 |
Taking Photographs
Taking photographs is pretty much the same as taking video.
Please note, these discussions do not consitute legal guidance.
| |
Do we have the right to take photographs in public places?
Short answer: Yes. There is nothing in UK law to stop photographers - professional or amateur - taking photographs in public places.
Better answer. Yes but with respect and consideration for others Exercising your rights to take photographs should be balanced by common sense and sensitivity to other people's rights for respect and privacy. And of course the right to photograph does not in itself over-ride other laws that may be in place.
You have to respond to people. Most people are used to cameras going off all around them in these days of mo-cams and digital compacts. However, if you train your camera on someone or a group they may feel it as an intrusion and turn away or even object... see any signs of objections then explain or move on.
And don't forget! Having a right to take photographs doesn't necessarily give you the right to publish it - you have to rethink in terms of the 'rules' of publication.
| |
Stand opposite someone's house and start taking loads of photographs of their car and home and they may begin to think you're sizing them up for burglary or that they'll find images of their home all over the internet in some annoying or even compromising situation. However, if the house is sporting a blue plaque with, for instance, "Roger Fenton, photographer, lived here" then they must expect snappers to snap. The front of most people's houses is after all a public display - painted, gardened, curtained, numbered and named - on a public throughfare; taking a shot of one for it's character, architectural style or idiosyncracies would, in most circumstances, be reasonable. No zooming inside the windows, though. If you catch someone's eye you can always ask. If someone objects probably best to let it go - even though they don't have any legal rights over you taking the photograph.
...and who was Roger Fenton? ... clue 1 =Crimea War ... clue 2 = photography ... clue3 = Victorian times ... ? Oh! go on, look it up then... about Roger Fenton
Image of Roger Fenton's House, Primrose Hill, London by Lyn Dafis, Flickr ... Creative Commons-BY-NC-ND
| |
Talking WITH people ...
Sometimes just talking to people will provide the permission you want to include them in a photo. Lester Ralph Blair has a series of photographs on Flickr of urban New Zealand showing interesting locations - shops, street corners, graffiti-covered walls - each with a single person in a central position.
In the notes that accompany the photos he often records how they were taken and his interaction with the people he photographed - very real. As a series they build up to fascination. Check them out here He uses a Creative Commons BY-NC licence.
| |
... however ... what is a public space?
The London Underground is public space and photography is OK - but not allowed to use flash.
The Royal Parks in London for instance allow photography for private purposes but you have to seek permission to take photographs for commercial use or if you want to publish them. Trafalgar Square is OK but you have to ask permission to set up a tripod. National Trust, who look after big houses and their grounds and miles of UK coastline allow photography but it seems maintain 'copyright' on images of their properties (OK we get the picture on that one) and landscape, mountains and coastline for commercial purposes. ? ... and what about the sky, or the sea in our photograph? Do we have to ask permission at a some higher court for that? Some seemingly public places aren't.
Shopping malls, precints and patrolled shopping areas often discourage photography.
In one recent case a photographer (Guardian report 2009) was told that it was 'OK to photograph the top half of the Gherkin building in London but not the bottom half.' There was a risk to the security of the building if photographs of the entrance area was llowed. Question arising: Can you photograph the whole building?
Train stations
Stations differ in their attitudes. St Pancras station, recently done up and full of scenic items positively welcomes snappers while Kings Cross, barely 20 yards away, but recently the scene of a bomb attack, bans photography and points out the fact on the intercom from time to time. However, as part of their refurbishment they have created a photo-op by setting up Platform 9¾ for Harry Potter fans. Train spotters often complain that they have been asked to stop taking photographs in some stations but not others - inconsistent-football-refereeing-syndrome.
Museums and Galleries in UK
In UK they generally ban photography - though not all of them. In some other countries the position seems more open. Some places now ask for a camera donation. In many cases where photography is allowed flash is banned - general annoyance to others. The avid photographer can become absorbed in their own activity and get in other people's way who also want a good view and maybe prefer a less active mode of reflection and human memory. In some cases continual exposure to flash could damage items on display such as fragile fabrics and prints which may be kept in low light to preserve them. At least in musuems and galleries the position is usually made very clear.
Permits
Some locations - such as old churches - make a small charge (in reality a donation to upkeep of building) for photography - a permit. This gives you proof of permission.
Concerts, Sports, events, etc
There is a degree of ambivilence in some situations which indicate that you can't take photographs - lots of concerts do this - but while you carefully obey the instruction you find yourself surrounded by people taking photos continuously on mobile phones and compact cameras. In some situations it seems there's an unspoken rule that says small cameras are OK but big ones aren't; i.e. large cameras indicate 'professional' and are, therefore, a likely threat to the events business.
Around the world
Don't make assumptions that what goes in your own country is the norm elsewhere; in France, for instance a privacy law protects citizens against photography without permission. In USA you can't photograph and re-use in-copyright sculpture - i.e. the modern stuff - even if it is in a public space. Some countries are more open to photography than others. Some have aspects of their society that make snapping a no-go in some situations. Think hard before you snap. If no-one else is snapping perhaps that's a clue.
| |
Children
Children in Schools
The position in schools in the UK for taking and publishing photographs of children should be clear by now. Parent, Carer or Responsible Adult permission or awareness is required and don't publish or tag photographs with other key information.
:: Read guidance by BECTA Using images and video safely on school websites
The Data Protection Act 1998 indicates a similar position - photography by parents for personal use is exempt and, for instance, "a small group of pupils are photographed during a science lesson and the photo is to be used in the school prospectus. This is unlikely to be personal." Where the school may need to take care is in the storage of image and other data.
:: Read Taking Photographs in Schools - Data Protection Good Practice Note from Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
Children - outside school
"Taking a photograph of a child in a public place, such as a public sporting occasion, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is no different from taking a photograph of an adult in the same circumstances." (McPherson, 2004) However, common sense plays it's hand as well and taking photographs of children (or vunerable adults) without permission could cause upset and could be intrusive; think before you start snapping.
If the reason is to investigate or portray aspects of a child's or person's welfare, then permissions must be obtained - from the parents and/or Local Authority. This situation might occur if you were investigating a welfare 'issue' as part of a school (or any other) project.
| |
Taking Video
Taking video is much the same as for photographs; but add these considerations.
:: If there is a group of you making the video with camera, microphone, etc. that will look more like a professional outfit, may be more 'official' or 'intimidating' than a lone person with camera so people may respond differently to you and that could work for you or against.
:: Recording someone in video may be more revealing of their activities than a single still shot. Simply having them 'in shot' for any length of time could be construed as intrusive - think surveilance.
:: Video's record sound and that may catch what people are saying.
:: The zoom on a video camera is often much greater than on most still cameras. The zoom, literally, gets you up close and personal - but from a distance. Use with judgement.
:: The convention with on-the-street interviews - "vox pop" - is that someone stopping and answering is a form of permission and nothing else is required, though you should identify who you are and what you are doing first.
:: With longer interviews you can consider a permissions form, though this isn't always needed - depends on the circumstances.
:: Asking people to identify themsleves and their 'organisation' at the beginning of an interview piece can be a useful piece a material for later in the process - editing, acknowledgements and records.
| |
The Curious Case of Google Street View
Street View was launched in USA in 2007. In UK it has began on 19th March 2009 with images of 25 cities including London, Cardiff, Edingburgh, Manchester, Oxford and Leeds. Also versions in France (!), Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zeland and Japan. Google Street View
Google spent best part of a year trawling public streets with camera-cars taking images. It uses software to blur faces and car number plates (not always successfully). You can zoom and pan around the photos at a good level of detail. Photos are planned for update every couple of years - (Jan 2010 - annually?). The photos you see are on a databse - they are NOT live.
Is Google Streets a useful public service or an intrusion to those unwittingly snapped or whose homes and premises are on display. Good or Bad?
The ICO - Information Commissioner's Office - is "satisfied that Google is putting in place adequate safeguards to minimise any risk to the privacy or safety of individuals" The main sfaeguard being that Google will remove an image if you complain. Is waiting for a complaint to undo a wrong, the right way forward?
To remove an image of your house
Click 'Report a Concern > Privacy concerns > my house > then enter "I have seen a picture of my house and would like it removed - Google should comply. Houses reported missing include 10 Downing Street, Tony Blair's house and the home of Google's UK boss.
Mash-ups and New Ideas
:: Tate Modern - big art gallery in London - is working with Google to match some of their paintings with their original locations. Has Constable's 'Haywain' eventually got across the river? Has the fire in Turner's 'Houses of Parliament' been extinguished? Is there anywhere that we haven't built on?
:: explore British Art on Street View - Google/Tate mash-up
:: Tate uses Google Street View - slide show; Guardian, 20th March 2009.
:: Link to see the Byrion Smith image above in full size.
| |
Can someone take a photograph of me or use it on a website?
Yes if you are in a public place.
In football matches and audience events.
That is big team football that you pay to see or other events such as theatre, concerts, etc. The terms and conditions of the ticket you purchase for entrance to a football match or other event may well contain words to the effect that the football club and their partners (e.g. TV company) have to right to photograph you - so you may find yourself in glorious close-up screaming your 'appreciation' of ther referee in word and gesture on 'Match of The Day" without any redress. This type of 'permission' embedded in a ticket transaction is quite legal.
Putting a photograph of you on a website.
As long as they haven't done anything untoward to take or obtain the photo, yes they can. Your best route forward is probably to contact the website, explain the situation and ask politely if they could remove it.
Putting a photograph of you on Facebook, Bebo, etc.
The Guardian recently (March 09) quoted that 10million photos are uploaded to Facebook every day! So the chances of getting action to a request to remove - unless there is an added importance or reason - is probably low! Though Google 'Street View' says they will in their terms and conditions. You could approach the person who posted the photo and ask them politely.
Putting a photograph of a child on a website.
Yes - it is the same as for an adult. However, it ups the ante if there is any information - name, etc. - alongside the image or if the process of taking the photograph or the image obtained is intrusive. See 'Children' above.
| |
Requesting permisson to photograph & model consent forms
You can make a request to the owners for permission to photograph. In your request say
:: who you are
:: why you want to take photographs there
:: what the photographs will be used for
:: where the images will 'published' - website, school VLE, etc.
:: who the audience is
:: if you want/need to use flash (they may say no)
:: if you need to use a tripod (which lets you use longer exposures, so "no flash" may not be a problem).
There won't necessarilly be a charge, particularly for education use but you may have to come back at a time convenient to the owner. It sometimes takes a few goes to get to the person in the organsiation who can give the permission, so give yourself time - plan ahead.
Model Consent Forms
If you a photographing people, In some cases a model consent (or release) form can be used prior to the photography which the person signs. Copies of the form should stay with copies of the image or recording; for instance some photoagencies will only accept images 'featuring' people if there is an accompanying model consent form. JISC has produced a template model consent form using a Creative Commons licence - BY-NC 2.0 UK - which can be adapted for use (designed for the public sector in the UK). Read/Download, no charge, as pdf: Model Consent form.
| |
Can I photograph a policeman?
Yes - but NOT in every situation. The official wording is OK if you have "a reasonable excuse". So taking photographs as a tourist of a policeman in a public place is probably OK. If you are a press photographer taking pictures of a public event with policing is probably OK. However, taking photographs of police in action may NOT be - certainly not if you get in the way or intrude inothers 'grief', as at the scene of an accident; or perhaps just get too close for someone's comfort.
Why are we even asking the question? Because, as an outcome of the Terorism Act in the UK it is an offence to take photographs of the police, the intelligence services or the armed services which may be "of use for terrorism". Examples given were collecting information about 'movements' or 'routes to work'. However, this leaves the photographer with the burden of having to prove they have a "reasonable excuse".
:: Read the response to the question by Downing Street. .... This article added 3 November 2009
| |
Photographer's Rights (and some responsibilities)
Written for UK law this short article is intended to provide a short UK guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs that have been taken. The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.M, who is a lecturer in law at Heriot Watt University in 2004. The forum has some good posts for older students studying Media, Art, etc..
Read UK Photographer's Rights and download as pdf from it's source.
And as law is different in different countries here's:
USA version for comparison, Bert Kages Attorney at Law, 'The Photographer's Right'
:: Australian version for further comparison; Photographers' Rights
.
| |
Photography in Public Places - the issue escalates
This wiki-blog section may be useful for Citizenship, Media Studies and Issues work.
| |
Anti-terrorism and the fear of photography.
There has been a growing number of cases where security guards and police have asked people to stop taking photographs, and, on occassion, demanded that flash cards are handed over or that images already taken are deleted. Usually this action is taken in the name of lessening the risk of terrorism - though why people openly taking photographs might be suspect is not at all clear. This tendency has led to a counter responses, particularly by professional photographers. You should not have to delete your photographs or hand over cards or film; however the police can in some circumstances take your camera away for further inspection (see below Terrorism Act). Common sense should guide you if challenged - stop photographing, be prepared to move on and don't get 'aggressive' in your responses; there have been enough cases where people have been held to urge caution - and remember in dealing with the police we all have a duty in law to help them with their enquiries.
| |
Section 44, the EC ruling and Photographer's Protest
22nd January 2010
Thousands of professional and amateur photographers gathered in Trafalgar Square to protest against the use of the UK's 'anti-terrorism' laws to stop and hinder photography in public places.
December 2009
European Court of Human Rights rules that powers allowing stop and search under Section 44 is unlawful - Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights. Home Office said that pending an appeal against the ruling , "the police will continue to have these powers ..."
Police have amended their advice to officers to emphasise that there should be reasonable grounds of "hostile terrorist reconnaisance" - not just taking photos - and it confirmed there is no power to delete digital images or destroy film during a search, though a camera can be taken as evidence. Police: Revised Guidelines
Campaigns
:: 'Not a Crime' by 'British Journal of Photography'.
:: 'I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist' by an independent campaign.
This story added 23rd January 2010
| |
... top half only ... gherkin rules for photographers
STORY FIVE - 11th December 2009
John Lewis took some snaps of the 'Gherkin' building in London's docklands. The securtiy guards challeneged him and the police were called... follow the story on video here ... or ... read the story
It became apparent that photographs of the top half of the Gherkin are OK but not those of the bottom half and entrance - knowledge of which might be construed as useful knowledge to a 'terrorist'. The area of Docklands in which the Gherkin stands is seeen as a sensitive location as it is the centre for many key financial establishments and some of the buildings, like the Gherkin, are seen as iconic, and therefore at greater risk of attack.
| |
Dave Gorman - the snapper 'snapt!'
STORY FOUR
Dave Gorman, British comedian and avid hobbyist photographer explains how he was stopped when taking night shots of Battersea Power Station - a derelict building but within the Goverment Security Zone in London. See the photos, read Dave's lovely exchange with two policemen and find out about Form 5090: Stops and Searches.
Dave gets grabbed - Laurel and Hardy meets Pinter - genius!
| |
STORY THREE
Klaus Matzka, a tourist to London, was stopped by ploice from taking photographs of Walthamstow bus station and was asked to delete the images as photographing anything to do with transport "was forbidden". Full Story in Guardian ... Plenty of photos pf Walthamstow transport centres on Flickr! example ONE and example TWO
STORY TWO
Artist Reuben Powell was stopped from photographing an old government print works building near Elephant and Castle (London) and then detained in police custody. This article provides a good introduction to the topic of Photography in Public Places.
:: Full story January 9th 2009, the Independent; Photographers Criminalised as Police Abuse Anti-Terror Laws
STORY ONE
Video and article of two photographers detained for photographing police and security guards in Hull from Wired, April 2008 - Clueless Security Guards....
| |
More law - UK March 2009
New legislation makes it an offence to take photographs of police, armed forces or intelligence services or locations such as police stations in a way 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" - you have to be viewed as a potential 'terrorist' as well as be seen aking photographs.
It is of course meant to be used in ' exceptional circumstances' but given the recent record of misuse of the terrorsim laws by both police and security guardians many have found this a strangely worded addition to law and another likely erosion of photographers' reasonable freedoms to pursue their work. Those expressing concerns include Peter Smyth chairman of the Metroploitan Police who supported instead calls for a photography code whos aims would be to 'facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it.'
"The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is
prevented by other legislation." Officers can remove cameras but any examination of the images is done by forensic scientists not the police. Read the actual guidance: Section 43 Terrorism Act guidance - it's a pdf. You can open or save it. The photography bit is Page 22, section 2.8.
Photographers' protest against new law ...
:: slide show in 'The Daily Telegraph'
:: photographs with CC licences by Cory Doctorow.
Photo: Photographers' protest against the new law at Scotland Yard. Cory Doctorow
| |
Photography law - epetition response - from the UK government
Austin Mitchell an English MP collected over 200 signatures for his "early-day motion" condemning police harassment of photographers in public places.
An e-petition was recently set up on the No 10 website] on behalf of professional and amateur photographers' right to take photographs in public places. Shapesoftime signed up along with many others. The government's answer was published on 12th January 2009.
The petition
"Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography. Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide. But today, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London. In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it’s quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment. Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant. We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.”
The Government's response
Thank you for your e-petition asking for clarification of the law on photography in public places. There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.
Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.
Shapesoftime Comment
So that's a "Yes, but..." and pretty much reflects the position set out above in our discussion.
:: Read the petiton and response on Number10.gov.uk the official website of The Prime Minister's Office.
Copyright
The text of the epetition and the response above is Crown Copyright and is reproduced here through a PSI Licence. See Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/.
| |
Photography and Terrorism in London
| |
Freelance Photographers Bite Back ...
Feeelance photographers work in many different situations and their work is used for books, newspapers, magazines, corporate, family, websites, braodcasting, postcards, exhibitions - all sorts of things.
In 2008 the Bureau of Freelance Photographers provided their members with a Blue Card' stating the position with regard to photography in public places.
The Blue Card is careful to note that Photographers shouldn't impede police, or public services (ambulance, paramedics, firefighters, etc) in the course of their duty. Common sense trumps "Photographer's Rights" in some cases.
:: Bureau of Freelance Photograhers
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
1977
|
|
Shapes of Time
Copyright - Copyleft
In the news
Resources! Marvels!
.jpg)
