Photography and the Law.
Introduction.

I became interested in this after being asked in the US about UK law regarding taking photographs in public places. There has been a certain paranoia there since 9/11.
It was particularly interesting as there has been a debate about restrictions on photographers here, following new terrorist legislation and the ongoing debate on the identification and protection of children.
There has always been a general principle that “There is no law against taking photographs in public places” but perhaps this now needs to be amended to “One is free to take photographs except where the law provides otherwise.”
This is not a “definitive interpretation”of the law, I am not a lawyer, but what I have tried to do is summarise articles/discussions/documents that I have read and to open up the subject for debate. If anyone is worried about specific aspect of the law then - see a lawyer!

I have crudely divided the subject into three parts:-
i. Public places and private property;
ii. Privacy;
iii. Copyright.

i. Public places and private property.

1. Owners of property do not have the right to stop someone photographing it from a public place (eg. a road)
2. No general restrictions exist on taking photographs on private property if the photographer has permission to be there.
3. However, the owner can impose conditions on entry including “No Photography” (eg. National Trust; concert venues; museums; football grounds)
4. In addition, even if the property is open to the public, owners are within their rights to ask you to stop taking photos and ask you to leave, including offices; shops; shopping malls (I think we call them “centres” here in the UK - Ed).
5. Law of Trespass/Right to Roam - allows access to all land, waterways and foreshores for certain activities, photography being one of the permitted activities.
6. This does not extend to buildings; outbuildings; structures and the land surrounding them, eg house and gardens; or to land developed for particular recreational purposes eg. golf courses; sports fields.
Property owners can use “reasonable force” to expel trespassers, they cannot confiscate cameras or equipment - this is theft. If you are confronted you are advised to leave if asked as owners may not know they cannot use force!
8. It is a criminal offence to trespass on railways; aerodromes; military bases; places where explosives stored. You can, however, take photos on railway stations as long as you don’t obstruct the platform (eg with a tripod) and you cannot use flash. There are guide-lines on National Rail’s website www.nationalrail.co.uk/passengerservices
9. There can be a distinction between “recreational” photography and “commercial” photography. For example it is illegal to take commercial photos in Trafalgar Square; Parliament Square; the Royal Parks without written permission (for a fee!). It is also illegal to take photos in law courts.
10. It is a criminal offence to obstruct free passage on the highway (including footways and cycle paths). Standing on a footpath taking a photograph does not normally cause an obstruction as long as you are reasonable in your behaviour. Setting up a tripod in a busy street, however, could be so interpreted depending on the inconvenience caused. The police are most likely to ask you to move and only arrest you if you refuse!
11. Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his/her duties is also an offence so be careful when you take candid photojournalistic snaps of an incident!
12. The heightened fear of terrorism may lead to photographers being challenged when photographing sensitive subjects - power stations; refineries; bridges; dams; ports etc. The Official Secrets Act prohibits taking photos of “prohibited places” “where this may be useful to the enemy”. If stopped the answer is to be totally co-operative with the police and be clear about why you are taking the pictures (club competition? club membership card may help.) It is worth considering - would a terrorist be out openly taking pictures of sensitive subjects?

ii. Privacy.

1. It is illegal to harass another person and taking photos of them could be a harassment if it causes distress or alarm to the person. It refers to a course of action not a single incident. If a photographer “stalks” a person or repeatedly thrusts a camera in someone’s face, this might be considered harassment.
2. The European Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and correspondence. What is an invasion of privacy?
- Taking pictures of people in a public place is not normally regarded as an invasion of privacy;
- The key is whether the place is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
- Using a telephoto lens to take a photo of someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent is probably an invasion of privacy even if taken from a public place.
3. It is important to be aware that the law differs from country to country. France and the USA have strict privacy laws, although the actual scope of the laws varies from State to State in the US.
4. Commercial use of pictures of individuals is complicated and differs from country to country and the law is stronger in many countries than in the UK. In the UK the photographer can use the pictures as he/she wishes but agencies and other buyers may well want a “model release” form before purchasing.
5. There is an argument that a photograph of a recognisable person may be subject to the Data Protection Act. A model release form puts the issue beyond any doubt.
6. I put this under privacy as birds and animals deserve their own “space” as well! The Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it an offence to disturb some species when they are at or near their nests or their places of shelter. Taking photos is considered a “disturbance”.
A full list of protected birds can be found at www.naturenet.net/law/sced1.html and protected animals at www.naturenet.net/laws/sced5.html

7. Taking pictures of Children

This is a very sensitive area with the very real fear of pedophiles and sensational newspaper reports making parents uneasy. As the law stands at present a child has no more right to privacy than an adult does when in a public place. in reality that does not stop people challenging photographers and stating the opposite.
A report in the Daily Telegraph in June 2008 quoted two examples where responsible persons stated that it was against the law to take photos of children - one a swimming pool attendant the second a vicar performing a group christening. Both quoted the Child Protection Act as their source. The reporter queried the issue with the Home Office who stated that there is no law against taking pictures of other people’s children as long as you do not harass or harm them. The Health and Safety Executive was quoted as saying It’s the sort of mad idea that over-zealous managers are always making up - and we get the blame!
Whatever the law it would be stupid of any photographer to take photos of children if the parents or other adults objected. The law may be on your side but public sentiment may not. Why take a chance?

Similarly, it would be stupid to take pictures in dodgy areas where drug dealers or similar may object to your actions.

iii. Copyright.

The increasing use of the internet has had both positive and negative effects for photographers. You can get your images seen all over the world and store your images on the net, however, the public will have access to your images and abuse your rights to ownership of the images. So it is worth briefly reviewing copyright law.

1. In most cases, the copyright in an image is automatically the property of the photographer. This stands whether the copyright has been registered or not; under UK law copyright is conferred at the point of creation, meaning it is owned by the photographer by default.
2. If an individual is paid to take photographs of a wedding then the copyright for the photographs remain with the photographer not the Bride and Groom!
3. If you are going to put your images on websites etc. it is advisable to mark them digitally. This can be done by digitally watermarking them or by using an EXIF file which digitally embeds data in the file.
4. Another aspect of copyright law is the taking pictures of works of art or similar which are protected by copyright you cannot do this without the copyright owner’s consent. This includes pictures; manuscripts; sculptures; photographs etc.
5. It is not an infringement of copyright to take the same view as represented in a copyrighted photograph (eg. one of Ansel Adams famous views) as each image is seen as a new work.
6. It is also not an infringement of copyright to take photos of buildings; sculptures; works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises that are open to the public (unless photography prohibited) eg. Yorkshire Sculpture Park.

In conclusion.

There was enough concern about possible pressure on photographers that Austin Mitchell put a Early Day Motion before the House deploring the increase in the number of incidents police and similar attempted to stop street photography. the above is an attempt to look at what the law is rather than how someone may perceive it.
It is sensible, however, not to get into difficult situations by thoughtless actions and if challenged to remain calm and agree to cease snapping if asked. If threatened by a member of the public call the police, particularly if an attempt is made to take your camera. If challenged by the police then comply with instructions but again remember they cannot take your camera without a warrant. The police do have the power to stop and search, but they must have reasonable grounds and must give you a “stop slip” which must include the reason for the action. Remember also that at public demonstrations tempers can be lost and taking photos of police at that point may not be a good idea!


If someone asks you to stop taking pictures of them then it usually a good idea to comply!

One last word of advice. The police have a difficult enough job without having to deal with bolshie photographers “standing up for my rights”! Any relations with the police should be carried out with respect - on both sides.

Can I reiterate that I am not a lawyer and this is my own interpretation of articles and documents available in the public domain. I cannot be held responsible for inaccuracies.

Allan Rowsell

+++++++ Updated by email 29 Sept 2009 ++++++++

Tuesday 29 September 2009
Photorestrict - epetition response
We received a petition asking:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove new restrictions on photography in public places.”
Details of Petition:
“On the 16th of February, the Government passed a law (in the Counter Terrorism Act) making it illegal to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services - or a photograph which “may be of use for terrorism”. This definition is vague at best, and open to interpretation by the police - who under Home Secretary guidelines can “restrict photography in public places”. We call for these vague restrictions to be lifted, as they can easily be mis-used by the police.”
· Read the petition· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
Thank you for your e-petition.
On 16 February 2009, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No.2) Order 2009 brought in to force section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (inserted by section 76 of the CTA 2008), offences relating to information about members of the armed forces etc.
Section 58A makes it an offence to publish, communicate, elicit or attempt to elicit information about any of such persons which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.  Contrary to some media and public misconception, section 58A does not make it illegal to photograph a police officer, military personnel or member of the intelligence services.
On the 18 August 2009, the Home Office published the following information via its website to clarify photography in relation to section 58A.
Photography and Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000
The offence concerns information about persons who are or have been at the front line of counter-terrorism operations, namely the police, the armed forces and members of the security and intelligence agencies.
An officer making an arrest under section 58A must reasonably suspect that the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.  An example might be gathering information about the person’s house, car, routes to work and other movements.
Reasonable excuse under section 58A
It is a statutory defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for eliciting, publishing or communicating the relevant information. Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse. Similarly, an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.