FREE DOWNLOAD - The UK Photographers Rights Guide.

This is the handiest little guide relevant to UK law and photographers I've seen. Its value is its careful brevity - more comprehensive descriptions of the law in this area are bewildering.

Nice work there, mate! Interesting even for people outside the UK (such as myself).

Excellent! Thanks!

I understand also that a photographer is 'in the right' when making an image of a copyrighted work of "artistic craftsmanship" (ie: object shown in a public gallery show), if the photo is made for the purposes of undertaking a "published review" (ie: to illustrate a review in a publication). The photographed work doesn't have to be "permentantly situated", either.

Noppy said
"I understand also that a photographer is 'in the right' when making an image of a copyrighted work of "artistic craftsmanship" (ie: object shown in a public gallery show), if the photo is made for the purposes of undertaking a "published review" (ie: to illustrate a review in a publication). The photographed work doesn't have to be "permentantly situated", either."

That's pretty much correct. Fair dealing with any copyright work (not just works of artistic craftsmanship) for the purposes of criticism and review will not infringe copyright in the work provided the work has been made available to the public and sufficient acknowledgement is made (i.e. identifying the author/creator of the work)

Thanks for the guide, it's good to know where we stand legally in a little document that is easy to read and understandable.

thanks for that

Very interesting and helpful guide. Thank you for making it available.

While I realise space is a premium on the document, it would be helpful to have a few more words about "commercial use", the biggest rights issue I face as a stock photographer is the responce: "Yes you can take photos... so long as they are not for commercial use."

Appart from the few cases in London (parliment square, traffalgar square etc). Does the law distinguish between personal use and commercial use?

Thanks,
Ian.

Excellent information, thanks for sharing with us, when ive got my site finished i will provide a link back to this

Very useful guide and I will recommend it to others.

I can't see anything about the now widespread public perception that you are not allowed to take photographs of children, even in public places, without permission from parents.

Very good article.

As per Jon Sparks comment - it would be very useful to have an authoritative guide on both taking and usage of photographs of children. Even schools seem to be misinformed and paranoid about this. An instance today - I photographed mini rugby for a local paper - I usually forward a few low res pictures to the club concerned for their web site - they are disinclined to put the kids up on the web for "child protection" reasons. I understand their worry in the current climate but it is hard to cite a authoritative statement and explanation of the law. Apart from that (possibly omitted because of the very lack of law ?)the guide is extremely helpful - many thanks.

Great and handy tool for photgraphers, but I must ask what about the rest of Europe, is there any European establishment/law guide for non UK residents photographers?!

Thanks

I don't know of any other guides to photographers rights apart from the Krages USA guide. If anyone does know of other such a guides I'd be happy to link to them.

I would just like to say that I am very greatful for the work undertaken in compiling this very useful document.

Thank you

Document is faulty and will not open. There is nothing wrong with my computer as every other PDF I have works fine

Reply from Admin - there is nothing wrong with the PDF, try updating your copy of acrobat reader to the latest version.

Thanks for that guide, link will be added shortly

Thankyou for publishing this document it has helped set my mind at rest in most areas I was unsure aout. I never used to worry about taking photographs until I was stopped by security guards in a number of places.

I have spoken to the police directly about the issue who gave me the general overview that I can photograph anything or anyone from places of national security, private property and other people children.

One thing I was unaware of was gaining concent from a person before filming them if the images are being used for commercial gain, however with TV shows like Trigger Happy TV ect. I doubt this is something we need to worry about too much in the UK.

Regards, Chris

Reply from Admin - Chris, I think the way Trigger Happy TV and other hidden camera shows work is they ask the person for permission after filming. Some people refuse and they can't use that footage, those that do agree sign a model release and the film can be used.

hello,
i was recently in london and i was taking photos of the gherkin building. the one that looks like a large green sexual accessory. anyway, the security guard was very insistant that i could not take a picture from up close, only across the street or from the sidewalk. the reason he gave was superfluous and silly, but he was quite the obstructionist.

is this possible? i suppose the swiss bank or whomever owns the area surrounding the building. but i was wondering if they can enforce such silliness?

thanks

Reply from Admin - Hi John, this shouldn't be taken as legal advise but I believe that the gherkin is copyrighted and any close up or isolated image of it could not be sold for commercial purposes (stock, etc). If it was a skyline shot it would be a different matter of course. As far as security stopping you from shooting up close, it's quite possible that the ground you are standing on is privately owned. If it is then security can enforce whatever policy they like. If you are asked to move on, be polite ask for a reason why, then ask where the exclusion zone ends.

Reply from Linda - Sorry, John, I should have come back on this earlier but I haven't been on the site for a while. In the UK, s.62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides, inter alia, that copyright in a building is not infringed by taking a photograph of it, nor by any distribution of any photograph of the building to the public (i.e. commercial use). However, the reply from Admin is absolutely correct in that, if you are taking the photo from land that is privately owned, the owners have the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on the use of the land, including photography. Asking politely about the extent of the private land is probably the best course.

UK Photographers Rights
Download a PDF detailing your rights as a photographer in the UK. Says what you can and can't do.

I have linked to this site at the Club website as we have both British and international membership.

For 15 years I photographed construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stage 1) and I along with others had several run ins with un informed security staff.
The solution always semed to be ... know your rights and stand your ground. It always worked for me.

One thing that did help is having some form of ID.. a photo badge witha logo of your project works wonders as does some printed literature setting out what you are doing. Presenting this always seemed to finalise matters quite nicely.

Very useful and concise. - Thanks

I've pointed several clients to it when they started asking me about more detailed legal stuff (that and checked my own standard T&Cs)

There have been a number of queries here about the issue of taking photos of children, and I have also has some e-mails concerning this, so I thought it would be worth summarising some points here.

In general terms the laws relating to privacy and to data protection apply to children exactly as they apply to adults. The exceptions, children involved in court proceedings and indecent photographs, I did mention in the article. Thus, taking a photograph of a child in a public place, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is no different from taking a photograph of an adult in the same circumstances.

In addition, the Press Complaints Commission Code says that journalists must not interview or photograph a child under 16 on subjects involving the welfare of the child, or other children, without the consent of the parent of the child. This is quite a specific exception, obviously.

To use a child (under 16) for paid modelling work requires a local authority licence. This should be applied for at least 21 days before the date of the proposed shoot. (This fits in with various protections regarding children in paid work.)

The data protection issues are rather more complex and again they apply regardless of whether the subject is an adult or a child, with the difference being that, if consent is needed, for children under the age of 14 the consent must be given by the child's parent or the person legally responsible for his/her welfare. When it comes to taking photographs of anonymous children (i.e. identity not known to the photographer) in a public place, it is presently uncertain whether this will be regarded as personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. Where the identity of the child is known to the photographer, the photograph will be regarded as personal data. Consent would therefore be needed before anything could be done with the photo. BUT, the Act contains some exceptions that would cover many of the activities of an amateur photographer.

Photographs intended for publication for journalistic or artistic purposes are exempt from most of the provisions of the Act. This would, for example, include images that were intended to be used for a photographic exhibition or competition, or in a book of photography, as well as photo-journalism.

An additional important exemption is that personal data (i.e. photos) processed by an individual for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreational activities) are exempt from virtually all of the provisions of the Act. Photographers who, for example, are shooting their children taking part in a sporting event, for a family photo album, are not infringing data protection laws. Yet many have been prevented from taking photos in such sitations. The problem is that the venue for such events is generally either privately owned or owned by the local authority, and the owner has the right to stipulate whether or not photographs may be taken by someone actually on their property. Local authorities in particular have tended to over-react to the data protection issues and have prohibited photography, especially of children, on property owned by them. There really is very little legal recourse in this situation, unless the photos can be taken from outside the property. Even then the situation can become unpleasant if the police are called because someone is "lurking" around where children are playing.

I happened to have my camera with me when I saw a group of boys (probably 12 years old)terrorising a cat with a dog (on a leash). I took a picture of the boy with the dog and threatened to send it to the RSPCA if he didn't stop. Should I have done this? Is it legal to do so?

Added by Linda: This is legal. Again, it makes no difference in this situation whether the person involved is a child or an adult. The only legislation that might apply here is the Data Protection Act and taking the photograph in these circumstances would come within the exemption that it is for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime.

Photographers Rights..very informative. One point I would like your advice on, I live in Harlow Essex, we have an open air shopping area completly open to the public, no barriers, doors or charges etc..On the advice of a manager a security guard requested that I cease taking photographs, claiming that I was on private property..that is possibly true..Question, do I have the right to take photographs unhindered as I was on freely publicly accessed land. The photographs I was looking to take were architectural..Thank you..yours Kevin Harbird

Reply from Linda: If it is private property, the owners have the right to place whatever conditions they wish on your presence there, including placing a prohibition on photographs. They cannot prevent you taking photographs of the area or its buildings from outside the privately owned area, though this is unlikely to help you if you need to be closer to the buildings than that would allow. If you can find out who the owner is (probably a corporation, it might be worth confirming that they really do not allow photography, and it isn't just a kneejerk reaction from the manager.

Thank you Linda..I did check with our officials, they said what you said. It was that it was an open publicly accessed area that confused me and a professional unbiased view was preferable. Again thank you very much...Kevin

Photographers' rights in the UK
A very handy guide to your rights when taking photographs - very useful in these paranoid times.

Hy everyone,
Thank you for the photographer's guide and the luminous comments.
This kind of "reference handbook" should be edited for the French peoples. We too have sometimes problems when takin pictures. Security peoples often doesn't seems to like photographers. Street peoples too.
Many of them think that they could making a lot of money if they are taking by photographers.
In fact, reporters photographs modifying their manner of taking information pictures. Blur, cropped faces, people view from back. Since 2000, street photography had a "new aesthetic".
I found here some useful tips for continuing my photographic work meanwhile best times...
Cheers,
Emmanuel

Good guide - thanks.

Hi very interesting content. If there are no photographic restrictions mentioned within the terms and conditions of entering a site / event, am I free to sell any photographs taken without seeking the organiser / property owners permission? I was thinking along the lines of pictures of steam engines, lamps, track etc at preserved steam railways, aeroplanes at airshows (and airports where the image is obtained from within the airfield boundary i.e. photograhers area) and other events such as council fun days. How about street art, statues, monuments and other arty items like benches, bike racks, lighting. Could I be in infringement if I sold an image of such art?

Many Regards

Reply from Linda:
Just to make things complicated, the answer is yes and no. It is generally true that you can take and sell photographs of things on private property, unless it is a condition of entry that you cannot. (Different rules may apply to taking photographs of people, where the Data Protection Act might come into play.) You do need to take some care with images that contain another person's trademark - this would probably apply to photos taken at an airport, where the planes have business logos and trademarked design elements. A trademark is infringed where it is used, without the consent of the owner in relation to goods or services identical to or sufficiently similar to the goods and services for which the mark is registered and this use is likely to lead to confusion. So, to some extent it depends what the image will be used for. If you are just selling prints (and assuming the mark is not registered in connection with the selling of prints) this would be ok. But stock photo libraries won't accept images that incorporate someone's trademark because the images might be used in way that does infringe the mark.
The same would apply to images that do not incorporate registered trademarks, but where the object is strongly associated in the public mind with a particular business. If the image is used in way that might imply a connection with that business, the owner of the business could sue. So, again, the ultimate use of the image is what matters. Use in advertising is likely to be problematic, use on prints or postcards, less so. Where a trademark incorporates artwork it may also be protected by copyright, and cannot be photographed unless its inclusion is completely incidental to the subject of the image.

Generic steam-engines, lights and tracks are unlikely to present any intellectual property problems.

As for "streeet art" it is not an infringement of copyright to take or to distribute (i.e. sell) a photo of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship which is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public (though the owner of the premises can place restrictions on the right to take photos). Temporary installations, performance art, light displays are not covered by this exception. The benches and bike racks may not be covered by copyright, depending on their originality, but, even if they are, they would usually be regarded as works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place, and could be photographed.

Linda,

Thank you ever so much for your reply. In short I understand your reply as, if an item, object etc (but not a person) is in the public domain, or on private property but you have permission to be on that land / event, and no photographic restrictions have been imposed by the land or article owner, then editorial style use (prints, books, personal use only image disks) are fine. Selling for commercial use, advertising etc becomes a bit more involved.

So I could sell a picture of Concord for someone to have as a personal use picture or image but not to someone who wants to use the picture in association with promoting their company or organization or event.

I would therefore imagine that images of strong brand items such as a steam locomotive painted as Thomas the Tank engine would be best avoided, and with well known locomotives it would be courteous, although not strictly required, to get written permission if the locomotive features strongly in the image or image set.

If I am unsure with regards selling an image I should contact a specialist legal advisor!

Thanks again.

Weddings...

Say I have been hired to take photgrpahs at a wedding, what is the happy couple's legal standings on the negatives?

Cheers
AM

Reply from Linda
It depends what you have agreed in the contract you have made with them. Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the copyright in the photos and the negatives remains with the photographer. But you don't have complete freedom in what you can do with them. The person who commissioned the photographs has certain moral rights in them, meaning that you cannot sell them, distribute them or show or exhibit them in public without that person's consent.

Thanks

Many of my shots are candid shots, it's nice to know that where we stand in the eye of the law.

Wedding

Hi could you please advise me

we had our wedding done prophesionaly by a freelanse photographer who has since died.
we would like to get the negatives for our wedding but his wife does not seem to want to coperate what can we do any ideas would be greatly apreciated on how we stand legally
we know this photographer would have keept all his negatives well organised at home

Thanks
Garry

Reply from Linda
The ownership of the negatives and any copyrights are a matter for the contract between the photographer and the client, but the usual terms are that the photographer retains the copyright in the images and also the ownership of the negatives. On the death of the photographer, these would pass to whoever was entitled to inherit under the terms of the photographer's will, or, if he didn't leave a will, under the laws of intestacy. Assuming that ownership of the negatives has passed to the photographer's widow, and she is unwilling to part with them, there isn't really anything you can do. There are, however, legal restrictions on what she can do with them.

I've posted a link on the above site.

Regards

Bernard

Hi
your photgraphers rights quide seems quite interesting however although I have acrobat reader when i downlaod it there is nothing on screen can you help please


david

Reply from Admin - Please make sure you have at least version 6 of acrobat installed.

Hi

I would like some information please..
1. I am in the process of starting a sublimation printing business and would like to put some places of interest onto placemats etc.. if I take these pictures from a public place such as a main road etc would I be legally correct in selling the product???
2. As above but I am able to get pictures of Welsh Castles before World War II,from a photographer who took them, would I need to get a letter of authorisation from him, allowing me copyrights, also would I be legally correct in selling these from the Welsh Tourist Boards point of view..

Thank You

Reply from Linda
1. The answer would generally be yes, assuming the photos do not contain any images of identifiable people who have not given their consent, or any copyright work.

2. You would definitely need to have an assignation or licence of the copyright from the original photographer, and this has to be in writing. The same provisos would apply as above, in that the photos should have been taken from a public place. If they were taken within the grounds of the castles in question, then whoever owns the castles may have placed restrictions on photography for commercial use.

Thanks so much for posting this guide. I'd been accosted a few times in public market places for taking photographs and was looking for something to make clear what my rights were. Just one question though, could you list the sources from which you compiled this guide? (Specifically in reference to taking photos of people in public)

Reply from Linda
My sources with regard to taking photos of people were:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Data Protection Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998

Please e-mail me if you want the references from specific sections and cases, since they are too lengthy to list here.

This guide needs to be regenerated for earlier versions of Acrobat. Acrobat 4 won't open it because it is encrypted.

Admin Reply : You can update your copy of acrobat to the latest version by downloading it here.

Superb guide. Many thanks.

I have a question on photographs and video of performances.

I often photograph firework displays and have now started using video. Occasionally the issue of who has copyright comes up - the show designers take the view that they have put on a performance, and that the design and performance are thus their creation.

As far as I have understood, the still photos I take of the display are my copyright - the photos are my interpretation of what has been shown, not a simple record. Also these are almost always public performances, and I always gain permission to photograph prior so no problems about private land.

However, I have a feeling that a video of the display is copyright the show designers, as effectively it is a record of their performance, and not a new creation.

Is this correct?

Reply from Linda
I am very doubtful that performance rights exist in a fireworks display. The definition in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 of a "performance" for the purposes of performance rights is relatively restrictive and would seem to require a performance by human beings, rather than this kind of display.
A display might, however, be protected by copyright as a "dramatic work". Things have to be recorded in tangible form before they qualify for copyright protection, but an organised forework display would normally have some underlying script. It has to be said that, in Australia (which has copyright laws very similar to the UK), the courts have cast doubt on the idea that a fireworks display can be treated as a dramatic work. In Nine Network Australia Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting
Corporation [1999] FCA 1864 the court refused to grant an injunction to stop ABC from recording and broadcasting the millenium firework display in Sydney harbour.
There is, however, no guarantee that a UK court would take the same view, so it may be best to play safe.
Even on the assumption that the display is protected by copyright, the still photos should be fine, since a still photo would not amount to "substantial" copying of the overall display. A lengthy video of the whole or substantially the whole of the display would infringe, and even if you had permission to take it, you would be unable to claim copyright in it.


Richard

The rights of a photographer

UK Photographers Rights

More problems anounced for photographers and may become even more widespread. Under a scheme called Leisurewatch, photographers may face official questioning about activities in an even wider range of public places. Leisurewatch started in 2001 as a joint venture between local authorites and police and is now being rolled out nationwide with the backing of the home office. Staff involved canapproach photographers and demand an explination to there motives. if not satisfied they are empowered to report the photographer to the police. Signs will be displayed at accredited Leisurewatch sites and is currently focused at specified recreational areas, the scheme has pottential to be used in all sorts of public areas including beaches, piers and seafronts as well as parks etc.

UK Photographers Rights
UK Photographers Rights - I persume this mostly applies to elsewhere in the EU? to look at later!
...

I've recently started taking outdoor portraiture in woodland areas for people's personal use - eg. anniversary photos, actors head shots, children and parents dressed as fairies etc. As the venture is new, I'm really distressed with being hit with permit charges on any scrub of land! A very low key operation, with low charges to clients, WHERE am I leagally able to take these shots? The latest upset came when I was shooting on Wimbledon Common - (by the name, I assumed common land) But no, like Richmond Park the week before, a permit was demanded half way through the shoot, with the phrase 'commercial gain' bandied around as if I was a rich photographer working for a major advertising agency!! Intererstingly, I tried to point out, there was NO mention against taking 'commercial' photos on the By laws sign at the edge of the wood, or in the leaflet handed to me by a ranger. I only found some mention on their website after the event. The scenery behind my clients is not identifiable as any particular park - I just need somewhere that has interesting trees and feels 'magical' . Please, I would so appreciate some advice as to public land, parks, river tow paths etc. and my rights to be on that land to take this kind of work?

Reply from Linda
The Royal Parks, of which Richmond Park is one, are covered by statutory provisions that prohibit taking photographs in connection with any business activity unless the photographer has permission from the Royal Parks Agency. They will normally charge a fee.
Other public parks aren't covered by the provisions, but, unfortunately, local authorities may still restrict the right to take photographs for gain, or may demand a fee for allowing you to do so. The best bet is to check with the local authority for the place you intend to use.

Dear Sir,
Could you please tell me if it is illigal to paint a picture and sell it from some elses photograph ?

Thank You Mrs Usher.

Reply from Admin - Yes it would be a violation of the original artists work, unless you have specifically licensed the image to allow for resale. Most stock images cannot be resold in this manner. You should check the images license agreement for full information on this. If in doubt consult the agencies customer support and/or take your own legal advice.

Dear Linda (and other contributors)

My compliments and thanks to you for not only writing the article on photographers rights but also for responding to questions on these pages; the latter have proved just as illuminating as the article.

I recently visited a local tourist attraction which is recreation of an Anglo Saxon village. I took photos for stock of the buildings, people and activities, including my children dressed in Saxon costume weaving etc. Upon leaving I noticed a sign saying that commercial photography was only allowed by permission of the steward. I could easily have not seen/ignored this sign. I sent low res thumbs of my images to the steward asking for permission to use them. A request for money was made which I responded to by offering to make high res versions availble to them for free. In the end permission was denied and I have respected that. But if I went ahead and ignored this prohibition what law would I be breaking and what legal redress would they
(a local council) have? Thanks

Reply from Linda
It's rather hard to answer this without knowing more. I assume that this was an attraction that you paid to enter. If so, you would have a contract with the council and it would govern the terms and conditions under which you were allowed to enter the attraction. You can only be governed by terms and conditions of which you were made aware, but this can be done by means of imported terms - a notice as you enter, a note on a ticket that says that entry is subject to terms and conditions, that kind of thing. The fact that you didn't see the sign doesn't matter if it was visible on entry and a reasonable person could have seen it.
If you ignored the prohibition, you have not broken any law in the criminal sense, but you would be in breach of contract and could be sued for damages.
Even without any contract, the owner of land is entitled to restrict entry to his land or to put conditions on that entry. If one of those conditions is a restriction on photography, then you become a trespasser as soon as you breach that restriction. Again, the council could bring a civil action for damages.

Thanks very much for the guide, "Photographer's Rights in the UK." Please allow me to ask a few questions related to the photo that I have taken recently.
The photo was shot on a boat and as it happened I caught a child in a few more rows before me, looking into my lens. (The photo was filled half with the child and the other half with background of the surrounding; but after cropping it makes an excellent child photo). I understand from the postings on the page that it is legal to do so; even though the boat may be a private property, the staff on the boat were aware that I was taking photos continuously of the scenes and the people, and I wasn't hiding my camera.
As I do with most of the other good pictures that I have taken, I would like to publish it on a photo-hosting website. I am not quite certain if it is okay to do so. The identity of the child is not known to me and I only take photos as a hobby and do not do it for a living. I believe that I own the copyright of the photo, but because it is on the Internet if some people use it for obscene purposes will I be responsible if any manipulation of the photo happens? By publishing on the photo-hosting website, will I be infringing any laws, since I think the photo will be viewed by dozens of other people.

Reply from Linda
This is rather a murky area of the law at present. The present state of the law in the UK is that there is no general right of privacy, even under the Human Rights Act. This may be subject to change in future. As far as the Data Protection Act is concerned, it is not clear, as yet, whether courts in the UK would regard as personal data a photograph of a person whose identity is not known to the photographer. If the photo is not regarded as personal data, none of the restrictions of the Data Protection Act would apply. Even if it is, there is an exemption in the Act for the processing of personal data for "artistic purposes". Non-commercial publication on a photo-hosting website, equivalent to an exhibition of photographs, could be regarded as such.

You would not be liable if someone else, without your consent, manipulated your photo for obscene purposes. The offence is to take or make an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, or to distribute such a photograph. The offence would be committed by the person who did the manipulation.


Thank you very much in advance.

i have been taking picturs now for some years untill the other day when a crime was taking place and i took pictures of the crime and from a window took pictures of the person all the time and every time they went near this person.

is that ok or is it invading there human rights.

as the person is now being sort after by the police should i hand over my pictures.

Reply from Linda

I assume that the crime in question was being carried out in a public place? Even if it wasn't, the Human Rights Act does not create absolute rights, it tries to balance the rights of different interests. Frankly, a person who is in the process of committing a crime is not going to be able to argue that you invaded his privacy by taking photos of him doing it. If he could, every CCTV and security camera would also be an invasion of human rights.

Should you hand your photos over to the police? There is no legal obligation in these circumstances to report a crime or to present yourself as a witness. There is arguably a strong moral obligation though - that has to be your decision.

If I want to take photographs in public buildings like post offices, hospitals or doctors surgeries and I only intend to use the footage for artistic value and not comercial gains, do I need permission from any of the subjects I photograph?

Reply from Linda
Well, you would first need to check whether you are allowed to take photographs in the buildings in question. They may be buildings to which the public has access, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that you are allowed to take photographs there. I would very much doubt that a doctor's surgery or a hospital would allow photography or the people there.
As far as the people are concerned, the law of privacy in the UK is still in something of a state of flux, but the courts might well take the view that hospitals and doctors' surgeries are places where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and taking photographs of people there might be regarded as a breach of confidence, unless you obtain their consent.

Thank you for replying to my post : )

With technological advances I cannot see how the public arena can refuse photography. Cameras can now be hidden in so many places; humanity will have no choice but to accept the ‘freedom of photography’. How else are we to gather possible evidence in this corrupt society?

Britain has more cameras ‘monitoring activity’ per head that any other country. I think privacy is deteriorating and if society is to overcome hypocrisy, people must become aware of themselves in every context possible!

What do you think about post offices, council offices, town halls and other buildings ‘owned’ by the taxpayer?

Reply from Linda
Sadly, what I think of it doesn't make any difference, legally speaking. I'm a photographer as well as a lawyer, so naturally I am generally in favour of photographic freedom, at least within reason.
But, as far as those buildings "owned" by the taxpayer are concerned, the taxpayer may pay for them, but they are owned by various government or local authority agencies, and they can, if they wish, stop you taking photographs on their property, just as they could stop you moving in to their offices and sleeping there.

With the emphasis on the freedom of information and the necessity for a transparent system of government, these buildings need to be fully accessible to public viewing. There should be no restriction on monitoring these organisations. However, moving in and living in the building has no relationship to taking photographs or recording conversation

Durdle Door and Lulworth Cove on the Dorset coast are well known and often photographed places open to the public via what I believe to be rights of way. However, there are signs stipulating that photographs of the area must not be taken for commercial purposes without the permission of the landowners (the Lulworth Estate).

To what extent can the landowner prevent the use of such photographs?

Reply from Linda
Rights of public access to privately owned land in England and Wales is now governed by The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Section 2(1) of the Act gives the public a statutory right of access to certain kinds of land, but Schedule 2(1)lists the purposes for which Section 2(1) does not entitle any person to be on land, and this list includes anyone who "engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose."

This means that the landowner is entitled to prevent photography for commercial purposes. If you did then take photographs for commercial use, you would no longer be entitled to be on the land and would, in effect, be trespassing. The photographer could be sued for damages and the usual rule that damages are only awarded to compensate for actual losses suffered by the plaintiff do not apply. Nominal damages can always be claimed for trespass and, in the case of trespass for commercial photography, exemplary damages might be awarded in some circumstances.

Ok, that doesn't really answer your question, but I wanted to make it clear that any commercial gain from the photographs might be wiped out by damages and legal costs.

With regard to the landowner preventing the use of the photographs, he could ask the court for an injunction to prevent publication, which the court may or may not grant, depending on the circumstances. In the circumstances you describe, the likelihood would be that the court would not grant an injunction, but would award damages to the landowner in respect of the trespass, such damages being greater than the any profit made from the publication of the photographs.

Linda,

Many thanks for doing this - it is extremely useful! Do you know if there are any such resources covering other countries (other than the US)?

Joe

Reply from Linda
The US guide is the only one that I know of, though there may be others. I hope to do an international version, or at least a European version, if I ever get the time!

Excellent, informative, and a definite direct a client there tool.

Is there another version somewhere? I seem unable to open the file (I am typically able to view PDFs both on and offline with no problems).

Reply from Admin - Are you using an old version of acrobat reader ? It's free to download and update to the latest version of acrobat reader. You can find the latest version here.

Many thanks, very informative.

Best regards
Paul

I have recently become interested in digital photography and have my own personal website to display my art photos for friends and family to view. My site is not for selling images. I have taken many images over recent days at the newly opened art and archeology museum in Lincoln.
The images have mainly been of the building structure and lighted display cabinets in creating abstact images.
The actual displays are not the emphasis of the photos and
the goods displayed are largely undefined. I have also photographed a display of photographs!
I had forwarded several of the more interesting images (now it seems quite naively) to the principal keeper as a personal thanks and goodwill gesture; I have not as yet received reply.

However today I had returned to the centre and was stopped when taking more photographs. I was told permission had to be permitted to me, before taking any images. I beleived I could make 'art images ' out of any part of a public display building.

A senior staff member was consulted and said I must get a permission permit or 'anyone could come in and take pictures.' The discussion was not expanded and I am confused. I said I will await reply from the principal keeper.

I am unclear as to whether I can put my pictures on my website and to whether all the other previous photos are, well 'valid' for me to use?

I feel a bit uncomfortable with it all and I'm not so sure I'm miffed because I could't take pictures of our new public place without asking permission or being referred to by a senior staff member as 'sweetheart' during my reprimand?

I have read through your guidelines and theanks for that, it makes things clearer.

Reply from Linda
The usual rules apply, in that the owner of the property, whether a private individual, corporation or local authority, can impose rules restricting or prohibiting photography on their premises.
It would be wise not to publish the photos anywhere until you know whether you have permission. It may well be granted if the photos are purely for private use.

The following is a post to a model / photographers forum regarding a question of law.
One 'expert' has posted that 'it is not a problem'!

[quote]On another forum there's an excellent glamour photo of a woman (well into her 20s by the looks of things). She's wearing a see-through corset with the nipples clearly visible, it is a "sexy" glamour pose, & the image is clearly marked as 'adult'...it was also taken by a 14-year-old!

I do not find this offensive (it's hardly porn), & the tog (a female) has done a fabulous job. But who was (potentially) breaking the law here: the model, the tog, or both?[/quote]

What is the legal position on the above?

regards

Dave
====

Reply from Linda
Ask me an easy one, why don't you?
The under-age photographer is not breaking the law, since all the laws in this area are aimed at the protection of children. It is an offence to commit an act of gross indecency involving a child, and this goes beyond physical sexual abuse. It would include, for example, engaging in sexual behaviour while a child was watching, or showing pornographic images to a child. However, the offence requires that that the accused gained pleasure or satisfaction from the knowledge that the child was involved. That would not appear to be the case here.
Even so, this is one of those grey areas and the child protection agencies might not be impressed. It would be illegal if it was thought to be harmful to the child in some way. This is always going to be a question of fact based on all the circumstances of the case. Of course, I haven't seen the photo and I don't know what other photos were taken. From your description, this one doesn't sound so bad.
If anyone is breaking the law in this kind of situation, it would be the model and/or whoever rented studio space/provided the models for the shoot.

My answer was that even if no laws were broken, problems could arise if social services or the media were tipped off and acted upon the information.

The publicity could destroy the studio owner or the models reputaion and future career.

regards

Dave
====

Reply from Linda
Yes, I think that's right. Like I said, the child protection agencies would probably not be impressed and they would investigate if it was reported to them. Even if they eventually took no action, reputations are destoyed that way. And it doesn't take much imagination to work out how it would be presented by the media.

Thanks for the guide, I help run a site which is collecting CC-licenced photographs for every 1km grid square of the British Isles, and we point people at the guide when they have queries.

Although our photos don't generally feature people, we've had a recent query about whether model releases are required for images like this http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/59994 - our understanding is that in the UK, it is not required.

Since some of our contributers may be Irish, I wondered if anyone knew of similar guides to Irish law on photography?

Reply from Linda
There is some doubt as to whether images of people, even those whose identity is unknown to the data controller would come within the provisions of the Data Protection Act. The data controller would be the photographer in the first instance, and also possibly those who run the web site with regard to any images of people there, but I could not determine that without knowing how the site actually works. So the practical advice would be to obtain the subject's consent, not only to having his photo taken, but to having it displayed on the site and possibly downloaded from there. Because the images from the site can be downloaded and used by others for all kinds of purposes, the exemptions that apply to the special purposes (journalistic, artistic or literary purposes) would not apply here. Consent for the purposes of the Data Protection Act does not have to be in writing, though this is always useful for evidence.

So, the answer is that it depends on the way the courts eventually interpret the DPA in these circumstances. And this may depend on whether the photographer knows the identity of the subject or not. If you want to err on the side of safety, it would be advisable to insist on a model release. The nature of the image suggests that the photographer had the consent of the subject to take it, but if the photographer told the subject that the photo was being taken for his own personal use, for example, and he then made it available to the site, he would be in breach of the first Data Protection Principle (assuming the image would be regarded as personal data).
To save this response from becoming too complex, if you would like to discuss this issue further, please feel free to e-mail me.

Sorry, I don't know of a guide to the law in Ireland. Copyright and Data Protection law should be virtually identical with the UK, as these are based on European Directives.

A few people on our site forums have raised this question - when someone submits a photograph like this http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/26222 of Trafalgar Square, and licence it under a Creative Commons licence allowing commercial use, are they in violation of the photographic prohibitions you mention in your guide?

If so, would a non-commercial version of the CC licence help here?

The photographer is not making money, but it's possible that someone could use the image commercially (although our site only stores a 640x480 version of each image)

Reply from Linda
The bylaws relating to Trafalgar Square state that written permission is required for taking "photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate"

Photographers can find the byelaws here: http://www.london.gov.uk/trafalgarsquare/docs/squares_byelaws.pdf

That's actually pretty broad, and doesn't require that the photographer is acting in the course of his own business, or that he knows the exact commercial use to which they might be put. If he is making them available to others to use commercially, then he could be argued to be taking them for the purpose of a business, or at least for the purpose of or in connection with "any activity".
I think that the non-commercial version of the Creative Commons licence would be advisable here.

Many thanks for your genorosity in sharing information.
Much appreciated.

Many thanks for this. It is, as far as I can tell, unique, and very useful.
I live in a small, fairly close-knit village, that has a large visitor influx during the summer. I was thinking of selling postcards in one of the village shops, views of the village and surrounding countryside and coast.
If these pics contain identifiable shops/cars/fishing boats, etc. do I need permission from all concerned?

Best regards,
ROn

Reply from Linda
If you are only planning to use the images for postcards, and not for any other kind of commercial use, there shouldn't be too many legal problems here. Assuming the photos are taken from a public place, the owners of the shops cannot object to their buildings being photographed, though you may need to be careful that other copyright works, such as any artwork on the building, are not more than incidentally included. The same would apply if the name of any prominently featured shop was also a registered trademark. While the cautious advice would always be to get a property release where possible, you would probably have no problems with the uses you suggest.

Models and photographer who collaborate with Time for Pictures ( TFP / TFCD ) deals in order to gain experience or portfolio images seem to spend as much time dealing with issues at a later date covering copyright, use of images, ownership etc..

Forum barristers ( used to be called 'bar room barristers ) offer a plethora of conflicting advice which confuses the issue further.

What is needed is a simple (!) document that both model and photographer could sign.

Is this feasible and would Linda be willing to commit to producing one.

( ps. Thank you for responding to my previous query )

regards

Dave

Reply from Linda
I could easily do one that covered some basic terms, but generally I would think you would want to be able to tailor it for individual circumstances and models. It would really need to be downloadable as an editable file. Leave it with me for now and I'll see what I can come up with.
====

Reply from Admin
Sounds a great idea. I'll be happy to host and serve it from here.

Thankyou for sharing this very helpful information, I've been unable to find anything as concise as this elsewhere on the net.I was recently asked to stop taking pictures in a major London railway station by a police officer who quoted part of the terrorism act(section 45?)mentioned July 7th and asked to see what images I had taken.He was very polite, I was not obliged to delete any images and was recomended a nearby, offsite spot to shoot from.Was I committing an offence in taking pictures(not even using a tripod) without seeking permission from the relevant trainline?
Brilliant site, thankyou again.

Reply from Linda
Sections 44 and 45 of the Terrorism Act 2000 give the police pretty broad pwoers to stop and search, and certainly July 7 has made the police considerably more suspicious than they were, especially regarding potential targets such as railways.
No, you were not committing any offence in taking the photos. It is a criminal offence to trespass on the railways or any adjoining premises. Clearly you are not trespassing by being in a railway station where memebers of the public are expected to be, but if you had been asked to leave, or to stop taking photos, and you had refused, you would have become a trespasser.

This is a great guide, a very interesting read. Thank you for making it. I did see that you don't know of a European wide version of the guide, but do you know of a guide like this for any other specific European country, such as France, Germany, Spain etc? I would be very interested in reading such a document, as I am VERY regularly bothered when taking pictures in France, especially when trying to use a tripod or monopod.

Reply from Admin - Sorry I don't know of any other guides, apart from the Krages USA guide. If anyone finds one I'd be happy to link into it.

I have Recently been working in liverpool taking photographs of nightclubs for a review website, I have permission from all the club owners and nobody minds me taking there pictures, recently I have had a email requesting I remove a picture. I have no problem with this but am I legally required to remove it? It is of 2 people kissing and they were fine with me taking it at the time.

Excellent site aswell

Reply from Admin - Legally you probably have every right to keep the image up, you had the clubs permission to shoot there and the two people posed for you. Even if they posed while intoxicated they still posed for you.

However, and this is the important bit. Is it really worth the hassle for 1 image ? I'd recommend to just remove the image and move on. The person could try a civil case against you, or they could complain to the club promoters you are working for. Either way it's a lot easier to just remove the image.

UK Photographers Legal Rights
A little while ago there was an article going round outlining photographers rights but it was written with USA law in mind. Not so much use for brits. Luckily here is a PDF with reference to UK law.

We have been discussing this on photography-on-the.net and wondered whether a smaller A5 version with bullet points could be produced with bullit points to facilitate portability and presentation?

This arose out of a concern about a disabled photographer for whom lengthy explanations to those challenging him would be difficult, but I thought i9t wold be useful for everyone

just athought

Reply from Linda
It would be easy enough to do, though it worries me that the guide is already very basic and, of necessity, it leaves out a lot of the subtleties. To strip it down even further does run the risk of making it almost meaningless. If there are key areas that people would like to have covered on a short A5 document I guess it would be possible to do that.

I just has a run in with my building with the staff member who cleans and who takes care of the common elements of our Apartment Condominimum. It was a farse that he told me that I could not take photos of a relative on the outside of the building as it was a common area and I needed permission from the comdominimum board of directors to take photographs on the property. Yeah he might have a point but it is being nit picky
Ok this might be pushing things, but then he proceeded to tell me that I was not allowed by law to take pictues of anyone or any thing privately owned without the person or owners permission. He further ranted that I could not take photos of people or vehicles on or off private property.... well you can see where he was going down a slippery slope sounding like we were in the former USSR.
So I decided to investigate Canadian Laws regarding the "Taking of Photographs in public" but all my searches came up with copywrite advice for photographers. I Know some of the copywrite act, but I want to know about just taking the pictures and not publishing them. I know that people in the USA have the First Amendment and freedom of expression, that is were I found this site (thinking canadian laws are based on British Common Law) I would really like to be able to find such a great document as you have prepared, but as the laws relate to Canada. As a person who always has their camera out and ready .... What are my rights? (in Canada anyways)
If you anyone has such a document please contact me ianpayton@ybot.ca

Thanks

Reply from Linda
My understanding is that the law regarding taking photos of private property from a public place is pretty much the same in Canada as in the USA and UK and most other places. I will let you know if I find out anything different.
With regards to photographing people, if these photos are to be published in any way, a decision in one case has suggested some restrictions, at least in Quebec: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1998/1998scc31.html

I found this guide very useful but I am left with a query about photography in urban places, eg central London. Developments these days frequently leave spaces around urban buildings looking as if they are public when they are actually private. However these invariaby have rights of way through them, granted as a necessary part of planning permission. Over and again I have found myself prevented from taking photos in such places, regardless of whether the photo is for private or commercial use. I find this absurd, even when there are genuine security concerns. And it is a problem that continually grows as more and more developments have 'pseudo-public' areas around and through them. Do I have the right on such rights of way to take a photo? Thanks ...

Reply from Linda
Ken, I know we communicated by e-mail, but I wanted to paste my remarks here in case anyone else found them useful.
In general, a land owner had the right to prevent such activities as he wishes on his own land.
But, public rights of way (assuming they are genuinely public rights of way as opposed to a permitted entry by the public onto private land) are public highways. There was a decision by majority of the House of Lords in DPP v Jones, in which Lord Irving said "The question to which this appeal gives rise is whether the law today should recognise that the public highway is a public place, on which all manner of reasonable activities may go on. For the reasons I set out below in my judgment it should. Provided these activities are reasonable, do not involve the commission of a public or private nuisance, and do not amount to an obstruction of the highway unreasonably impeding the primary right of the general public to pass and repass, they should not constitute a trespass." Although DPP v Jones was specifically concerned with a public assembly, Lord Irving's statement would appear to have a much more general application. The key factor here seems to be reasonableness, which their Lordships seemed to feel was a question of fact to be determined by the amount of space occupied by the activity in question and the duration of time taken. The size of the highway itself could also be a factor, since a person standing on a narrow footpath is more likely to obstruct the passage of others than he would standing in a broad street.

In the absence of any specific legal decision to the contrary, I would take the view that taking photos of buildings from a public right of way is not actionable or criminal, provided it is reasonable in the circumstances. Certain buildings, however, may be subject to specific security considerations that are outwith the laws relating to trespass or obstruction. It is, for example, an offence to take a photograph of any "prohibited place" within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act, and "prohibited place" can include a wide array of places declared to be prohibited by order of the Secretary of State.

Thanks for the very useful guide. I have one query (based on the guide I've been trying to write to the rules surrounding photography on the railways and Tube - http://uffish.net/archives/000336.html ) - under what circumstances is it legal for someone to demand that a photographer hand over their equipment, memory cards or film, and who may do this? It'd also be interesting to know what offence is being committed by people who forcibly attempt to do these things without the legal authority to do so, as there have been reports of this happening to people on railway stations.

Reply by Linda
Security has become a huge issue for the various transport systems, especially since July 2005, and it is on the grounds of security that one is most likely to be challenged. The police have pretty wide powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search a person and his/her belongings, and to seize any article found in the search that the police "reasonably suspect is intended to be used in connection with terrorism". The reasonableness of suspecting that a camera is to be used in connection with terrorism is arguable, of course. The same Act gives wide powers of arrest and detention, though, so you may find yourself being questioned in a police station if you argue the point too strongly.
Station staff, security guards, etc, can ask you to leave the station, and you will become a trespasser if you refuse (and trespass on or near a railway line can be a criminal offence). Reasonable force can be used to remove you if you refuse to leave. These people do not, however, have any power to demand that you hand over your camera or any other belongings. If they attempted to take them from you by force, this would be an assault.

Thank you so much for this, Linda! I wonder if you could clarify one phrase for me, found in the last column of page 2: "It is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings... IN PREMISES THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. [emphasis mine] Does "premises" here include multi-building developments such as Canary Wharf and More London (South Bank)? (I've been stopped several times from taking exterior photos, with and without a tripod, and "copyright" has usually been cited as the reason.)

Reply from Linda
Yes, it would include developments like that. However, they may well have the right to stop you taking photographs from on their property. This, however, is because it is within their rights as property owners and nothing to do with copyright.

If a photographer takes pictures of a model, asks if he can use them on the Internet and the model says no but then the photographer subsequently uses them anyway where does the model stand legally?

Reply from Linda
The photographer might well be in breach of the Data Protection Act (in which case the model might report the photographer to the Information Commissioner, who would investigate and, if required, take action). There have been no cases on this issue as yet, so it remains a grey area, legally, but the fact that the model's identity is known and that the model refused consent would mitiigate against the photographer. The "special purposes" exemptions might apply, but might not, depending on the circumstances.
Since the model was asked for consent and refused, the photographer might also be open to an action for breach of confidence.

Thank you for your response, it is much appreciated. I am the model in question and ideally I would like to get the negatives from this guy but I guess he owns them even if I say he can't use them. I can't see what use there would be in him hanging on to them if I won't let him use them or enforce it through a court if he has used them. I guess I will have to do a little more research. Thanks again and your web site is very informative. Warm Regards - Bobby

Very interesting and useful article. From a subject's point of view - can a spectator take a photograph of a player/runner at a football match, tennis match or athletics meeting, post it on the web and sell it?

Reply from Linda
I hate to say "it depends" yet again, but it does. You would first have to check on the conditins of entry to the sports ground, many of them have restrictions or prohibitions on photography, or on commercial photography.
If you do have the right to take photographs freely, then you might still have restrictions on what can be done with them. Football strips are protected by various intellectual property rights, after all, they usually bear a trademarked logo of the team's sponsor. And, in fact, most sportswear is covered in logos. Unless you remove these, you won't be able to sell the photo for any kind of commercial use and image libraries usually won't accept them. The same applies to recognisable faces - the ASA Code of Practice doesn't generally allow images of individuals to be used in marketing without that person's consent. The image might well be saleable for editorial use, though.

Great and informative document! More of a question from a photographers rights point of view. I go to music gigs and I have permission of the bands, venue etc. I then 'give' the photographs for the bands to use and they do credit me on their sites or whenever they use them!

The problem is that the images I post up onto my internet are being used elsewhere without permission by others outside of the band. I dont want to be plastering copyright over the photographs, or adding javascript coding onto my pages to stop people from saving them off. I have contacted the site(s) in question and they have removed these.

My other question is : I recently took photographs of a well known artist who I asked permission from himself before the gig, no problems there. After the gig I contacted his promotions company & management about the photographs and they expressed an interest in them. I want to know, do I have to include a letter of copyright with the DVD of photos when posting it to them, to stop them from selling these as prints? At the moment they have only expressed interest in using them on their website etc but I wouldnt want them to be printed and sold off! How or what sort of copyright notice should I include, before posting off the orginals?

Thanks

Michael

Reply from Linda Unless you give the images to somone under an agreement that includes the transfer of copyright, then copyright in the images remains with you. If you are only willing to give copies of the images to be used on a website, then you should state this in a letter accompanying the DVD. Make it clear that you are not authorising the use of the images for prints or for any other use except display on a website.

Reply from Admin As CD/DVD's often get separated from the letter that accompanies them, it's a good idea to include a USAGE-RIGHTS.txt file in the root directory of any CD/DVD you give out. You could also print a short version on the front/back cover of the CD case "For use on website only". Secondly, only include web sized version of images. Add a note (again in the root directory and on the CD covers) that high res images are available to be licensed for print by contacting _____ .

Thank you for a very informative and interesting document. Having read some interesting comments on other websites, I have a couple of questions about photography and the police.

It is becoming common practice at any public demonstration in Britain for the police to monitor proceedings by taking both still and video pictures. They presumably have the right to do so as a) they are taking pictures in a public place and b) they have the right to monitor an event in the event of any breaches of the law. I have read about a recent situation in which (it is alleged), a police photographer took photographs of a demonstrator at very close range. The demonstrator felt this was close to harrasment, if not actual harrasment itself; but is it possible (in such a situation) to bring a case of harrasment against the police? Also, what happens to the pictures that the police take? Do members of the public have the right to see if they appear as the main subject in any police image and if so, can they demand the destruction of that image?

Along similar lines, what is the law surrounding photography of the police in a public place? A police officer will undoubtedly object to their picture being taken in a large number of instances as he/she may be patrolling an area of sensitivity and therefore can stop you under acts such as Prevention of Terrorism etc. But in the case of a participant in a public demonstration, can you take pictures of the police (who may be taking pictures of you)? All very convoluted!

Finally, at a recent demonstration in London, police made attempts to stop photography of the rally participants by members of the press and public. I believe the reason was to prevent a possible breach of the peace - but this sounds like a dubious catch-all argument to me.

Reply from Linda
The processing of personal data, including photos, for the purposes of the prevention and detection of crime is subject to various exemptions under the Data Protection Act. This includes an exemption from the subject access rights, but only where the interests of law enforcement are likely to be prejudiced by compliance. Personal data, including photographs, processed for the purposes of national security is subject to even broader exemptions from the Act.

It is possible to bring a complaint against the police for harassment, but this by definition would involve more than one event. The subject could however complain to the local police authority if he/she considered that the police had behaved improperly.

Subject to genuine security/law enforecement concerns, (and to the as yet undetermined application of the Data Protection Act depending on what the photos are to be used for) there would generally be nothing to prevent a photographer taking photos of the police, or of protests or rallies. Photographers should take care that they don't appear to be part of an unlawful demonstration or they may be arrested along with other participants. The "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace" reason is widely used and, yes, it can become something of a catch all. The problem for the photographer is that, if he/she refuses to leave and is arrested on those grounds, he/she would end up in court. Not a desirable outcome for most people, even if they are then acquitted.

I have a website which links to a photo-hosting site which I upload all my photos to. The photos are of people (posing) in pubs/clubs and even at my work, most of which are my friends, many are just people I know from seeing them around town. Everyone knows these photos go onto the website, i give them the link, they enjoy the photos and don't mind them being there, or at least they have not send otherwise, if they do not object, can I understand that as consent? My issue is, I don't want someone sueing me, obviously. How likely is that to happen, would a photo of someone down the pub, put on my site, be enough to be sued? What can I do to stop that? Can I just put a disclaimer on my website saying, "you posed for the photo and I took that as your consent, that I could use the photograph and do what I wanted with it (although I'm not using it for commerical use, it is on a website which is available to the public and offers prints for sale). However, if you would like a photo removed/you to be taken out of the photograph, then I would be happy to do so."

Also, when consent is required, what is consent? If you pose then I would say that that was consent for at least me to take the photograph, but does that mean I can publish it on a public website? Is the photo then mine to do with what I want? If more than just posing is required for consent, will verbal consent be good enough? And how do I prove verbal consent was given?

It just seems crazy that on a night out, I should go around with pieces of paper requiring everyone to sign for every photograph I take, also is it per photograph or per person, if I get someone to sign/verbally agree that I can use their photo, can I apply this to every photo of them in the past and in the future?

Can someone change their mind, can they give consent and then withdraw it?

The pubs and university also takes pictures of people and do not require consent to put them into leaflets, flyers, on big screens in the venue, etc. Are they allowed to do this because it was in their venue? Even some of the clubs have taken photos from my website in their venue (with my permission) and have used them for flyers and on the big screens, am I then liable because I provided them with the link to the website where the images I took are freely available?

Thank you,
Louise.

Reply from Linda
The general rule is that photos taken in circumstances where there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy can be used for non-commercial purposes, even if the subject didn't
expressly consent. BUT, the law in this area is still developing and this may not always be the
case. And your place of work in particular may be regarded as somewhere that a person
would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it may be a breach of confidence to
publish photos of people taken there. Entry to pubs/clubs etc may sometimes be conditional
on allowing your photo to be taken and used, this is certainly true of crowds at sporting
events, people at concerts, etc.

You raise several points. First, consent does not have to be written, verbal consent is good
enough. The reason for a written model release is that it provides evidence if the person later
denies giving consent. Consent can be general or specific. Consent to a particular photo being
used wouldn't imply consent to any photo being taken and used, but if the subject gives or
signs a general consent to the use of any photos of them that would be valid. Knowingly
posing for a photograph would imply consent to the photo being taken, but the extent to
which it might imply consent to a variety of uses has not yet been legally established. Again,
the reason that lawyers advise getting model releases where possible is to put the issue
beyond doubt and to protect the photographer.

Second, a person who gives consent to the publication of their photo can't withdraw it later
unless the consent is given on that basis.

If you are publishing photos to a hosting site where the photos remain private and can only be
seen by people to whom you give the link, this would arguably be no different to taking
photos purely for private use. No consent would be needed for that assuming they were not
taken in circumstances where a person might have reasonable expectations of privacy. (i.e., if
you have taken the photos with a long lens through someone's living room window they
might argue that you have invaded their privacy.

Consent is needed under the Advertising Standards Authority code of practice to use photos
of individuals for advertising or marketing. It is the pub or club who is breaching the code,
though, if they use photos you have taken without the consent of the subject.

Could you please please tell me where i can get hold of a copy to purchase of Photographers rights in the UK by Linda Macpherson .
Thank you Jonathan Richardson.

Admin Reply - no purchase is needed just click on the link at the top of the page 'Download PDF'. To save it to your computer right click and goto 'save as'.