Photography and the Law UK

Hi

Can anybody clarify what the law is pertaining to photography in a public place, and in particular photographing teenagers or children.

I ask this question because of an incident that happened to me in Manchester, I am a keen street photographer and have for a few years wandered the streets of Manchester trying to capture the essence of my home town.

Today I witnessed quite a remarkable scene , we have street patrollers in the city who work with the local police, they are effectively citizens in uniform and provide a point of contact for visitors of residents.

It was one such patroller that caught my eye , he walked with a “John Wayne “ stance like he was going for his six gun , from the back he looked like the Sheriff ,an interesting subject I thought.

So I followed him in to an area that has a large student population, as he approached a group of students the ran up to him and called him ‘Grandad’ lots of them hugged him,.

I shot about 10 images of these young people embracing this very popular individual.

I was then approached by his colleague, who asked me why are you taking pictures of children ? it’s against the law”

Which law is that I asked “er the law” came the reply, which law I pressed ,then we had a change of tack, “ we have had a complaint he said, who off I asked. “ licensing” came the bizarre reply.

I asked him who or what was licensing but he refused to answer and then called his headquarters to ask for the video camera on the building opposite to be trained on me.

I gave the camera a cheery wave and told him that I was not going to tell him what I was doing, or who I was because quite simply I did not have to.

So come on you legal eagles what is the law on photography in a public place in the UK , and are we in danger of losing a very valuable photographic style because of paranoia.

Rory

warnomore said:

I was then approached by his colleague, who asked me why are you
taking pictures of children ? it’s against the law”

Click to expand...

lol. maybe one of those terrorism fighting laws?

I think you can take public pictures of anyone - after all their outside in public, but it cant be for monetary gain if they're identifiable ... You'd need a model release form... (though paparazzi seems to avoid this).

However, if an individual asks you to stop.. you should...

Not quite the law, but something that works for me..

Elf,

I have no objection to anybody asking me to stop photographing them, in practice people seem interested and want to be photographed, I guess it is the Wharholian 15 minutes of fame celebrity culture we live in.

My objection was based on a groundless intervention, by someone who thought that they could bully me by using a law that when confronted they could not justify.

It seems to me that our rights as citizens (although technically we are still subjects) are in danger of going down the pan because of manufactured paranoia.

That is why I am trying to find out what the law is.

Completely understandable.

There is no law that says you can not photograph people in public, children included.

warnomore said:

Elf,

I have no objection to anybody asking me to stop photographing
them, in practice people seem interested and want to be
photographed, I guess it is the Wharholian 15 minutes of fame
celebrity culture we live in.

My objection was based on a groundless intervention, by someone who
thought that they could bully me by using a law that when
confronted they could not justify.

It seems to me that our rights as citizens (although technically we
are still subjects) are in danger of going down the pan because of
manufactured paranoia.

That is why I am trying to find out what the law is.

Click to expand...

My mate is a chief constable so I will ask him and follow up

warnomore said:

Hi

Can anybody clarify what the law is pertaining to photography in a
public place, and in particular photographing teenagers or children.

I ask this question because of an incident that happened to me in
Manchester, I am a keen street photographer and have for a few
years wandered the streets of Manchester trying to capture the
essence of my home town.

Today I witnessed quite a remarkable scene , we have street
patrollers in the city who work with the local police, they are
effectively citizens in uniform and provide a point of contact for
visitors of residents.

It was one such patroller that caught my eye , he walked with a
“John Wayne “ stance like he was going for his six gun
, from the back he looked like the Sheriff ,an interesting subject
I thought.

So I followed him in to an area that has a large student
population, as he approached a group of students the ran up to him
and called him ‘Grandad’ lots of them hugged him,.

I shot about 10 images of these young people embracing this very
popular individual.

I was then approached by his colleague, who asked me why are you
taking pictures of children ? it’s against the law”

Which law is that I asked “er the law” came the reply,
which law I pressed ,then we had a change of tack, “ we have
had a complaint he said, who off I asked. “ licensing”
came the bizarre reply.

I asked him who or what was licensing but he refused to answer and
then called his headquarters to ask for the video camera on the
building opposite to be trained on me.

I gave the camera a cheery wave and told him that I was not going
to tell him what I was doing, or who I was because quite simply I
did not have to.

So come on you legal eagles what is the law on photography in a
public place in the UK , and are we in danger of losing a very
valuable photographic style because of paranoia.

Rory

Click to expand...

Oops
but he does confirm that there is no such law

Tony Warr said:

warnomore said:

Hi

Can anybody clarify what the law is pertaining to photography in a
public place, and in particular photographing teenagers or children.

I ask this question because of an incident that happened to me in
Manchester, I am a keen street photographer and have for a few
years wandered the streets of Manchester trying to capture the
essence of my home town.

Today I witnessed quite a remarkable scene , we have street
patrollers in the city who work with the local police, they are
effectively citizens in uniform and provide a point of contact for
visitors of residents.

It was one such patroller that caught my eye , he walked with a
“John Wayne “ stance like he was going for his six gun
, from the back he looked like the Sheriff ,an interesting subject
I thought.

So I followed him in to an area that has a large student
population, as he approached a group of students the ran up to him
and called him ‘Grandad’ lots of them hugged him,.

I shot about 10 images of these young people embracing this very
popular individual.

I was then approached by his colleague, who asked me why are you
taking pictures of children ? it’s against the law”

Which law is that I asked “er the law” came the reply,
which law I pressed ,then we had a change of tack, “ we have
had a complaint he said, who off I asked. “ licensing”
came the bizarre reply.

I asked him who or what was licensing but he refused to answer and
then called his headquarters to ask for the video camera on the
building opposite to be trained on me.

I gave the camera a cheery wave and told him that I was not going
to tell him what I was doing, or who I was because quite simply I
did not have to.

So come on you legal eagles what is the law on photography in a
public place in the UK , and are we in danger of losing a very
valuable photographic style because of paranoia.

Rory

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

warnomore said:

Hi

Can anybody clarify what the law is pertaining to photography in a
public place, and in particular photographing teenagers or children.

I ask this question because of an incident that happened to me in
Manchester, I am a keen street photographer and have for a few
years wandered the streets of Manchester trying to capture the
essence of my home town.

Today I witnessed quite a remarkable scene , we have street
patrollers in the city who work with the local police, they are
effectively citizens in uniform and provide a point of contact for
visitors of residents.

It was one such patroller that caught my eye , he walked with a
“John Wayne “ stance like he was going for his six gun
, from the back he looked like the Sheriff ,an interesting subject
I thought.

So I followed him in to an area that has a large student
population, as he approached a group of students the ran up to him
and called him ‘Grandad’ lots of them hugged him,.

I shot about 10 images of these young people embracing this very
popular individual.

I was then approached by his colleague, who asked me why are you
taking pictures of children ? it’s against the law”

Which law is that I asked “er the law” came the reply,
which law I pressed ,then we had a change of tack, “ we have
had a complaint he said, who off I asked. “ licensing”
came the bizarre reply.

I asked him who or what was licensing but he refused to answer and
then called his headquarters to ask for the video camera on the
building opposite to be trained on me.

I gave the camera a cheery wave and told him that I was not going
to tell him what I was doing, or who I was because quite simply I
did not have to.

So come on you legal eagles what is the law on photography in a
public place in the UK , and are we in danger of losing a very
valuable photographic style because of paranoia.

Rory

Click to expand...

warnomore said:

Hi Rory

Click to expand...

Its a bit ironical that I live in Manchester and have had the same problem
not so much taking them around the city centre but taking photographs
at football matches. My son plays for a football team and I take photos
during the match. I used to make quite a bit of money doing this as I
would hand out a business card to parents and if they wanted photos. I
would post the photos on a web site so they could view them. Maybe
that was the part they did not like, but it was only so they could e-mail

me which prints they wanted. I would print them and send them to them but was asked on a couple of occasions not to take photos of certain children which made it quite
awkward as I could not remember which children they were when you
have got 22 children playing football at a fast pace so I decided it just
was not worth the hassle. The legal position is that you can take photos
if you are in a public place. I said to the parents that didn't want me to
take photos what do you do when you are walking in a shopping precinct
or a bank when your children are being recorded on a video. By the way
the children I took photos of were all youths aged 13-14 years, really not
young children

Brian Yarker

If you're in a public place, you can take pictures of anything you can see: buildings, people, children - whatever. Of course, if a person objects, you have to take a view on what to do next.

"Public place" is really the tricky bit, because its meaning is not as clear as you'd think.

The pavement or the road are public places, in that they are subject to public rights of way. If you can excercise a public right of way over land, then AFAIK, you can take photos of whatever you want from that land.

However, not all land accessible by the public is accessible because the public has a right of way over it. A shopping mall is a good example. The public wanders in and out, apparently freely, but the owners of the mall can close it whenever they want: the public don't have a right of way to walk in the mall, but a permission to be there from the landowner. The landowner can, therefore, make that permission subject to conditions, such as no photography allowed, or no smoking allowed or no rollerblading, cycling, hopping, you name it.

Of course, it would be nice if this sort of landowner posted signs on the perimeter of his land explaining what you can and can't do. But he doesn't have to (although if you've paid to enter, then maybe you have a better basis to say there's a contract governing your presence on the land, and unless the terms are available for inspection before entering/paying, you're not bound by something you don't know about).

There's another justification that you might run up against: copyright - in buildings. The design of a building is protected by copyright. In principle, if you reproduce it (even in 2D form), you infringe copyright. In practice, owners of buildings copyright don't tend to get excited unless someone builds a building that looks like theirs.

The "security" reason one hears a lot of is not a self-standing reason to prevent photographs. If someone or something is visible from public land, then if they/it are so concerned about security, they should cover it up. "Security reasons" might be a justification for preventing you taking pictures on privately owned land, but a private landowner doesn't need a justification to prevent photos being taken on his land: his refusal can be utterly capricious and without reason.

If you want to make a stand, tell the jobsworths to call the police, and say that you'll wait for them to arrive. If they decline, tell them you'll call the police to report them if they don't leave you alone. But be sure of your ground before you do.

brian yarker. said:

brian yarker. said:

Hi Rory

Click to expand...

Its a bit ironical that I live in Manchester and have had the same
problem
not so much taking them around the city centre but taking photographs
at football matches. My son plays for a football team and I take
photos
during the match. I used to make quite a bit of money doing this as I
would hand out a business card to parents and if they wanted photos. I
would post the photos on a web site so they could view them. Maybe
that was the part they did not like, but it was only so they could
e-mail
me which prints they wanted. I would print them and send them to
them but was asked on a couple of occasions not to take photos of
certain children which made it quite
awkward as I could not remember which children they were when you
have got 22 children playing football at a fast pace so I decided
it just
was not worth the hassle. The legal position is that you can take
photos
if you are in a public place. I said to the parents that didn't
want me to
take photos what do you do when you are walking in a shopping precinct
or a bank when your children are being recorded on a video. By the
way
the children I took photos of were all youths aged 13-14 years,
really not
young children

Brian Yarker

Click to expand...

It's not so much who you photograph, but what the intended use is.

In England anyone under the age of 18 is considered a "Minor", and as such there are degrees of protection in place, especially in sport. You'll probably find that use on the web is the major problem

Check here:-
http://www.thecpsu.org.uk
for the guidelines. (search on photography)

As with all things there are areas where common sense seems to fail.

When Wayne Rooney first came to prominence, and was turning out every week in the Premiership, and being paid handsomely for it, he was 17. I believe he won his first England cap at the same age. You couldn't take his picture without full accreditation and the cpsu rubber stamp of approval on your forehead.

As for street shots, there is absolutely nothing to prevent you taking them. What you must not do is to use them "inappropriately". As far as I am aware, there is no hard legal definition of " inappropriately" that you can refer to in this instance. There is an arguement that inplies that if the minor is not identified (named), then you might be alright, but I wouldn't necessarily rely on that. Use on the web seems to be the big problem.

KenC

The irony of the whole situation is that for the previous fifteen minutes I had photographed and he had watched his colleague hugging the very same “ children “ who called him “Grandpa”.

warnomore said:

Hi
Can anybody clarify what the law is pertaining to photography in a
public place, and in particular photographing teenagers or children.

Click to expand...

I know it shouldn't make any difference legally etc., but I expect you'd get away with apparent casual use of a "small" camera but not a large DSLR with "white" lens. I normallly use my small Coolpix 4500 when I want a decent quality shot in a shopping centre or similar, and so far have got away with it. On the other hand, I've been stopped by security guards outside the same shopping centre when using a black SLR.

--
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

warnomore said:

I asked him who or what was licensing but he refused to answer and
then called his headquarters to ask for the video camera on the
building opposite to be trained on me.

Click to expand...

But don't you feel safe! Isn't that all that matters? ;> )
--
Brian

What does the law say about these same questions in the USA?

Greg

know what you mean...

was out with the camera the other sunday taking photos at the London marathon along with a couple of friends from the camera club.

one of the photos i wanted was when the runners come in to get a drink from one of the many water stations. it can get busy there as you can imagine what with everyone wanting liquids.

anyway, i was snapping away at the runners when this large 'lady' comes over to me and starts pushing me away from where i was standing saying i couldn't take photos of the girls!

"what girls?" i said, to which she pointed to three girls helping to hand out the drinks.

she starts shouting at me that i'm not allowed to take pictures of the girls without there parents consent and that she doesn't think there parents would like me taken photos of them.

i tried telling her that i was taking photos of the marathon runners and was not interested in the girls in fact i hadn't even noticed the girls.

she was still rather irate and continued in shouting at me.

i told her that if she was accusing me of being a child molester, then i would go get one of the many police officers and register a complaint about her and her actions.

at that point she walked off.

has it got so bad nowadays that you can't go out taking photos of the marathon without being accused of peadaphillia!

two of the other photographers i was standing with at the time are female

put a right downer on an otherwise brilliant day!

fen.

AUcivil said:

What does the law say about these same questions in the USA?

Click to expand...

From what I've seen in previous discussions, it's pretty much the same. You can take photos of anyone who is on public property and of anything if you're on public property. However, you can't use those photos for profit without permission UNLESS it is for "editorial use." The one other limitation is that you can't display photos that could be embarassing, even if its not for money, unless its for editorial use.

I often record events and display them on my web site. However, I have a notice on the site saying that anyone in the photo should contact me and ask me to take the image down if the display bothers them.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.

Jeff,
I beg you to take your mug shot off of your postings. I just ate

Jeff Peterman said:

AUcivil said:

What does the law say about these same questions in the USA?

Click to expand...

From what I've seen in previous discussions, it's pretty much the
same. You can take photos of anyone who is on public property and
of anything if you're on public property. However, you can't use
those photos for profit without permission UNLESS it is for
"editorial use." The one other limitation is that you can't display
photos that could be embarassing, even if its not for money, unless
its for editorial use.

I often record events and display them on my web site. However, I
have a notice on the site saying that anyone in the photo should
contact me and ask me to take the image down if the display bothers
them.
--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are
entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.

Click to expand...

What about selling photos to parents of ballplayers if other players are also in the photo?

what would qualify as Editorial Uses - whom could I sell to legally?
Greg

Jeff Peterman said:

AUcivil said:

What does the law say about these same questions in the USA?

Click to expand...

From what I've seen in previous discussions, it's pretty much the
same. You can take photos of anyone who is on public property and
of anything if you're on public property. However, you can't use
those photos for profit without permission UNLESS it is for
"editorial use." The one other limitation is that you can't display
photos that could be embarassing, even if its not for money, unless
its for editorial use.

I often record events and display them on my web site. However, I
have a notice on the site saying that anyone in the photo should
contact me and ask me to take the image down if the display bothers
them.
--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are
entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.

Click to expand...

All goes to prove that in the UK we are living in a state of paranoia, the bizarre part of the whole incident is that the warden who approached me had just witnessed his colleague ‘hugging’ the very same teenagers.

I suggest that as responsible citizens and passionate photographers it is time to make a stand against this type of nonsense, I will be out next week in the same spot with my camera exercising my rights.

Because basically it is use them or lose them!!!!

I had a similar situation on Sunday. There was a teacher leading a dozen preschool aged children down the street. It was a very cute picture. I took 2 frames, when the teacher RAN to me and angrily said that I was breaking the law. "What law?" I asked. She replied, "child confidentiality. These children are part of a school and you're not allowed to take pictures of them."

I was extremely insulted by her lecture and her anger. I told her "the problem lady, is that you're in a public place. I can take as many pictures as I dam well please." She left flustered, and I snapped of a few more frames of her glaring at me. This is the third incident where a person has accosted me for taking innocuous photos in public. The first 2 times, I backed down because I didn't know the law.

This happened in the USA at the Pike Place Public Market in Seattle. I guess SLR photographers are loved on every continent.

fenris said:

she starts shouting at me that i'm not allowed to take pictures of
the girls without there parents consent and that she doesn't think
there parents would like me taken photos of them.

Click to expand...

Next time, educate the bi*ch. Having failed that, photograph her.

In the UK the police caould bring a charge against you of "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" if someone objected to you photographing them. So they shout at you or hit you and you get all the blame.

Similarly they could probably charge you with "obstructing the Queens highway" if you were on a public road or pavement.

What the courts or the DPP would make of the charges I don't know, but some jumped-up knobhead will always find some statute to badger you with.

Jim