Taking photos in public places

garryknight

garryknight

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12,452
Name
Garry
Edit My Images
No
I've just posted the information below as a reply to a thread here. Then I realised that it might be helpful to anyone who takes photos in public places.

This is a subject I've had to have some familiarity with since I started doing street photography back in 2007. One of the most important aspects of the law relates to the expectation of privacy. As an example, if someone sits by a cafe window during daylight hours they can't expect privacy. If they sit at the back, as far away from the window as possible, they might expect privacy if they can't be seen from the street. At night, when you can see all the way to the back, can they then expect privacy? Well, that might have to come down to what a court decrees. So the best advice IMO is to be careful.

It's also advisable to be aware of what constitutes 'publishing' of a photo. Uploading it to a public forum like this one is publishing, as it uploading to Flickr, Smugmug, Instagram, Facebook, or anywhere else the public has access to. I'm only mentioning this because before the rise of social media some people thought that publishing meant having it printed in a magazine, newspaper, or book.

There are also some places where photography isn't allowed (think military, police, air force, etc), and some where it's at the discretion of the owners (think shopping precincts). And some where professional photography isn't allowed but amateur photography is, provided that you don't use a tripod or monopod as, for some reason, the security people think they're to be considered as pro gear.

Anyway, I've uploaded a few things to my Dropbox. Feel free to download them. The first is the most useful: a guide to photographers' rights in the UK. This dates back to 2009 but as far as I'm aware nothing in there is incorrect. The second is an explanation of the Section 44 Terrorism and Photography Act of 2000 by the Chief Constable which dates from around 2010. The third is a copy of a letter from Ivan Lewis MP re photography in public places. I hope this helps.

UK Photographers' Rights

Section 44 Terrorism and Photography

Home Office photography letter

EDIT: I somehow failed to notice that the Section 44 file wasn't viewable/downloadable by the public, so I've changed the settings and the link should now work. I now realise that Section 44 was repealed but feel that it is still of some historic interest.
 
Last edited:
garryknight said:
expectation of privacy
Click to expand...
That's an interesting one, as in many public places and places to which the public have access there is in fact little factual expectation of privacy - think CCTV, Security Patrol & Police bodycams etc. In my walk around the public and 'open to the public' places this morning, I will have been captured and recorded multiple times by both types of equipment.
An expectation of privacy will vary from person to person, (e.g. from the person in the street who yells, "You can't just take my photo!" to the other who strikes a pose for you).
What matters is whether the expectation is reasonable, e.g. at home in my bedroom/bathroom it is reasonable for me to expect privacy, less so in my lounge with the curtains open.
Unless photography is notified as prohibited in a place to which the public have access, e.g. a cafe, show, exhibition etc, or an instruction is given by the proprietor or their representative at the time, there can be no justifiable expectation of privacy, (as will be evidenced in most cases by CCTV in evidence at the venue).
However, even in a public place it is possible to break the law if 'stalking' someone to take photos, they having asked you not to.
 
I've been informed that Section 44 has been repealed. Apologies for handing out incorrect information. My only excuse is that no one told me.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Taking pictures inside shops / cafes?

Can anyone enlighten me over the legality (or morality) of posting a picture taken of someone inside of a shop? I did not seek permission of either the shop or the person. On reflection - and in hindsight knowledge that I think it is such a good image - I should have asked.
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
That's an interesting one, as in many public places and places to which the public have access there is in fact little factual expectation of privacy - think CCTV, Security Patrol & Police bodycams etc. In my walk around the public and 'open to the public' places this morning, I will have been captured and recorded multiple times by both types of equipment.
An expectation of privacy will vary from person to person, (e.g. from the person in the street who yells, "You can't just take my photo!" to the other who strikes a pose for you).
What matters is whether the expectation is reasonable, e.g. at home in my bedroom/bathroom it is reasonable for me to expect privacy, less so in my lounge with the curtains open.
Unless photography is notified as prohibited in a place to which the public have access, e.g. a cafe, show, exhibition etc, or an instruction is given by the proprietor or their representative at the time, there can be no justifiable expectation of privacy, (as will be evidenced in most cases by CCTV in evidence at the venue).
However, even in a public place it is possible to break the law if 'stalking' someone to take photos, they having asked you not to.
Click to expand...

As you point out, a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is in fact the test usually applied.
Examples in recent legal cases (which include IPSO rulings) have included treatment in the rear of an ambulance, praying in a cathedral and (IMO surprisingly)
being in one's kitchen in plain view of a rural pathway.

The test of whether an image of someone in their home always used to be that if you had to take 'extraordinary' measures to take the shot (ie climb a wall, use a ladder etc)
Then privacy was breached. Measures are much tighter in modern society however.

Most of these cases come from IPSO rulings as opposed to actual case law but a court would be likely to cite them as previous examples.
 
garryknight said:
There are also some places where photography isn't allowed (think military, police, air force, etc),
Click to expand...

I once shot a protest outside a very dilapidated Napier Barracks, then used to house refugees in terrible conditions, with images of its gates published via the agency I contribute to. No issues there. Before leaving I visited a nearby military cemetery and took some historical and interesting photographs. The gates sign did not prohibit photography. The Napier Barracks images were uploaded from my car, but when home I checked to see what images from the cemetery were on my agency and others. Very little, a military burial and a few gravestones on Shutterstock. Unlike much of what was once a military base then being redeveloped for housing, the cemetery was still military property, so I decided to be cautious and not use the cemetery images as stock. If in doubt take care.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Examples in recent legal cases (which include IPSO rulings) have included treatment in the rear of an ambulance, praying in a cathedral and (IMO surprisingly)
being in one's kitchen in plain view of a rural pathway.
Click to expand...
Interesting one re. the kitchen.
Whilst IPSO rulings are not binding on Joe Public, other than in the case of making photo 'sales' (I assume?) they should be a guide.
 
Ipso guidelines do no extend to amateur photography. And are neither known by them nor are they legally binding.

Laws relating to amateurs are few and far between and generally relate to what any one can or can not do on private property under civil law.
That is to say they can ask you to leave, and even sue you privately, but you are most unlikely to be breaking any criminal law.

However persistent photography of individuals can be construed as harassment.
Only indecent images of children are likely to invoke the strong arm of the law.
Or shooting in locations protected by an act of parliament. Though that usually only involves being warned off.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Ipso guidelines do no extend to amateur photography. And are neither known by them nor are they legally binding.

Laws relating to amateurs are few and far between and generally relate to what any one can or can not do on private property under civil law.
That is to say they can ask you to leave, and even sue you privately, but you are most unlikely to be breaking any criminal law.
Click to expand...

There is mo such thing as an 'amateur publisher'.
 
DemiLion said:
There is mo such thing as an 'amateur publisher'.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's what we all are, when we post pictures here.

from https://www.etymonline.com/word/publish

publish (v.)​

mid-14c., publishen, "make publicly known, reveal, divulge, announce;" an alteration (by influence of banish, finish, etc.) of publicen (early 14c.), which is from the extended stem of Old French publier "make public, spread abroad, communicate," from Latin publicare "make public," from publicus "public, pertaining to the people" (see public (adj.)).

The meaning "issue (a book, etc.) to the public, cause to be printed and offered for sale or distribution" is from late 14c., also "to disgrace, put to shame; denounce publicly." Related: Published; publishing. In Middle English the verb also meant "to people, populate; to multiply, breed" (late 14c.), for example ben published of "be descended from."
Click to expand...
 
DemiLion said:
No. You are a 'publisher'. Not an amateur one.
Click to expand...
If you present something to the public, because you love showing off what you're writing or photographing, then the term "amateur publisher" describes your action accurately. Reasonable synonyms for the two words might let the phrase be rewritten as "love showing".
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Laws relating to amateurs are few and far between and generally relate to what any one can or can not do on private property under civil law.
That is to say they can ask you to leave, and even sue you privately, but you are most unlikely to be breaking any criminal law.
Click to expand...

It is perhaps worth mentioning that should a person get disruptive, obstructive, intimidating or aggressive, when trespassed and asked to leave private property, they could then be classed as committing aggravated trespass which is very much a criminal offence.
 
Milo King said:
It is perhaps worth mentioning that should a person get disruptive, obstructive, intimidating or aggressive, when trespassed and asked to leave private property, they could then be classed as committing aggravated trespass which is very much a criminal offence.
Click to expand...
This appears to be so only when you're in a field or other open space but even then with exceptions - see the following section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994...

Offence of aggravated trespass.

(1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [F1in the open air] and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F2in the open air], does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)of obstructing that activity, or
(c)of disrupting that activity.
Click to expand...
...https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
This appears to be so only when you're in a field or other open space but even then with exceptions - see the following section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994...


...https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68
Click to expand...

Fantastic... maybe do a little bit more reading, the information is available.

The legislation you quoted has been amended and "Land" is inclusive of buildings.
 
DemiLion said:
There is mo such thing as an 'amateur publisher'.
Click to expand...
Milo King said:
It is perhaps worth mentioning that should a person get disruptive, obstructive, intimidating or aggressive, when trespassed and asked to leave private property, they could then be classed as committing aggravated trespass which is very much a criminal offence.
Click to expand...
Of course but that is not specifically related to photographers but to everyone.

Very few laws specifically relate to photographers. by Photographers as a sub set of "People" are subject to the same laws as everyone else.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
There is mo such thing as an 'amateur publisher'.
Click to expand...
Of course there is. Anyone putting any work for public consumption is publishing. It has nothing to do with professionalism, money changing hands, contracts or business.

There are many Private books printed every year and many Photographs exhibited. All this is classed as publishing. as is writing a dissertation and placing it in a university library. Photography is just a very small subset of things that fall under publishing. It makes no distinction between amateur and professional.
 
Milo King said:
The legislation you quoted has been amended and "Land" is inclusive of buildings.
Click to expand...
It would be helpful if you link to the appropriate information, as I have done.
 
Milo King said:
Sorry feeding time is over
Click to expand...
What on earth is that supposed to mean?

If you have something useful to contribute, wouldn't it be much better to say it? Otherwise, you just come across as "trying to be clever".
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
the term "amateur publisher" describes your action accurately.
Click to expand...
Actually it doesn't.
In the context of this discussion it causes confusion surrounding an action covered in law that has a legal definition.
 
gramps said:
In the context of this discussion it causes confusion surrounding an action covered in law that has a legal definition.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it does.

In law, a publisher is he, she or it that makes something public. The fact of making public is not modified by the status of the publisher.

I was challenging the assertion that there is no such thing as an "amateur publisher", which is clearly wrong. Why a person publishes is being assigned a reason by the adjective "amateur", just as "commercial publisher" assigns a different reason for publishing.
 
I somehow failed to notice that the Section 44 file in the OP wasn't viewable/downloadable by the public, so I've changed the settings and the link should now work. I now realise that Section 44 was repealed but feel that it is still of some historic interest.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I don't see how it does.

In law, a publisher is he, she or it that makes something public. The fact of making public is not modified by the status of the publisher.

I was challenging the assertion that there is no such thing as an "amateur publisher", which is clearly wrong. Why a person publishes is being assigned a reason by the adjective "amateur", just as "commercial publisher" assigns a different reason for publishing.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
You may be an amateur photographer/writer/cartoonist etc etc but the act of distributing the 'work' makes you a publisher.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
You wrote:

Which is wrong.
Click to expand...
Why? You keep saying it's wrong but you haven't explained in what way my definition of the phrase is wrong. I am not arguing for the sake of it, just trying to understand what part of my explanation you claim is at fault.
 
Pound Coin said:
An 'amateur publisher' sounds like someone who uses Word or M$ Publisher to create 'publications'. With bits of Comic Sans thrown in for authenticity.
Click to expand...
That could well be! ;)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Of course there is. Anyone putting any work for public consumption is publishing. It has nothing to do with professionalism, money changing hands, contracts or business.

There are many Private books printed every year and many Photographs exhibited. All this is classed as publishing. as is writing a dissertation and placing it in a university library. Photography is just a very small subset of things that fall under publishing. It makes no distinction between amateur and professional.
Click to expand...

No. There is not ((in legal terms)

You either publish (make available to the public) or you don't. Any financial motivation is irrelevant.
Private book runs are not publishing, unless they have an ISBN - in which case they are published and a copy submitted to the National Library- or are sold/made available to the public.

The same laws apply to all. If you infringe copyright, defame someone or breach someone's privacy you are equally culpable, whether you have made financial gain or not.
 
Pound Coin said:
An 'amateur publisher' sounds like someone who uses Word or M$ Publisher to create 'publications'. With bits of Comic Sans thrown in for authenticity.
Click to expand...
wow, I must be a professional as I use InDesign :) with Adobe typekit
 
Nikon f1.8 said:
wow, I must be a professional as I use InDesign :) with Adobe typekit
Click to expand...

:p


Anyone who uses InDesign has/is:

Only using InDesign (not some other Creative Suite apps)
An old copy that miraculously still works
Someone else's copy
Stolen it
A Student
Works for a company that uses it
Gets enough work to justify the subscription
Got a deal that Adobe hasn't wised up to yet
Hasn't discovered Affinity Publisher
Doesn't care about the cost
Thinks if they use it rather than M$ Publisher to create Lost Cat Posters in Comic Sans that makes them a professional

;)

(I'm sure there are more reasons for using it, and I do use it with a NFP organisation that I do design work for)
 
DemiLion said:
No. There is not ((in legal terms)

You either publish (make available to the public) or you don't. Any financial motivation is irrelevant.
Private book runs are not publishing, unless they have an ISBN - in which case they are published and a copy submitted to the National Library- or are sold/made available to the public.

The same laws apply to all. If you infringe copyright, defame someone or breach someone's privacy you are equally culpable, whether you have made financial gain or not.
Click to expand...

Isbn numbers are a red herring. Many books are published with out them.. Before I retired, I was the print and photographic manager of a large college with a print output of £750.0000 a year. Very little of our print work carried isbn numbers. Published is not the same as sold. However it was in our interest to be vat registered as a separate concern, to claw back the input vat. Whereas very little of our work was vatable. Even catalogues and brochures can have isbn numbers but most don't.
 
Pound Coin said:
:p


Anyone who uses InDesign has/is:

Only using InDesign (not some other Creative Suite apps) < along with Photoshop/Illustrator/Bridge/Acrobat
Gets enough work to justify the subscription < This
Got a deal that Adobe hasn't wised up to yet < AND This
Hasn't discovered Affinity Publisher < Tried it, not for me after using CS for years
Thinks if they use it rather than M$ Publisher to create Lost Cat Posters in Comic Sans that makes them a professional :eek:

;)

(I'm sure there are more reasons for using it, and I do use it with a NFP organisation that I do design work for)
Click to expand...
 
Pound Coin said:
:p


Anyone who uses InDesign has/is:


Hasn't discovered Affinity Publisher

(I'm sure there are more reasons for using it, and I do use it with a NFP organisation that I do design work for)
Click to expand...

You forgot 'is old-skool and still uses Quark XPress'

:-P
 
Musicman said:
You forgot 'is old-skool and still uses Quark XPress'

:p
Click to expand...
You call that old school? Old school is Aldus Pagemaker on a Macintosh SE - I used that to set local newspaper pages at the end of the '80s - beginning of the '90s. Beat the hell out of pasting printers' pulls and Letraset headlines! :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
You call that old school? Old school is Aldus Pagemaker on a Macintosh SE - I used that to set local newspaper pages at the end of the '80s - beginning of the '90s. Beat the hell out of pasting printers' pulls and Letraset headlines! :naughty:
Click to expand...

Before posting I actually deleted a supplemental paragraph where I mentioned that I still have a boxed copy of Aldus Pagemaker 1.2 together with a Mac Plus to run it on (and also Aldus Freehand and an ImageWriter I to boot)

:D
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
You call that old school? Old school is Aldus Pagemaker on a Macintosh SE - I used that to set local newspaper pages at the end of the '80s - beginning of the '90s. Beat the hell out of pasting printers' pulls and Letraset headlines! :naughty:
Click to expand...


For the Excessive Error?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top