Candid photography involving children in public

[Witch]

<snip>

most people IMHO will think a man in a bush taking pics of someone elses kids is wrong... unfortunatly some people in here think its right simply because its legal

And to think that just 24 hours ago, you were being all wounded over your perception that people were twisting what YOu had posted.

Nobody has said that a man hiding in a bush sneaking pics of kids, as your post above implies, is doing the "right" thing. Have they.

Unless you are perceived to be invading their privacy, then it's not legal (Article 8 Human Rights Act)

Les - article 8 refers to public authorities, not to private individuals. This has actually been discussed at some length on here before.

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

[Eric Mc]

Unless you are perceived to be invading their privacy, then it's not legal (Article 8 Human Rights Act)

I'm affraid I think you'll find that article 8 refers to public authorities, not to private individuals


Doh...beaten to it by Witch

 

[KIPAX]

And to think that just 24 hours ago, you were being all wounded over your perception that people were twisting what YOu had posted.

excuse me? I was being what? please dont take this to a personal level

 

[Witch]

excuse me? I was being what? please dont take this to a personal level

Hang on a second - it's nothing personal at all - yesterday you were suggesting that people were taking your posts in the wrong way - and yet the paragraph I quoted above quite clearly shows that you have done the exact same thing to twist the words of others.....it's called redressing the balance! Of course, if in fact you can point me in the direction of anyone on this thread or elsewhere on these forums who DOES condone people hiding in bushes taking illicit pics of children for inappropriate use, I will of course extend a public apology immediately - in the same way I did yesterday when I inadvertently misread something you have written previously. If, however, you CAN'T point me in that direction, I trust that you will be withdrawing your previous statement?

 

[Les McLean]

Les - article 8 refers to public authorities, not to private individuals. This has actually been discussed at some length on here before.

I'm affraid I think you'll find that article 8 refers to public authorities, not to private individuals


Doh...beaten to it by Witch

No, I'm correct, in respect of the European Court of Human Rights, (Hannover-v_Germany)

A legal comment from that judgement

The judgment represents a considerable extension of media privacy protection by the European Court. It now appears that even if a photograph is taken of a person in a public place, the publication of that photograph will constitute an invasion of privacy under the Convention unless it can be said to contribute to a "debate of general interest". This is likely to be restrictively interpreted and only matters which could be said to engage a pressing public concern (for example, matters of a political nature) are likely to justify the publication of such a photograph.

So it does apply to individuals

 

[Eric Mc]

No, I'm correct, in respect of the European Court of Human Rights, (Hannover-v_Germany)

A legal comment from that judgment

The judgment represents a considerable extension of media privacy protection by the European Court. It now appears that even if a photograph is taken of a person in a public place, the publication of that photograph will constitute an invasion of privacy under the Convention unless it can be said to contribute to a "debate of general interest". This is likely to be restrictively interpreted and only matters which could be said to engage a pressing public concern (for example, matters of a political nature) are likely to justify the publication of such a photograph.

Sorry Les but that judgment concerns the publication of a photograph and not the taking of said photograph and as such would not apply if the tog was not intending to publish!

 

[Les McLean]

I understand what youre saying, and I do think there are certain situations in public where such candids wouldn't be acceptable (the mother changing her child on a beach being one).

There are certain times and situations where you can reasonably expect to have a moment of visual privacy, or even audial privacy.

But sitting in a field, chatting around a picnic rug, you can't honestly reasonably expect that to be a private moment?
Sure, if someone was to sit next to you and start taking photos with a 10-20mm, then fair enough, but a candid from a distance is a different matter.

Surely you've just made a case FOR candids from a distance? (I pull your leg of course)

An example of privacy (from the same ruling as above)

The photographs showed ******in scenes from her daily life, and thus engaged in activities of a [FONT=FHOLPG+Arial,Bold,Arial]purely private [/FONT]nature such as practising sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday"

So sitting having a picnic could be considered activity of a private nature, therefore consent would be required?

 

[petemc]

Just on this privacy in public places. One word, paparrazi. Its clearly not an issue.

 

[Les McLean]

Sorry Les but that judgment concerns the publication of a photograph and not the taking of said photograph and as such would not apply if the tog was not intending to publish!

Sorry, I was referring to your statement that the HRA just refers to public authorities not private individuals, this ruling does refer to private individuals, taking/publishing images is a different issue.

 

[Witch]

That except from the case doesn't mention private individuals at all, in fact it's grey in the extreme. Having looked it up however, I see that the case related specifically to the media reporting on an individual's private life (in this case it was Prince Caroline of Monaco) - it has no relevance whatsoever to an ameteur 'tog taking candid shots of people - regardless of the age of those people.

As I mentioned previously, this is a matter which has been raised on here before - the Human Rights act makes NO restriction on a private individual's right to take candid photographs in a public place, nor does it give any individual a right to privacy. There is NO legal right to privacy in a public place in this country.

Sorry if you feel I'm banging the drum on this issue a bit Les, but it's an important point - the law is an area which - god knows threads on here show - many people are very uncertain about - I think it's vital that things aren;t make any less clear!

 

[Les McLean]

That except from the case doesn't mention private individuals at all, in fact it's grey in the extreme. Having looked it up however, I see that the case related specifically to the media reporting on an individual's private life (in this case it was Prince Caroline of Monaco) - it has no relevance whatsoever to an ameteur 'tog taking candid shots of people - regardless of the age of those people.

As I mentioned previously, this is a matter which has been raised on here before - the Human Rights act makes NO restriction on a private individual's right to take candid photographs in a public place, nor does it give any individual a right to privacy. There is NO legal right to privacy in a public place in this country.

Sorry if you feel I'm banging the drum on this issue a bit Les, but it's an important point - the law is an area which - god knows threads on here show - many people are very uncertain about - I think it's vital that things aren;t make any less clear!

Your statement about just applying to public authoroties is incorrect, this ruling applies to individuals (albeit the media) and it's interpretation could (and does) have massive implications for all togs.

Sorry, the HRA guarantees our rights to privacy.

 

[pxl8]

An example of privacy (from the same ruling as above)

The photographs showed ******in scenes from her daily life, and thus engaged in activities of a [FONT=FHOLPG+Arial,Bold,Arial]purely private [/FONT]nature such as practising sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday"

So sitting having a picnic could be considered activity of a private nature, therefore consent would be required?

The point of the ruling is to protect individuals in the public eye from paps, etc. who endlessly pursue and disrupt their ability to lead a "normal" life. This is very different from Joe Tog taking a snap of Mr & Mrs Blogs having a picnic in the local park.

 

[Witch]

It's also worth mentioning that in France, where Princess Caroline lives for most of the time, permission from the subject IS required prior to publication of images in the media. That is the French law, ours is based on a "public interest" angle.

Another case which put this one to the test was the one brought by Naomi Campbell a few years back when she was papped leaving an NA meeting. That case also has no bearing on the taking of photos, simply on the publication of them.

 

[Eric Mc]

Sorry, the HRA guarantees our rights to privacy.

In respect of having images taken of you published (but only in certain circumstances) your are correct. But in respect of having images taken of you in a public place which are not for publication I'm affraid you've not got a leg to stand on.

 

[Les McLean]

The point of the ruling is to protect individuals in the public eye from paps, etc. who endlessly pursue and disrupt their ability to lead a "normal" life. This is very different from Joe Tog taking a snap of Mr & Mrs Blogs having a picnic in the local park.

No I don't think that's true, the ruling clearly took the article 8 out of the domain of just public authorities, and applied it to individuals, it also gave some clarity about private/public activities.

And call me old fashioned, but I thought the law applied to all consistently, and never considered some to be more equal than others, i.e. Joe Tog and Mr and Mrs Blogs have the same rights as Princess Caroline.

 

[BenMottram]

Les, how does the HRA ruling affect the judgement in the case of Murray (By his litigation friends) v. Express Newspapers and Another? A write up of which can be found here

Where a famous author and her family were found not to have had their privacy invaded, by togs, whilst walking down the street...

From what I understand you to be saying, the judgement in the case must be suspect. The court found "there remained an area of routine activity which when conducted in pubic carried no guarantee of privacy" which if I understand you correctly could not have been valid in respect to the HRA...

Ben

Edit: I am discussing the HRA vs this particular ruling, and not taking a stand on the original topic; I guess I should butt out here

 

[Les McLean]

In respect of having images taken of you published (but only in certain circumstances) your are correct. But in respect of having images taken of you in a public place which are not for publication I'm affraid you've not got a leg to stand on.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this, my interpretation and yours are obviously different.

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

 

[Eric Mc]

I thought the law applied to all consistently, and never considered some to be more equal than others

I couldn't agree more And as the law in this country stands at this present time it is not illegal to take a candid photo of anyone in a public place.

 

[Witch]

ROFL - absolutely NO need for you to be panicking JL - well, unless of course you've been hanging around outside the clinic waiting for a celeb to appear?! (And in all honesty, even if you hadm still no reason for )

Could I also cordially suggest that we might return the thread to the subject of the moral position on taking candid shots of children? ALthough the nature of conversation and debate, it does seem to have wandered rather wider of the mark than previously now!

 

[Les McLean]

Les, how does the HRA ruling affect the judgement in the case of Murray (By his litigation friends) v. Express Newspapers and Another? A write up of which can be found here

Where a famous author and her family were found not to have had their privacy invaded, by togs, whilst walking down the street...

From what I understand you to be saying, the judgement in the case must be suspect. The court found "there remained an area of routine activity which when conducted in pubic carried no guarantee of privacy" which if I understand you correctly could not have been valid in respect to the HRA...


Ben

I don't see any conflict here, it mentions the concept of informed consent, and the right to privacy, what it did do was to try and provide a framework to what is private/not private.

I agree (as mentioned previously) this area is extremely fuzzy, and we have the possible conflicts of UK courts/European Courts.

But back to my original argument, I think it entirely correct (and realistic) to seek consent before taking images of children.

 

[pxl8]

No I don't think that's true, the ruling clearly took the article 8 out of the domain of just public authorities, and applied it to individuals, it also gave some clarity about private/public activities.

And call me old fashioned, but I thought the law applied to all consistently, and never considered some to be more equal than others, i.e. Joe Tog and Mr and Mrs Blogs have the same rights as Princess Caroline.

Ok, I'll expand upon what I thought were obvious points in the differences between the two examples.

Paps are looking to publish a picture of a person in the public eye and make money off of it. Their usual claim is public interest (a subject for another debate). The picture is exposing the "private" moments of the subject to a greater auidence than those that would have witnessed it by being there. It is the publication that constitutes the invasion of privacy.

Joe Tog isn't publishing or has any kind of commercial interest in the photo. Joe is practising a technical and/or artistic exercise for his own enjoyment.

I think it is this key point that divides the two sides. If the picture isn't being published then I agree that privacy becomes an issue, but I don't recall that was ever stated as a purpose by those who are defending the right to shoot candids in a public area.

I beleive that the amateur has the right to shoot in a public area for a personal portfolio without fear of invading privacy.

A "pro" doing it for commercial purposes really should be getting consent and releases signed which would cover the informed consent discussed earlier.

A Pap needs to consider the "Public Interest" issues as they are supposedly reporting "news".

The amateur should of course be wary of how and where they display the image - posting it online does have potential issues although I suspect these are rare and bordering on the non-existent. As it would be a civil matter the subject claiming for invasion of privacy would be in a weaker position than someone in the public eye so which puts a big dent in the theory that everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law. But, as I said earlier, best practice would be to obtain consent when possible.

 

[sportysnaps]

I have read all the 262 replies so far with interest

So to the OP my slant

There is a discussion on this going on over on another forum and I thought it would be interesting to hear your views on the matter.

I think it’s fair to say that you have had some varied views expressed here, and answers to your post I wonder if you would let us know which forum so we can enlighten ourselves to the other possible viewpoints, that may not have been discussed here.

After a member posted some candid photographs over on another forum, the issue of legality…

I think we have covered this; there is not a legal problem. (To the best of my knowledge in the UK as of 20-02-08)

…and morality when taking candid pictures involving children kept raising its head

Clearly this divides people in the same way religion does – there really is not a clear black or white – just lots of greys – we all have viewpoints that we are entitled to and for the record I respect the right for people to express their opinions even if I disagree with the viewpoint

The images were taken in a park and the parents were with the children in the images.

But were the parents happy/permissive/resentful/consenting to the photo? – The OP could have given this info but did not– why not?

Would the OP like to comment?

What are your views on the subject? Would you be comfortable taking candid pictures which involved children in a public park for example? If so why and if not, why not?

Yes with approval/consent from the parents, and yes if the children were a small part of the background to a shot and not the main theme – and no I have not taken candid pictures which involved children in a public park before.

Are there any specific legal issues or grey areas which may affect photographers? Does the law differ in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

I don’t think this is a problem

Discuss

Mmmmm has this come from a college test paper - the laws and moral issues’ relating to photographing children in public places? Or just baiting with an emotive subject… - please respond OP

 

[Les McLean]

I couldn't agree more And as the law in this country stands at this present time it is not illegal to take a candid photo of anyone in a public place.

I agree, as long as it does not breach the terms of Article 8 of the HRA , and this must be my final word on this aspect of the discussion.

 

[wkaibigan]

Not sure how many people have seen it or not but there is a photograph that was taken in Vietnam I think (it may have been another warzone). The picture shows naked children walking down a path.The purpose of the picture was to show the terrible way that war affects the innocent. However, the picture shows naked children so it is a p*** delight? Should it have not been shown? Personally I believe that photographs serve many functions. They record points of time for history, they record happy events in people's lives etc etc. Only a small minority use them for less than savoury purposes. So why judge the majority based on the minority. A picture of a smiling or laughing child is something to take pleasure from as much as any smiling laughing person.

As for the rights or wrongs of posting picures online that may be uses by pedos. Well, assuming of course that the pictures are of clothed children, a p*** can easily get hold of a home catalogue that not only contains pictures of children but children's underwear so surely they will get more enjoyment from that than some picture of a fully clothed child taken in a decent way by a photographer who has made no attempt to hide in the bushes or shadows.

Link to the Vietnam picture I mentioned. Don't click if offended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg

 

[Eric Mc]

I agree, as long as it does not breach the terms of Article 8 of the HRA

I thought we had already established that Article 8 of the HRA (and all other articles that you've quoted for that matter) pertain to the publishing of images not the taking! So I stand by my statement that as the law stands at the moment it is legal to take candid photos of people in a public place.

 

[Les McLean]

I thought we had already established that Article 8 of the HRA (and all other articles that you've quoted for that matter) pertain to the publishing of images not the taking! So I stand by my statement that as the law stands at the moment it is legal to take candid photos of people in a public place.

No, the issue here is privacy, and it does concern me, that togs may be under the impression that it's a free for all regarding taking photographs of people in public places, I'm sorry but it's not the case.

The Human Right Act provides some safeguards to privacy, and you are incorrect in stating that the HRA just applies to public authorities, recent court cases (European and UK) have acknowledged that Article 8 (Respect for privacy/family life) has a broader scope that includes protection of privacy from individuals.

The difficulties (from a legal perspective) is the definition of private/public activities.

In the Hannover-v_Germany case, there was a judgement that activities of a purely private nature such as practising sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday were considered private (not public)

However in the other court case mentioned Murray-v- Express Newspapers the judgement was that it was acceptable (from a legal position) for a newspaper to take/publish photographs of a child walking down the street with his/her parents, although there was considerable criticism from an ethical perspective in that the newspaper did not get informed consent to publish.


The judgement made it clear, that the laws as it stands is still fuzzy regarding private/public activity, but what is important (IMO) that in each of the court cases, there was never an assumption that it is legal to take/publish photographs of people in public places, but was more concerned with the interpretation of the HRA, and the invasion (or not) of privacy.


In respect of taking of images (rather than publishing), in one of the court cases, it brought in the issue of data protection and the data protection act, i.e. that the photographer is storing personal information about the subject, and even though it may not be published, the subject has certain 'rights' regarding the storing/holding of personal data (i.e. their image stored on the togs memory card). I understand in this case, that it was not considered from a legal perspective, put the point was made, that it could impact on this activity.


So from a legal perspective, even for the average Joe Tog, it's a bit of a minefield at the moment, and it's caused confusion for a lot of public/private bodies as recent press/blogs/forums etc have made clear regarding what and who can and can't be photographed in public/private places.


From a moral/ethical perspective, from a personal view, I'm very clear, and that photographs of children (with the obvious exceptions mentioned) should never be undertaken without informed consent.

 

[pxl8]

Les can you cite any cases that involve Joe Tog and Joe Public or any that don't involve publication?

So far all the cases named involved a commercial publication of the images and I don't think anyone would be able to bring a case that didn't involve publication or the intention to publish. Apart from the obvious difficulty of the subject not being aware they appeared in a candid photo it strikes me they'd have a very weak argument that their privacy had been invaded. If the photographer was there to record the photo then he was also able to view the subject*. Therefore taking the photo hasn't changed the level or privacy the subject could reasonably expect in a public place.

* Clearly some exceptions apply, a pap with a 600mm lens or a stalker, etc. but these are outside the context of innocent Joe Tog down the local park.

 

[Trev Rich]

Not sure how many people have seen it or not but there is a photograph that was taken in Vietnam I think (it may have been another warzone). The picture shows naked children walking down a path.The purpose of the picture was to show the terrible way that war affects the innocent. However, the picture shows naked children so it is a p*** delight? Should it have not been shown? Personally I believe that photographs serve many functions. They record points of time for history, they record happy events in people's lives etc etc. Only a small minority use them for less than savoury purposes. So why judge the majority based on the minority. A picture of a smiling or laughing child is something to take pleasure from as much as any smiling laughing person.

This is recording war events surely? Its a bit different than venturing to a park with the sole purpose of photographing kids?

 

[Helium_Junkie]

The photos that Scuzi refers to were taken with a zoom lens though and the one of the little girl on her own is pretty much full frame. It's not even fully in focus because I'd imagine that the photographer did a quick candid shot rather than compose the picture correctly so he obviously knew that the subject was taboo.

If I thought it was taboo I never would have posted them, it wasn't a perfect photo because I was in a hurry to get what I felt was a good photo before the moment passed - so many excellent photos pass us by every minute and if you don't try to capture them then you do yourself a great disservice. None of the photos depicted anything indecent, or taboo, and I had absolutely no qualms about taking them other than that an uninformed PCSO would come and steal my camera just because I had one (they seem to be doing that a lot). Don't make assumptions about other peoples feelings.

My opinion on candids of children are that the public have been terrorised by the medias sensationalisation of paedophile rings and child abuse, so much that they believe even a decent photo of a child counts as abuse - the problem is that the stories being reported involve children actually being abused, and photos of people abusing children, which is a million miles and a half away from a decent candid photo of a clothed child enjoying a day in the park.

The innocent parents and bystanders have been mislead into believing that our children are unsafe in public, when they are at no greater risk than the parents themselves - no harm is done to someone by taking a photo of them, be they adult or child, unless they are being physically abused at the time - unfortunately due to constant media scaremongering that little detail has been trampled in favour of over-protectiveness and the innocent photographer has suffered.

When I took the photos that set off this debate on the other forum I was clearly within a public place, only a short distance from each subject, in plain sight of parents, children and others, and more than one person saw me taking the photos (as should be expected, I cannot turn invisible) and since I was with two other photographers, my best mate and my girlfriend, all of us with DSLRs we were certainly noticable, there can definiely not be any allusion that we were in any way covert. We had visited the park with the intent of photoghaphing the park itself, and while we were there several opportunities presented themselves for candid photos, with subjects ranging from toddlers to teenagers, adults and the elderly.

Most of the people who noted me taking photos of them made no reaction at all and continued what they were doing, quite clearly unconcerned. There were some reactions from adults, who smiled, nodded and even waved happily! One young mother smiled at me as I took a photo of her and her toddler feeding the birds. I smiled back and they continued feeding and I continued shooting. I was very comfortable taking these photos and the subjects were clearly comfortable as well.

I think a lot of wrong assumptions have been made in these discussions (by over-worrying minds), I hope this clears some of them up.

On my next round I have ordered business cards, and will be handing them to subjects after the shots so that they can see them. Not as any kind of permission request, but because I am proud of my work and want to share it with those who help make it happen.

 

[Wraith]

I have many many images of people taken in a public place, even some of them were in a state of undress...

They are called memories and they were taken with my eyes.

I am sorry I have not obeyed the HRA

 

[Les McLean]

Further to the issue of data protection:

The data protection act contains a number of key principles:

Personal Data - information about a living individual that is processed automatically (e.g. by a computer) or held within a relevant filing system (e.g. manual records system) or recorded with the intention of processing or filing it, and which enables the individual to be identified or identifiable. Personal data can include photographs or images, in digital or analogue (non-digital) form.

Processing - this has a very broad scope, including: obtaining, recording or holding data as well as specific activities such as organising, adapting, altering, retrieving, consulting, using, disclosing, disseminating, aligning, combining, blocking, erasing or destroying information.

Data Subject - the person who is the subject of the personal data. As they must be a 'living individual', a Data Subject cannot be an organisation or company.

Data Controller - the person (or persons) who determine how the personal data is processed. Unlike the Data Subject, the Data Controller is a 'legal person', which could include organisations and companies, their members or employees, or individuals. Unless they are only dealing with manual data, Data Controllers are meant to provide the Information Commissioner with details about themselves and the data they are processing


Conditions for fair and lawful processing (Schedules 2 and 3 of the Act)
The first principle states that personal data should only be processed if it meets at least one of these conditions :

Data Subject has given their consent
Processing is necessary for fulfilling a contract or entering into a contract
Processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation of the Data Controller
Processing is necessary to protect the vital (i.e. life and death) interests of the Data Subject
Processing is necessary for the administration of justice, activities of the Crown or a government department, or functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest
Processing is necessary in pursuing legitimate interests of the Data Controller or third parties unless this prejudices the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the Data Subject


Exceptions to above:

There are a couple of others that Data Controllers might be able to claim when using photographs of people:

Journalistic, literary, and artistic purposes (section 32 of the Act)
Many of the Data Protection Act's provisions can be set aside where personal data is processed for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes, if this is done with a view to publication and is believed to be in the public interest.

This exemption ensures certain freedoms for the press.
Research, i.e. historical and statistical purposes (section 33 of the Act)
Personal data which is processed for research purposes and is (1) not used to take decisions about individuals and (2) will not cause substantial damage or distress, may be exempt from: (a) the requirement that personal information be used for limited, specified purposes (Principle 2), and (b) the requirement that personal information be kept for a limited time period (Principle 5).

Research data will also be exempt from the Right of Access (above) where the research outputs are not being made available in a form that identifies individuals.


Are photographs personal data?
The courts have determined that photographs and images of people are capable of being personal data (the case of Durant v Financial Services ). Where the name and image of a person are linked - or are capable of being linked - then the person can be identified and the image should be regarded as personal data.

The problem arises where an image is anonymous (unnamed and unknown to the Data Controller) but is theoretically capable of being recognised and identified by someone else who knows that individual.

The Act states that personal data is information relating to living people who can be identified from those data, or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller Does 'can be identified' mean 'is identified' or more broadly 'is capable of being identified'?

The UK courts have not yet ruled on this issue. The Information Commissioner's Office has not given unambiguous guidance, but has tended towards the 'is capable of being identified' definition. They have said that where a person is the focus of an image, that image is likely to be personal data - even in the absence of a name or other identifying information. But where people are incidentally included in an image or are not the focus (e.g. a busy street scene) the Information Commission's Office believe that the image is unlikely to contain personal data.



So from the above, it's another minefield for the average Tog, and goes against the proposition that it is legal to take photos of people in public places, unless you have their consent.


On a slight tangential note, unlike a number of folk, I don't buy this whole issue is been driven by tabloid newspaper hysteria, or that all togs are considered pedos or it's political correctness gone mad etc, I think it's more to do with the confusion around interpretation of certain parts of the Human Rights Act, Data Protection Act, and a lot of organisations/public bodies are erring on the side of caution until a clear legal steer is forthcoming.

 

[pxl8]

Les what about section 36 exemptions - Domestic purposes (including recreational activities)?

Again you're blurring the lines between amateur and professional photography and creating a sense of doubt for amateurs who may now be thinking they need to register under the DPA.

So from the above, it's another minefield for the average Tog, and goes against the proposition that it is legal to take photos of people in public places, unless you have their consent.

It is also worth noting that even for a professional tog the DPA doesn't prevent the gathering of personal data such as a photograph - it deals with how that data is stored and used and certainly doesn't add weight to your concept that it's illegal to take photographs of people in public places. You are, IMO, clutching at straws with this one

 

[Les McLean]

Les what about section 36 exemptions - Domestic purposes (including recreational activities)?

Again you're blurring the lines between amateur and professional photography and creating a sense of doubt for amateurs who may now be thinking they need to register under the DPA.



It is also worth noting that even for a professional tog the DPA doesn't prevent the gathering of personal data such as a photograph - it deals with how that data is stored and used and certainly doesn't add weight to your concept that it's illegal to take photographs of people in public places. You are, IMO, clutching at straws with this one

Sec 36 only applies to personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual&#8217;s personal, family or household affairs , therefore I don't think relevant to this discussion?


I don't think I am creating sense of doubt, perhaps uncertainty, and hesitation in respect of taking images of children without consent, and I make no apologies for that, to make such a bland statement that's its fine and dandy to take photographs of anybody in public places is worrying, as there are numerous restraints on doing so, some I have mentioned (HRA Data Protection Act), there are other restraints, some public parks have the own bye-laws that restrict photography, railway stations, etc etc etc.

And I'm definitely not clutching at straws, that's the data protection act, it's a legal framework, although some of the legalities are still fuzzy, it's all there in black and white.

 

[Wraith]

If you don't want people to have images of you being in a public place then you shouldn't be in a public place.

 

[pxl8]

Section 36 is very relevant because it's purpose is to make all individuals exempt, in other words the act only applies to organisations/companies/etc.

If you doubt this call the ICO helpline and ask, the number is 08456 306060.

But for clarity I will repeat a previous point - even if the DPA did apply it only defines how the data is stored and used, it doesn't prevent the caputre of the data in the first place.

So the DPA is off the menu as a reason why you can't take photos in public. That leaves the HRA which to date has only been concerned with commercial publication of images unless you've got examples of it being used by an ordinary member of the public against an amateur photographer?

I'm concerned that sweeping statements such as yours can leave amateur photographers feeling as though all these laws are preventing them from enjoying their hobby when it simply isn't true.

 

[barsbyart]

Ahem...!

Obviously a very emotive topic! I haven' read all the posts thoroughly but it seems to me that it boils down to a few issues:

Candids (esp of minors) -
Legal or not? Legal.
Moral or not? A judgement-call for each individual.

In taking a pic (candid or not) is a genuine tog putting a minor at risk? Difficult one... In most cases NO but in posting he/she may be pandering to someone elses perversions.

Does the public perceive a risk from togs? Oh yes!

Do it or not? You choose.

Does the public have a reasonable expectation of privacy? NO actually they have an UNreasonable expectation of privacy. If peeps urinate, run naked, chew with mouth open in a public place they should not expect privacy BUT they DO!

Will togging be legislated? Oh yes, I think so! I have alluded to this earlier and so has Witch.
Is this reasonable? No but....
Will such actually protect minors? No but it will win votes!

A 'boss' once told me he didn't want to be told about problems, he wanted solutions! So perhaps we need a thread about how we can allay public fear given the sad state of the world at the moment?

I have already said carry ID and contact details to show that you are genuine. Also, why not obtain consent (not before as that would work against your candid but AFTER)?

 

[Les McLean]

Section 36 is very relevant because it's purpose is to make all individuals exempt, in other words the act only applies to organisations/companies/etc.

If you doubt this call the ICO helpline and ask, the number is 08456 306060.

But for clarity I will repeat a previous point - even if the DPA did apply it only defines how the data is stored and used, it doesn't prevent the caputre of the data in the first place.

So the DPA is off the menu as a reason why you can't take photos in public. That leaves the HRA which to date has only been concerned with commercial publication of images unless you've got examples of it being used by an ordinary member of the public against an amateur photographer?

I'm concerned that sweeping statements such as yours can leave amateur photographers feeling as though all these laws are preventing them from enjoying their hobby when it simply isn't true.

Sorry to have to disagree with you again but section 36 (now section 33 in 2002 act) states

Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreationalpurposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts 2 and 3.


It states nothing about making individuals except.

Again, I think you are incorrect regarding capture of images, if the image is 'captured' digitally, then it is stored? That's why (probably) togs have asked to delete images from their cards under data protection rules.

HRA does not discriminate against people, for example, in the case of Princess Caroline's ruling, the court ruled that it was illegal to take photographs of her (and her family) in certain private situatuations, that ruling applied to everyone, whether they were a pro or amateur?

I'm concerned that bland statements suggesting it's OK to photo anyone in public (when it patently isn't true) could lead to togs getting into deep water legally, either in a criminal situation or a civil situation.

I'll leave you with a quote from an article I once read, regarding photographers rights (Linda Macpherson -2004)

'Some years ago it was said in a judgement that 'there is no law against taking a photograph'. This implies a freedom to take photographs that sadly for photographers does not exist. There are in fact many legal restrictions on the right to take a photograph, and it would be more correct to say that one is free to take photographs except when the law provides otherwise'


To pretend there is no legal restrictions on taking photographs is irresponsiblre and potentially dangerous.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

Sorry to have to disagree with you again but section 36 (now section 33 in 2002 act) states

Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreationalpurposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts 2 and 3.


It states nothing about making individuals except.

That looks like a contradiction? :shrug: The quote clearly states that individuals processing data for recreational uses are exempt from the dpa principles.

 

[Les McLean]

That looks like a contradiction? :shrug: The quote clearly states that individuals processing data for recreational uses are exempt from the dpa principles.

Only if they are taking photographs of their own personal family.

A quote from Linda Macpherson in relation to this section (my italics)

Photographers who, for example, are shooting their children taking part in a sporting event, for a family photo album, are not infringing data protection laws


So I don't see any contadiction?