Publishing/displaying photography and the law?

N

Niall Miller

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Name
Niall
Edit My Images
No
Hi there, I am a amateur photographer and I am starting to explore getting some venues/cafes/bars to display my work. My photographs are mainly street photography, so photographs of the general public in public places.

Would I be breaking any laws by having these type of photographs hanging on a cafe wall? If so to have my work displayed in the future would I need permission?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!
 
ecoleman said:
There is no law that prevents you from taking photos of children in public spaces.
Click to expand...


Unless they have an expectation of privacy
 
gramps said:
"Covert, long lens photography", hardly 'street' :)
Click to expand...

The decision was made more on the publishing aspect rather than the covert and long lens. That aside the OP could also be using a long lens covertly?
 
admirable said:
The decision was made more on the publishing aspect rather than the covert and long lens. That aside the OP could also be using a long lens covertly?
Click to expand...


the Court of Appeal took into account the fact that it was concerned with “the clandestine taking and subsequent publication of the Photograph in the context of a series of photographs which were taken for the purposes of their sale and publication, in circumstances in which BPL did not ask David’s parents for their consent to the taking and publication of his photograph. It is a reasonable inference on the alleged facts that BPL knew that if they had asked Dr and Mrs Murray for their consent to the taking and publication of such a photograph of their child, that consent would have been refused.”
Click to expand...

The court concluded that “subject to the facts of the particular case, the law should indeed protect children from intrusive media attention, at any rate to the extent of holding that a child has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be targeted in order to obtain photographs in a public place for publication which the person who took the photographs knew would be objected to on behalf of the child. That is the context in which the photographs of David were taken.”
Click to expand...

Not at all what the O/P suggests he will be doing, unless he confirms that he is thinking of targeting the offspring of a celebrity without the parents permission. :)
 
ecoleman said:
There is no law that prevents you from taking photos of children in public spaces. As long as they are not indecent of course.
Click to expand...


haha I doubt the cafe would put them on the wall if they where indecent... well not the cafes I go in anyway ... :)
 
I think the consideration would more likely be the right of family life... AFAIK, the concerns of privacy/family life in regards to children in public have so far related to media exposure, but that doesn't mean it couldn't change with the next case. As I read it, article 8 is *more likely* to be the ruling factor if the child is *not* famous/related to; or rather, that article 10 is less likely to outweigh it. I.e. if they are not famous it is more reasonable to expect not to be the subject of photographs taken in public and being published.

IMO, taking pictures of children surreptitiously is questionable regardless (not that "street photography" necessarily equates)... My best suggestion is, if an image is at all questionable in what it conveys ("what" more than "who") get proper legal advice first.
 
Last edited:
Another consideration is the land that you stood on to take the shot. Most privately owned land that has public access allows photography for personal use, but they may see displaying prints as commercial gain, especially if the prints displayed have a price tag on them, or were 'sold' to the cafe, etc. You might be amazed at what is actually private land, eg a lot of the South Bank in London, Spinningfields and Home in Manchester, a lot of Salford Quays, just about every shopping centre, etc, etc.
 
ecoleman said:
Does anybody have an expectation of privacy in a public space? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

If someone were sitting at the back of a large restaurant, well away from the street where you were standing, and you used a long lens and a high ISO to get a shot of them, they might argue that they had an expectation of privacy as that's why they deliberately sat right at the back. But, legally? Who knows?
 
ecoleman said:
Does anybody have an expectation of privacy in a public space? Don't think so.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. It is not a general expectation but specific circumstances can confer an expectation of privacy. Things like a medical emergency, or a private phone call on a mobile phone would confer an expectation of privacy for that phone call.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
That was the subject of the court case referred to regarding David Murray.
Click to expand...
I think the "long lens" was simply a evidence of "sneaking" and trying to avoid detection.
Quote in part: 'Here however the Court of Appeal took into account the fact that it was concerned with “the clandestine taking and subsequent publication..."'
I think any other means of hiding/sneaking would have equal relevance (i.e. hiding the camera under your coat).
 
Last edited:
garryknight said:
If someone were sitting at the back of a large restaurant, well away from the street where you were standing, and you used a long lens and a high ISO to get a shot of them, they might argue that they had an expectation of privacy as that's why they deliberately sat right at the back. But, legally? Who knows?
Click to expand...

I think you're grabbing at straws here.
Using a long lens and high ISO in order to get a shot of somebody sitting at the back of a restaurant is not street photography.

Not only that, the restaurant would not be a public space but private property.
 
john.margetts said:
Yes, they do. It is not a general expectation but specific circumstances can confer an expectation of privacy. Things like a medical emergency, or a private phone call on a mobile phone would confer an expectation of privacy for that phone call.
Click to expand...

A photograph of somebody on the phone? I wonder what that would reveal.
As for a medical emergency, the OP is taking about street photography with the view of hanging prints in a Cafe. Medical emergency photos are not the average photograph you might find in a cafe.
 
ecoleman said:
I think you're grabbing at straws here.
Using a long lens and high ISO in order to get a shot of somebody sitting at the back of a restaurant is not street photography.
Click to expand...
True.
ecoleman said:
Not only that, the restaurant would not be a public space but private property.
Click to expand...
But standing outside would be taking the photo in a public space.
 
So what about photos taken at a country show, village fete, etc. where the land it's held on might be privately owned but the paying public are allowed in to see the exhibitors for that particular event?
 
Mr Badger said:
So what about photos taken at a country show, village fete, etc. where the land it's held on might be privately owned but the paying public are allowed in to see the exhibitors for that particular event?
Click to expand...

That's nothing to do with this thread, it's about street photography and has progressed to taking pics of children in a street environment
 
ecoleman said:
Not only that, the restaurant would not be a public space but private property.
Click to expand...
The regulations regarding privacy "in public" do not relate to public vs privately owned space/property per-se. It relates to "exposure to the public" (and a reasonable assumption of privacy or not) which can occur on many privately owned properties; restaurants/shopping centers/etc... even your own home/property.
They are (can be) related/intertwined...but they are separate issues.
 
Last edited:
admirable said:
That's nothing to do with this thread, it's about street photography and has progressed to taking pics of children in a street environment
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was forbidden for the thread to progress any further beyond that.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
A photograph of somebody on the phone? I wonder what that would reveal.
As for a medical emergency, the OP is taking about street photography with the view of hanging prints in a Cafe. Medical emergency photos are not the average photograph you might find in a cafe.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on the statement that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place which is only partially true. Those two I offered are not the only possible exceptions.
 
john.margetts said:
I was commenting on the statement that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place which is only partially true. Those two I offered are not the only possible exceptions.
Click to expand...


The privacy would only apply to the verbal content of the phone call, not the act of making it, so in photographic terms it's largely irrelevant.
 
Mr Badger said:
So what about photos taken at a country show, village fete, etc. where the land it's held on might be privately owned but the paying public are allowed in to see the exhibitors for that particular event?
Click to expand...
Legally there is no difference as long as photography is permitted. I.e. the concern for privacy in public is the same because the situation is "exposed to the public," the concern of private vs public property is simply whether photography is allowed/legal there in the first place. And the separate concerns probably involve separate individuals.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Another consideration is the land that you stood on to take the shot. Most privately owned land that has public access allows photography for personal use, but they may see displaying prints as commercial gain, especially if the prints displayed have a price tag on them, or were 'sold' to the cafe, etc. You might be amazed at what is actually private land, eg a lot of the South Bank in London, Spinningfields and Home in Manchester, a lot of Salford Quays, just about every shopping centre, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
this is quite worrying how much public space is now privately owned with it's own rules and i have seen quite a few articles about this concern eg https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...ately-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action
 
Mr Badger said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was forbidden for the thread to progress any further beyond that.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to be a t*** about it but sometimes the thread can soon end up going way off on a tangent
 
admirable said:
I didn't mean to be a t*** about it but sometimes the thread can soon end up going way off on a tangent
Click to expand...
No problem, I know what you mean. Sorry if my question seemed a bit off topic but I thought it had some relevance as quite a lot of what we think of as 'a public place' might actually not be these days, as some of the above posts have indicated.
 
Last edited:
garryknight said:
If someone were sitting at the back of a large restaurant, well away from the street where you were standing, and you used a long lens and a high ISO to get a shot of them, they might argue that they had an expectation of privacy as that's why they deliberately sat right at the back. But, legally? Who knows?
Click to expand...
This is closer to where I think an issue might arise... the situation is exposed to the public so the "right of privacy" would largely be negated. However, the "right to respect of family life" could still apply... i.e. they went to a quiet restaurant to have a family meal reasonably not expecting to be harassed or photographed while doing so. How/where the photograph is taken is largely irrelevant, as long as it was permitted/not illegal in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top