Search blog.co.uk

Photographers Rights

by SeasideMan @ Monday, Oct. 13, 2008 - 15:53:39

I was prompted to make this post by a comment that jenray made on my blog here. This is as good a time as any to remind photographer’s again of their rights. As long as you’re on public property or a public highway and you aren’t behaving so as to cause a breach of the peace or obstructing the highway, then you are legally entitled to photograph almost anything or anyone you like. A tripod has been construed as an obstruction in the past.

There are some restrictions regarding some public parks and squares and some particularly sensitive buildings that you should be aware of. Photographing police officers is perfectly legal. See this:

No-one has the right to ask you to delete any images, and your equipment can only be confiscated if you are arrested by a police officer. If you are on private property such as a shopping centre, you can be asked to leave the premises, but they may not confiscate your equipment, may not ask you to delete pictures and may only use “reasonable force” if you resist their demands and/or continue photographing.

But having said all that, some sense is required. If you stand on the pavement with a 300mm telephoto lens shooting into a children’s playground, you can expect trouble.

This site has a good summary of the legal situation:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

This is the UK Photographer’s Rights website (they have a very useful pdf summary of the situation):

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

Cheers, Tom.


 
 

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

loiswakemanloiswakeman [Member]
http://lois.co.uk
13/10/08 @ 16:28

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Man-fined-for-taking-photo.4558618.jp describes how these rights (are they the same in Scotland?) can be overlooked.

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
13/10/08 @ 16:58

Woolly laws are great, aren't they? "breach of the peace" is a nice catch-all for the authorities. "obstructing the highway" is suitably woolly too. Unfortunately, if a copper accuses you of it and arrests you for it, it's going to get difficult. This may have been one of those occasions where being sensible might have been better - not using the flash, for example.

Tom.

You'd think the police would actually know whether or not it's legal to photograph them...odd that...lack of training there...stuck to his guns didn't he...LOL...GBHs...XXX

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
13/10/08 @ 18:15

Yes, it was very clear that he knew the law and they didn't. I find the police officers confidence when they were actually wrong the most disturbing part of that. I suspect they were just hoping he'd cave in and turn the camera off.

Care is needed in that sort of situation. I've seen a different clip where animal rights protesters were filming people coming in and out of a building (presumably related to some animal activity) and the police arrested them because they said they were being "intimidating". If a police officer decides to arrest you, you have no choice but to go along with it. With no other witnesses, if it's your word against theirs in court, there is a greater than 50% chance that you will lose.

Tom.

Well after reading Jack's posts and getting to know policing from the other side, I'm not into knocking them but this incident does show they need to know the law before going out on the streets, especially in the case of a demo and photographing it...it is supposed to be a free country...at least that's what we're told, but I know that's not true...we just have the appearance of freedom to keep the majority passive...which of course the majority are in the UK...strange thing freedom when mentioned in conjunction with democracy...we go to war to give foreigners freedom when ours is being removed more and more and we don't even realise it...hmmm...funny old life really...wonder how quickly our freedoms would be revoked completely in the event of a major breakdown in the world's economies and a major depression following on behind???

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
13/10/08 @ 18:53

Indeed, good points. I'm loathe to knock the police too, as most of them do a difficult job pretty well as far as I can tell. But cases like this one highlight the fact that on occasion they just do things without finding the facts out first, when they clearly had time to do so and were not being threatened.

Did you see the Ministerial (Tony McNulty) response on the link I gave:

"There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

It is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and Police Community Support Officers are acting appropriately with regards to photography in public places, and any queries regarding this should be addressed to the Chief Constable.

However decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example to protect children. Any questions on such local decisions should also be addressed to the force concerned."

Tom.

No, there was only so much I could take in in one go...LOL...my brain is tired at this time of night...

deleted user [Visitor]

13/10/08 @ 21:02

And presumably , when you post photo's in any publicly available forum such as this , anyone can download them and use them as they wish ?
- What if someone made and sold , for their or their company's financial gain a calendar out of your photo's on this site - Would that be legal ?
- Martin .

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
13/10/08 @ 21:25

As far as I know, that comes under intellectual copyright law.

Anyone could download images from here, but if they "used" them without permission technically they'd be breaking the law.

You'll also note that at the bottom of this page it says:

"The content of this website belongs to a private person"

Tom.

deleted user [Visitor]

13/10/08 @ 21:43

I got told I was not allowed to take pics in the Garden Centre round the corner from me lol!!!!

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
13/10/08 @ 21:45

That's a bit tight of them, but unfortunately they are within their rights. It's a bit stupid of them because:

A) they might upset you as a (potential) customer
B) they might get publicity out of it

No doubt I'll get told off for this eventually, but luckily it hasn't happened yet.

Tom.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Recent Posts

  1. Berries.
    by dennypoos on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009
  2. Conservatory flowers
    by jenray pro on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009
  3. THE WRONG TYPE OF LADDER?
    by spiritbird pro on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009
  4. FOR SOME PEOPLE LIFE IS JUST ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE
    by spiritbird pro on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009
  5. ITALIAN RUSTY FOR USKY
    by spiritbird pro on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009
  6. ITALIAN HEALTH AND SAFETY
    by spiritbird pro on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009
  7. My first bloom
    by jenray pro on Friday, Nov. 13, 2009
  8. Harsh!
    by dennypoos on Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009
  9. Superman in Pigeon attack drama.
    by dennypoos on Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009
  10. Tiger at Edinburgh Zoo
    by h8rp3r on Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.