Non-consensual photography in public (UK)

[ny pixelpost]

If this topic has been coved in this forum I apologise. I did a search and found nothing.

There are numerous threads here about the abuse of UK terror laws against "innocent" photographers, but surprisingly I haven't seen anything about the planned legislation to erode the copyright and ownership rights of our images: http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1

Also if you read or scroll down that page you will see an article titled, "The ICO code : put that camera away, my face is private". Terror laws or jobsworth security in shopping centres will be the least of your worries once this law takes hold in the public's paranoid imagination. Photography will be off-limits almost everywhere without written permission. Even if you aren't taking pictures with people in them, the perception that you might be doing so is going to make life difficult if not impossible for us all.

If you take photographs openly you may be stopped/challenged and if you are more discreet you might be perceived as being furtive and that will be suspicious too.

I don't want to get political, but a side issue for me is the alarming and apparently increasing amount of decisions and legislation that are being slipped through the "back door" by unelected people with no public debate or accountability in the UK and EU.

It may be that we are paying the price for a minority who are terrorists, paedophiles or the relentless paparazzi celebrity stalkers that have now spoiled it for everyone. However, the laws that are being introduced seem to be open to interpretation which will mean that what may be acceptable in one place may not be in another, but how will we know? So do we all risk being harassed by the public or even criminalised.

Ill-conceived legislation will mean there is a poor future in prospect for those who love the photographic arts in all its diversity.

Norman Young
http://www.noyo-internet.co.uk

 

[Gaspar17]

Having read the “UK minister aims to reassure photographers” article and your post, I want to tell my own experience, though it has nothing to do with anti-terrorism in the UK.

Enjoying street photography is becoming a risky task in Madrid, in spite of being a rather peaceful and safe place.

Three months ago, I spent sometime taking photos in the suburban area of Madrid that can be seen in the pano. The place is reserved and intended to be a business area in the long term, with skyscrapers and artificial lakes. Nowadays it remains abandoned, dirty with plenty of rubbish.

There are only beggars and marginal people living there. I suffer from a chronic illness and somehow I feel quite an outsider myself and I like walking along this kind of places. Besides, since I can hardly travel out of Madrid for health reasons, I haven’t got too many choices for taking photos elsewhere.

Last week I visited the place once again. I came along a shanty town and stood watching, wondering how does it feel living there. Suddenly twelve or so barking, furious dogs ran towards me. I stood still and waited for them to be two o three meters distance. Then I moved forwards and talked to them smiling, my heart beating fast. The tricked worked: the animals stopped and looked at me.

In that very moment I heard a menacing voice coming from behind:

• I’m told you’ve been taking photos of our children.

I explained to the man, a tough, strong guy, that I only do urban landscape photography. A second man came by:

• If we find you taking photos of our children we shall break your legs.

They didn’t look like being about to invite me for tea. They finally admitted I was not the guy they thought. Had I photographed their children in the street, I couldn’t figure out how would that have harmed them.

I left feeling most uneasy and scared.

Walking by the street another day, in another place in Madrid, I saw an opened suitcase (second photo) with a small case inside on the pavement, in front of a door. I find the scene to be a bit surrealistic and as I was looking through the viewfinder, I heard:

• What the hell you think you are doing?
• I’m taking a photo, you see.
• Is not enough having stolen my house three times? You are planning for another?
• What are you talking about? I’m just taking a photo, I’m an amateur…
• I’m calling the police!
• …

Anyone having such experiences?

 

[Pedagydusz]

Yes, I know what you mean. Elsewhere similar things happen, at least now and again. A friend of mine was taking pictures in a Rio de Janeiro beach, and was threatened with "I am calling the Police" and demanded to erase the photos - though he had not been shooting anybody in particular, and certainly not "intrusive" pictures.

And in a private school in Portugal a father went to take pictures of his son playing soccer, and the school person in charge demanded that he stopped as well!

I think we are approaching the culture of some primitive tribes that believe that photography steals one's soul...
--
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

 

[chuxter]

I hate to be a pessimist, but all these insane acts are a result of overpopulation. If you would travel to a place that has a low population density of human animals, you'd find that your freedoms return.
--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was
bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

[Lyle Aldridge]

Anyone having such experiences?

Oh, yes. I think similar events are happening throughout the world. Separate and apart from all the terror fears, people are becoming increasingly fearful of technology that they see as having intrusive risks, and our cameras are tools of that feared technology. Fifty or a hundred years ago, if a photographer recorded your image on a glass plate or a film negative, it wasn't immediately obvious that it could have untoward uses. Having your photo taken was generally regarded as a pleasant experience; unless you were somebody famous doing something you shouldn't. Now we can distribute an image all over the world in seconds, and all the concern about cyber-crimes, stalking and face-recognition software, and who knows what else, are rampant. And sadly, not all of the fear is irrational.

My most recent experience with this was in shooting my wife's dance troupe performing at a local hospital auditorium. I'm the "official" photographer for the group, so they, their choreographer and their art director are completely comfortable with my presence. But I was barred from shooting on the hospital grounds because the administration was fearful that a patient or family member might somehow wander in front of the lens and make a complaint to the DHHS or Medicare. Evidently, some bureaucrats have even been demanding that they keep patient relatives from bringing in cameras to take photos of moms and new babies. They regard such images as "medical records" akin to x-rays.

 

[BIJ001]

The other day I left the bureau and went to see a café in the neighbourhood. We were planning a kind of business meeting at breakfast time and I wanted to check the business hours of that café.

On the way I shot (with my humble phone) a near-by buffet which had been closed for a while because of renovation, and also saw and photographed a huge black American style car to be let by the hour for weddings etc.

I saw the café and checked is opening hour and walked back. I was then approached by a man who asked what I was shooting. I asked him why he asked that. Anyway, he was from a shop and he thought I did photo his business, when I shot that funny car. I assured him that I was no idiot to do a free advertisement for his shop which by the way had not even been photographed.

Later on I was approached by a young man who held a camera close to my face and made a photo of me. I followed him, it turned out he belonged to that buffet and he said he took my photo because he had seen me taking a photo in the street containing the facade of the buffet. I offered to delete all damned photos of the buffet I had taken and also not to write an e-mail to the colleagues announcing that the buffer reopened after the break. But in his generosity he deleted that photo of mine and did not want me to abandon the planned e-mail.

I of course did not write that e-mail and will not return to that buffet.

All that occurred in Budapest.

--
Iván József Balázs
(Hungary)

 

[Photog74]

A so-called "right to one's image" is part of the legislation in many EU countries.

How it is interpreted differs across countries and may differ from court to court, especially in countries whose legal system is not precedent based. But what it essentially means is that you can't just take a picure of a stranger, much less publish it online, at an exhibition or in the press, without their consent (if their face is recognisable in the picture that is). This legislation has been in effect for decades in many countries. There is a reason why Doisneau used models for "The Kiss in Front of the Town Hall", an image that clearly wants to imply it is a candid taken at the decisive moment, and that was sixty years ago! He said there was no way a picture like that could have been taken of complete strangers without their consent in France at the time. Much less today.

So, welcome to the club. You can still take candid pictures of strangers provided their faces are not recognisable in the photo (think Cartier-Bresson's "On the Banks of the Marne" and similar images). And of course you can take risks, and hope they will not sue you (most people won't, as they are simply not aware of their rights or don't care). After all, taking somebody's picture is not a crime, it's a form of privacy infringement at worst, and the only person who can take legal action against you is the person who you photographed. That person can file a lawsuit, but the authorities won't and can't persecute you at their own initiative.

 

[Yer Man]

My reading of the link (scroll down to ICO section, para 3) is that the proposed legislation applies to pro's only (assuming the link info is accurate). While there are issues around this for pros, it doesn't look like it applies to amateurs.

Sean

 

[Craig Gillette]

Things are already changing in the UK via connections to the EU. In the US, we have a "right of publicity" in that the individual has the right to control "commercial" use of their own image/persona. (That means endorsements, promotional uses, not simply sale - a newspaper can sell papers with your image used editorially, etc.) That typically meant one needed/used "releases" to use a person in an ad (simplified). That wasn't required in the UK (same root sources of "Common Law" - go figure). However, I've been seeing indications that this is changing, not though case law or legislation but through European Court decisions on privacy and civil rights.

 

[Tony Sleep]

They regard such images as "medical records" akin to x-rays.

Hmm. What they are not mentioning is that most hospitals have photographers on contract to come and photograph the mums & babies. This is lucrative, earning the hosiptal up to £10-£20K per year as their cut of the deal.

--
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

 

[jetals]

A so-called "right to one's image" is part of the legislation in many EU countries.

How it is interpreted differs across countries and may differ from court to court, especially in countries whose legal system is not precedent based. But what it essentially means is that you can't just take a picure of a stranger, much less publish it online, at an exhibition or in the press, without their consent (if their face is recognisable in the picture that is). This legislation has been in effect for decades in many countries. There is a reason why Doisneau used models for "The Kiss in Front of the Town Hall", an image that clearly wants to imply it is a candid taken at the decisive moment, and that was sixty years ago! He said there was no way a picture like that could have been taken of complete strangers without their consent in France at the time. Much less today.

So, welcome to the club. You can still take candid pictures of strangers provided their faces are not recognisable in the photo (think Cartier-Bresson's "On the Banks of the Marne" and similar images). And of course you can take risks, and hope they will not sue you (most people won't, as they are simply not aware of their rights or don't care). After all, taking somebody's picture is not a crime, it's a form of privacy infringement at worst, and the only person who can take legal action against you is the person who you photographed. That person can file a lawsuit, but the authorities won't and can't persecute you at their own initiative.

In Australia, no-one has the right to not be photographed in a public place, unless the photo is used to humiliate etc. the subject.

If a photgraph is used for commercial gain, the photograper must obtain a model release if a person's face is recognisable.
--

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there are many inquisitive idiots.

 

[doady]

If public photography becomes illegal, then shouldn't security cameras become illegal too for the same reasons?

 

[Yves]

In the US, we have a "right of publicity"

The above is what you wrote. Where can I find this "right"?

 

[Craig Gillette]

Do a Google search on "right of publicity" Tons of references will be returned.

 

[Craig Gillette]

The government can always write the laws to allow them to do things the people can't. Prime examples are firearms laws. Like California in their venal attempt to get around constitutional firearms rights has laws requiring certain "safety" tests on handguns. They recognized that if these unsafe handguns were really banned, the law enforcement agencies wouldn't be able to use them. So our LEOs are exempted from these "safety" provisions.

 

[DonHorne]

This crap is happening in the USA as well, but maybe to a lesser extent - for now.

All I can say otherwise is welcome to the nanny state and it's protrusion into ALL aspects of our lives. Of course, it's for our own good, doncha know?

Instapundit had a blurb on this UK copyright grab: ' Leaked UK record industry memo sets out plans for breaking UK copyright. “He cites an expert on legislation as saying that the bill will likely die if MPs insist on their right and responsibility to examine this legislation in detail before voting on it.”

No sweat. Just do things the Pelosi Way and “deem” it passed without even voting! It’s the new approach to 21st Century Democracy!'
--
aka, Grandpaparazzi

 

[relate22]

If it ACTUALLY became law that you cannot take a photo or video of anyone without getting their written consent you can say goodbye to all of your newspapers, magazines, news broadcasts etc....... Plus how are half the women on the planet going to get their latest celebrity gossip fix.......IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN PEOPLE.

For all of you pedantics out there I know it should be ISN'T.
--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

 

[jeffcpix]

Don't stop shooting -- just have your heirs preserve the images
until they're recognized as Art rather than Commerce.

Psssst....hey mister, wanna buy some 'street pictures'????

 

[denniswms]

I read about half of the posts in this forum and not one photographer apparently walked up to the home owner, buffet manager- whoever, and simply identified themself, and stated what they wanted to do/shoot, why, and asked permission... first.

I've shot in the sculpture garden at the Houston MFA -which officially disallowed any photography, numerous restaurants, private art galleries, store windows, private planes, around multi million dollar seaside homes (and in one instance, subsequently offered the interior), verandas of B&Bs- on the tarmac under incoming flights at John Wayne International Airport ...even in the bell tower at the University of San Diego- all simply by politely and in advance, asking the person in charge for permission.

I'm sure it didn't hurt that I was shooting obviously legitimate models in appropriately styled clothing and not with a camera that would fit in my pocket, though often the owner/manager did not know that going in. Sometimes the model was not with me especially if I was scouting locations and stopped by days in advance and I do not carry a camera when scouting.

 

[John W Peterson]

Doisneau tried to document the "sense of the times", and he was not beyond using models, professional or otherwise, or asking people to perhaps repeat a glance or a walk etc. Looking at those photos gives us a sense of what it was like, i.e. how people lived their lives and percieved their world during a rather important time.

The fact that he was actually sued for not shooting several of those images as competely candids documents, on the one hand the difficulties that a photographer faced during those times, but also the public expectation that there would be and should be candid, "true captures" of the events of the day. People felt that his images captured "what was there", and they were confused and disappointed when they found out that just like any other creative person, capturing street scenes at the time (painters, sketchers etc) the succesful photographer often had to exert a controlling hand over the scene.

Doisneau defended himself against the assertations that he had "faked" his images by pointing out the social and legal restrictions of the day that would make truly candid images of such affection illegal (or at least frought with risk to the photographer), but the public had apparently expected and insisted that those laws and restrictions be broken or ignored, at least sometimes, at least just a little bit, so that the recording of history would not have a series of blank pages during those most amazing times.

So there we have it - we create laws to restrict our photographers and then we sue them if they fail to break those laws, to bring us the historical record which at the end of the day we finally recognize as important. Perhaps nothing has really changed at all.