional pictures in an art gallery, where the photography would be regarded as making a copy?
Linda, I understand from your earlier comments that objections to photographing in shopping malls can be upheld as they are private property and the owners have the right to restrict photography. However … a local centre, Broadmarsh in Nottingham was built over a street and so has a public right of way i.e. it never closes as it has to allow public access – is this a public street or a private area in photo-legal terms? Thanks for your comments.
Gerald,
A genuine public right of way (as opposed to somewhere that the landowner has just given the public permission to access)is a public highway, and assuming that (as with any public highway) the local authority has not placed any special restrictions on it, and you are not causing an obstruction, you can treat it as any public street.
I was getting overwhelmed w/all the
questions & answers. I appreciate your
website giving us advice & suggestions.This
question might have been over looked by me…
sorry…but here goes;
I live in Paris…I use a variety of themes for my work…it’s a romantic city…& the parisians express it…photos of embracement, kissing,
or just sitting enjoying life by the seine.
Children at play, elderly folks enjoying
their wine & bread.
It’s been a 3 year project of mine…& getting
ready to sell my work on one of those on line
stock photo websites…can I?
Hi Linda
We’re having a discussion over at Dontstayin.com (http://www.dontstayin.com/groups/dontstayin-spotters/chat/k-2832984) about whether someone can “steal” your photos (again!).
The situation is: you go to a nightclub or similar and take a camera with you, where you then take pics of you/your friends/people there, and then upload them to a social networking website like DSI or Facebook.
The venue, however, has put up a sign (quite possibly not prominently displayed either) saying that if you take photos in the venue, then they may use your photos for its own purposes without your permission.
I personally feel that this can not be correct – especially given any vagaries over the display of the sign, and that whilst they can require that there be no photography inside the venue, it is pushing it too far to state they can just use the photos.
What is your opinion on this please?
Linda,
I have some questions about publicly accessible private property and contracts.
I accept I can be asked not to take photo’s in say a railway station whilst waiting for a train however, I also have a contract with the company for travel.
If I am asked to leave and have a valid ticket do the rail company have the right to breach the contract for travel? Lets assume at this point I co-operate the request to stop taking photo’s by putting my camera away (but not deleting photo’s)…
Hi Gee,
I had a trawl through the thread that you refer to, which was pretty heated.
It is possible for terms and conditions to be introduced into a contract (where you pay to get into a club or venue). And it is possible to do this by means of a sign. So in theory this could be done. It’s not that straightforward though and it is different from simply restricting photography altogether. Terms and conditions will only be valid if they were imported into an agreement at the time it was made, so a notice or sign inside the venue claiming rights over your photos would not be valid. It would have to be clearly displayed so that you could base your decision on whether to enter the venue on the terms and conditions as you are aware of them. So the way in which the sign is displayed is an issue, and would be critical in determining whether this was a valid part of the terms and conditions of entry.
I assume that the only way the venue owners actually can use any images without your consent is if they download them from where ever they have been posted, unless they make you download your photos for them before you leave the venue!! In the case of images posted to DSI, then, as one of the contributors to the thread pointed out, such use would put them in breach of DSI’s own terms and conditions. An interesting legal conundrum, since it apparently gives the website and not the photographer the right to make the venue owner liable for the use.
Hello Stephen,
It’s an interesting question, especially as the ownership of railway stations has in many cases been separated from the ownership of the companies that run the trains, meaning that your contract for travel is not with the owners of the station.
In reality, most railway stations allow photography to some extent. Stations managed by Network Rail, for example, allow non-commercial, non-flash photography provided that you do not take photos of any security equipment, such as CCTV cameras, and you do not cause any obstruction. Other stations are managed by various train operating companies and you would have to check for their various terms and conditions.
If you cooperated with a request to stop taking photos, where this was legitimate, it would be unlikely that you would be asked to leave the station.
If the station owners/managers make you leave the station(regardless of whether this is related to photography or not) and this meant that you missed your train, the train operator that issued the ticket would simply treat you as a no-show passenger and you would have no legal rights against them. But if you were made to leave the station for no legitimate reason (for example for taking photographs when this is allowed) you may have rights against the company that manages the station, including a claim for compensation.
Hi PJ,
Most of the on-line stock photo libraries won’t accept images that show identifiable people unless you have signed model releases from the subjects. Some stock sites will accept images of people without model releases for editorial use only, so if you don’t have releases you may need to shop around.
However, in France a person has much stronger rights over the use of his or her personal image than is presently the case in the UK. I do not claim to be an expert in French law, and you would be better served asking a French lawyer. My understanding is that genuine editorial use would still be permitted, but if it could be argued that the main purpose of the use of the image was to sell a book or magazine (e.g. a cover image)then you might find yourself to subjects of the image concerned.
Hi Linda,
Following on from your response to Gee, does this mean that, as an example, if I was to prominently display signage on my car stating that:
“Any wheel clamp(s) or other immobilisation device(s) attached to this vehicle will be forcibly removed; by attaching any such device to this vehicle you thereby agree to its summary destruction and waive any rights that you may have in this regard.”
I can then park anywhere that private clampers operate, safe in the knowledge that if they clamp me I can just hacksaw the thing off?
A little facetious, but hopefully you see the point I’m driving at!?
Also, further to your reply, if a photographer has free entry to the club, due to a guestlist operated by the promoter, does that then mean that no contract exists and any signs displayed by the venue don’t apply?
Thanks!
Hi IainC
I’ve seen that argument put forward in respect of wheel clamping on private property (which, incidentally, is illegal in Scotland). So far no one has attempted to bring this argument to court, though. And don’t try it when you are clamped under local authority parking regulations!
But in a way your wheel clamping query answers your own question. Outside Scotland, wheel clamping is legal, provided notices are prominantly and clearly displayed. By parking on the land aftr being warned by the notice, you are impliedly consenting to the risk of being clamped.
Therefore the venue owner can impose terms of entry by means of a notice or sign, even if entry is free. It’s no different from imposing a dress code or any other condition you care to think of.
It briefly crossed my mind that the Unfair Terms in Consuker Contracts Regulations might apply to the photo use term. The Regulations provide that “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.” However, on consideration I don’t think this would be applicable here, since the contract is for entry to the facilities of the club, and not to take photographs. The venue owner could prevent you from taking photographs at all, but is allowing them on certain terms, i.e. that he is given the right to use them.
As I said though, there may be legal problems where the venue owner downloads the images from a web site that states in its own terms and conditions that this is not permitted.
There may also be difficulties where the image is used and the subject of the photo has not consented to this.
I wonder what the thoughts are on this Scottish case reported yesterday.
“Man fined for taking photograph”
“The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,” said the sheriff. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm
JMB,
Ah yes, the ever-incresing application of breach of the peace in Scotland, which now seems to suggest that anyone taking a photograph of any person in a public place may be liable to prosecution.
A couple of thoughts in order to allay some panic. The photographer concerned was charged with breach of the peace. Invasion of privacy/breach of confidence is a civil and not a criminal matter. it is not within the powers of a Scottish sheriff to create a new criminal offence!
Secondly, the photographer (as is common in breach of the peace cases) entered a plea of guilty to to the offence, so the sheriff did not have to consider any legal arguments for or against the proposition that the conduct amounted to a breach of the peace. His statements concerning the lady being entitled to her privacy are simply obiter dicta. He also stated that the photographer’s conduct was “unchivalrous” and if lack of chivalry was in itself a criminal offence the Scottish courts would collapse under the weight of cases.
Incidentally, even if the sheriff had made a decision and found the accused guilty, rather than him pleading guilty, sheriff court decisions are not binding on any other court, including in other cases before the sheriff court.
That said, it is still rather worrying for street photographers that taking a photograph of someone who is then unhappy about it may be construed as a breach of the peace. Breach of the peace has always been a broader concept in Scotland than in England and Wales. In Scotland, the offence requires that the conduct complained of caused alarm and disturbance, or was likely to cause alarm and disturbance to any reasonable person. Some recent cases have referred to conduct that “might reasonably be expected to cause any person to be alarmed, upset or annoyed”, which is a very broad concept indeed.
Thank you Linda, I’m still working through the ‘if P then QÂ’ of this logic and i must admit i’m either a bit confused or i’m really worried about what i’ve come up with..
I would like to make a few generalisations with my logic as the law has made a sweeping generalisation with this sentence being key to the citation:
“In Scotland, the offence requires that the conduct complained of caused alarm and disturbance, or was likely to cause alarm and disturbance to any reasonable person. Some recent cases have referred to conduct that “might reasonably be expected to cause any person to be alarmed, upset or annoyed”
My own generalization is that almost nobody in a public place wishes to be included in a picture taken by someone that they donÂ’t know. This population includes civilians as well as police officers and judges when they are just people walking around in public places. I go further to generalize by saying most of these people not only wish not to be included, but may also be annoyed by being included in photographs taken by strangers.
Jumping ahead to the application of the law by the people that both levy and measures its application, does this mean that anyone that collects an image of an individual in a public place is actually gambling with a criminal record?
What defense does an individual have to say that the person is being over-sensitive? If you were forced to defend the individual fined in the case recently and they pleaded not-guilty to breach of peace, was the case possible to win?
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this question.
-Joe
Hello Joe,
I don’t think your generalisation is at all an unreasonable one to make in the circumstances. Taken to its logical conclusion, there is almost a suggestion of “if someone does something that annoys or upsets you, it is a breach of the peace” Even applying the “reasonable person” test is unlikely to assist in this, since, as you say, many people dislike the thought of being photographed by a stranger in a public place. Though the sheriff’s comments suggest that he felt that a person in the position of this subject was more likely to be distressed than most people. It is interesting to consider whether the journalists who photographed Naomi Campbell outside her Narcotics Anonymous meeting would have been charged with breach of the peace if this had happened in Scotland.
I can only say once again that the sheriff was not obliged to consider the scope of the definitions set out in the case law, or the kind of behaviour that they were applied to. It was a guilty plea and therefore all he had to consider was sentencing, and in sentencing he gave his opinion on the photographer’s behaviour. This does not set a legal precendent.
Most people plead guilty to breach of the peace. Except in extreme cases the penalty is a fine. The sad fact is that pleading not guilty is expensive and time consuming. If you are then found guilty by the sheriff, the costs of bringing an appeal would deter anyone who wasn’t very determined to make a legal point. It just isn’t worth it for most people.
I really don’t like giving specific answers to very specific circumstances in these comments, since I don’t think it is the place for them. But since you ask if I think the case could have been defended, then the answer is yes. (Obviously the fiscal thought differently.) Would it have been won before that particular sheriff? Given his comments, probably not.
I am doing a level 2 City and Guilds in Photo Imaging and was told today that next week I will be giving a presentation on photographers rights as it pertains to terrorism laws because almost every member of my class were stopped by community police officers yesterday, searched and told to stop taking photographs or have their cameras confiscated while taking pictures in Whitechapel Road. While our tutor is sorting the matter out, the presentation is going to count towards my work file and its important for us to know our rights. Are there any anti-terrorism laws that restrict photographers rights? Do the community police legally have a right to do what they did? I’d be grateful of your advice. Many thanks
Anti-terrorism laws do not expressly restrict photographers’ rights, but, as mentioned in the Guide, s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives police powers to stop and search in areas where an authorisation is in place. Both the City of London Police area and the Metropolitan Police area have had authorisations in force for several years.The search power may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism and the police officer does not need reasonable grounds to suspect that the person being searched has possession of such articles.
PCSOs have powers to stop and search under s.44, but only under the supervision of a police constable.
Threatening to confiscate cameras however, is probably beyond the powers granted by the legislation in most circumstances, since a constable can only seize any article he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism. Note that the suspicion has to be reasonable.
Telling people to stop taking photographs in a public street is not within the anti-terrorism legislation.
If you do a little searching on Google you will discover that various organisations and some MPs have become concerned about the widespread use of the Terrorism Act against photographers.
when where photographs first used as evidence in British courts
It’s hard to say exactly, since not all cases are reported and reports would not necessarily specify all the evidence even where they exist.
They were certainly used in Regina v United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company (1862) 3 F. and F. 73 a case of nuisance and obstruction that is still sometimes cited in court today. But they may also have been used in cases in the few years preceeding that. In the USA, the first recorded instance of photographs being used as evidence in court was in California, in 1859.
Fantastic. Thanks to your heard work we all know where we stand, and as such I left the house and took more pictures of people clearing the overgrowth.
Thank you for posting this.
Hi,
What a great help, I was wondering, I am looking at taking pictures of buildings around London and then getting them published. Would this be a breach of any copy right or would it cause any major problems do you know.
Thanks
← Previous Comments
{ 41 trackbacks }