Guidance for asylum seekers (and street photographers!)

benc98 said:
The point of this thread is to get the legal position straight. Harassment has a specific legal meaning, and it shouldn't be used as a catch-all for photography that someone just finds rude or ethically dodgy.
Click to expand...

Photography isn't harassment, but photos could be made in a harassing manner, and this is the thing - the camera is largely immaterial other than being a tool used, rather it is the action and intent.

There's more details on harassment here:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Not so sure. What is "indecent", and considered to be by who?
I think it shows how difficult it is to frame the law or advice.
Click to expand...
Any photographer who doesn't know what's indecent should have their camera taken from them, perhaps? Sexualised images of children, upskirting, concealed camera / photos of intimate areas , etc.. lets start using some common sense
 
benc98 said:
Any photographer who doesn't know what's indecent should have their camera taken from them, perhaps? Sexualised images of children, upskirting, concealed camera / photos of intimate areas , etc.. lets start using some common sense
Click to expand...
Not everything is cut and dried. Ask people whether they think photos of nudity in bike rides or people flashing their genitals at pride events, or trans women baring their breasts at demonstrations is indecent or not, I think you will get a variety of answers.
Thats why I asked who decides (considers). The photographer, the subject, the police, a bystander?
I'm just pointing out the difficulty in framing these statements.
 
Last edited:
benc98 said:
Any photographer who doesn't know what's indecent should have their camera taken from them, perhaps? Sexualised images of children, upskirting, concealed camera / photos of intimate areas , etc.. lets start using some common sense
Click to expand...

Actually this gets complicated as well.

It can also change over time.

There is stuff that is obvious. There is stuff that changes. An example might be a young girl posing in costume, A generation or two ago an image that would maybe have been seen as cute might today be seen as being slightly dodgy - or worse.

If you are well to the side of a boundary then objectivity and obviousness are straightforward.

Closer to where the boundary lies becomes more subjective. And if the boundary is itself something that is subject change that complicates things.

An alternative way of looking at this is what is acceptable on the moving screen. We see levels of blood and violence that are significantly higher. Some types of casual nudity have reduced but other more explicit material is dropped in to shows. Medical drama shows have less and less to hold back.
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Not everything is cut and dried. Ask people whether they think photos of nudity in bike rides or people flashing their genitals at pride events, or trans women baring their breasts at demonstrations is indecent or not, I think you will get a variety of answers.
Thats why I asked who decides (considers). The photographer, the subject, the police, a bystander?
I'm just pointing out the difficulty in framing these statements.
Click to expand...

Dryce said:
Actually this gets complicated as well.

It can also change over time.

There is stuff that is obvious. There is stuff that changes. An example might be a young girl posing in costume, A generation or two ago an image that would maybe have been seen as cute might today be seen as being slightly dodgy - or worse.

If you are well to the side of a boundary then objectivity and obviousness are straightforward.

Closer to where the boundary lies becomes more subjective. And if the boundary is itself something that is subject change that complicates things.

An alternative way of looking at this is what is acceptable on the moving screen. We see levels of blood and violence that are significantly higher. Some types of casual nudity have reduced but other more explicit material is dropped in to shows. Medical drama shows have less and less to hold back.
Click to expand...
IMO you’re both overthinking here, convictions around creating indecent images involving photographers are mostly centred around covert sexualised recording, happy to be corrected on this. Not young women / girls in a costume or consenting adults at a protest.
 
benc98 said:
IMO you’re both overthinking here, convictions around creating indecent images involving photographers are mostly centred around covert sexualised recording, happy to be corrected on this. Not young women / girls in a costume or consenting adults at a protest.
Click to expand...
Like @Dryce and @Jonny Guitar. I think there are always grey areas within the law, which is why the police are allowed to make judgment calls, and we have the CPS (Procurator Fiscal in Scotland), magistrates, juries and Judges. A barrister once told me that laws are deliberately ambiguous, so they can cast a very wide net on what "might" be an offence, and then let the courts decide if it is.

While there are examples that we will all probably agree are indecent, by intent, you just need to consider the varying opinions on things like women breastfeeding in public or Sally Mann's pictures of her children, to realise that a definition of indecent can vary a lot.

The problem for photographers is not necessarily being convicted of an offence, but avoiding accusations of attempting to take indecent photographs when the intentions are perfectly innocent.

There is, for example, something really heartwarming and joyful about children playing together, but many (most) of us are now too scared to include children in our photographs, even though, (indeed especially so) when parents are happy enough to let their children play naked in a public water feature.
 
Just for a bit of context; the laws in France give anyone who can be identified in a photograph the right not to have it published;

Photography in a Public Place

Discover the legal rules of photography in public place in France: image rights, exceptions, and best practices.
retines.fr retines.fr

Personally I don't feel comfortable taking photographs of strangers going about their business 'street style' so don't do it and I wouldn't be happy about being photographed eating, drinking, etc.
 
Last edited:
Clive K said:
Just for a bit of content; the laws in France give anyone who can be identified in a photograph the right not to have it published;
Click to expand...
As the French probably would not say: "Si une chose vaut la peine d'être faite, elle vaut la peine d'être faite à l'excès." but when it comes to their laws, that's what they seem to do anyway.

There are many advantages to being a British photographer and in my opinion, one of the best is not being a French photographer! :exit:
 
ancient_mariner said:
Photography isn't harassment, but photos could be made in a harassing manner, and this is the thing - the camera is largely immaterial other than being a tool used, rather it is the action and intent.

There's more details on harassment here:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...


Welcome to 2026 when things changed dramatically back in April when this became law:

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023

www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
myotis said:
Like @Dryce and @Jonny Guitar. I think there are always grey areas within the law, which is why the police are allowed to make judgment calls, and we have the CPS (Procurator Fiscal in Scotland), magistrates, juries and Judges. A barrister once told me that laws are deliberately ambiguous, so they can cast a very wide net on what "might" be an offence, and then let the courts decide if it is.

While there are examples that we will all probably agree are indecent, by intent, you just need to consider the varying opinions on things like women breastfeeding in public or Sally Mann's pictures of her children, to realise that a definition of indecent can vary a lot.
Click to expand...
Breastfeeding's already covered in legislation, and Sally Mann's a pretty complex example, not really relevant to a discussion about photography in public.


I'm definitely not an expert! but I'm not seeing the level of nuance in these last few posts that's being suggested. I didn't want to spend ages googling case law, but most of the convictions for indecent photography in public that I could find were pretty extreme cases. Those are probably the best guide to what judges and juries actually count as indecent.

myotis said:
Like @Dryce and @Jonny Guitar.

The problem for photographers is not necessarily being convicted of an offence, but avoiding accusations of attempting to take indecent photographs when the intentions are perfectly innocent.

There is, for example, something really heartwarming and joyful about children playing together, but many (most) of us are now too scared to include children in our photographs, even though, (indeed especially so) when parents are happy enough to let their children play naked in a public water feature.
Click to expand...

If convictions are rare and reserved for extreme cases, the fear of false accusation is probably overstated too.

I've kept my own ethics out of this, because they're not really relevant to a discussion about how the Home Office guidance contradicts UK law, and what that does to photographers. There are definitely photos I wouldn't take, not because they're indecent, but because they don't sit right with my own values. Bringing ethics into it just muddies the waters, and it adds to the confusion this thread was trying to clear up in the first place. We all set the bar different, but that doesn't make it law.


This thread started out about the Home Office advice contradicting UK law on photography in public, and how that confuses photographers and the public about what's actually legal. Now we're adding to that by suggesting girls in costumes, or photos of consenting adults at a public protest, could be indecent. That's just adding fuel to the fire. Next it'll be someone doing flower photography in the park getting challenged by a worried parent because there are kids nearby. We need some common sense and pragmatism here.

As we keep getting drawn into the ethics of public photography, I'll probably leave the thread for now until the conversation moves on, otherwise we're going round in circles.
 
Clive K said:
Just for a bit of context; the laws in France give anyone who can be identified in a photograph the right not to have it published;

Photography in a Public Place

Discover the legal rules of photography in public place in France: image rights, exceptions, and best practices.
retines.fr retines.fr

Personally I don't feel comfortable taking photographs of strangers going about their business 'street style' so don't do it and I wouldn't be happy about being photographed eating, drinking, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe @DemiLion can comment, but I'm not sure how different that is from the situation in the UK.
 
To be quite clear, the "Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023", as I read it, only creates an offence where there is proof that there was an intent to cause "intentional harassment, alarm or distress" and this was "because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex)."

Unfortunately, as is the way with lawyers, it then gets a little more messy in section 3...

For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not—​
(a) A also carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1)(b), or​
(b) A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) for the purposes of sexual gratification.​

British law would probably make more sense if lawyers were kept out of the process of writing it.
 
benc98 said:
Breastfeeding's already covered in legislation, and Sally Mann's a pretty complex example, not really relevant to a discussion about photography in public.


I'm definitely not an expert! but I'm not seeing the level of nuance in these last few posts that's being suggested. I didn't want to spend ages googling case law, but most of the convictions for indecent photography in public that I could find were pretty extreme cases. Those are probably the best guide to what judges and juries actually count as indecent.



If convictions are rare and reserved for extreme cases, the fear of false accusation is probably overstated too.

I've kept my own ethics out of this, because they're not really relevant to a discussion about how the Home Office guidance contradicts UK law, and what that does to photographers. There are definitely photos I wouldn't take, not because they're indecent, but because they don't sit right with my own values. Bringing ethics into it just muddies the waters, and it adds to the confusion this thread was trying to clear up in the first place. We all set the bar different, but that doesn't make it law.


This thread started out about the Home Office advice contradicting UK law on photography in public, and how that confuses photographers and the public about what's actually legal. Now we're adding to that by suggesting girls in costumes, or photos of consenting adults at a public protest, could be indecent. That's just adding fuel to the fire. Next it'll be someone doing flower photography in the park getting challenged by a worried parent because there are kids nearby. We need some common sense and pragmatism here.

As we keep getting drawn into the ethics of public photography, I'll probably leave the thread for now until the conversation moves on, otherwise we're going round in circles.
Click to expand...
I think you possibly missed my point, or I explained it badly, which was essentially, that just because something is covered by a law, doesn't necessarily make it simple to understand what is or isn't legal, especially when it comes to something like "decency".
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Welcome to 2026 when things changed dramatically back in April when this became law:

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023

www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Is that a 'dramatic' change?

This act is based on the 1986 act and only applies if that act would already apply. So if having committed an offence under the 1986 act the police and prosecution might decide that the 2023 act also applies - and this gives them the facility to charge and prosecute where a person "carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1)" [of the 1986 act] " because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex)"
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
British law would probably make more sense if lawyers were kept out of the process of writing it.
Click to expand...

I have some sympathy for the lawyers drafting these things -- it's like a huge complex IT system that can't be replaced and people keep adding bits to it and making it ever more tangled and more complex - rather than rewriting it from scratch.
 
Dryce said:
...it's like a huge complex IT system that can't be replaced and people keep adding bits to it and making it ever more tangled and more complex - rather than rewriting it from scratch.
Click to expand...
Having a fair amount of experience with IT software, both mainframe and otherwise, I agree with you.

However, where the software was correctly written in the first place; for instance, the code using sensible section and variable names; and where the design and implementation documents have been stored safely and referred to for subsequent changes; big systems are as easy to maintain as small ones.

As a consumer, it seems to me that every law has been written to obfuscate and keep the parliamentary draughtsmen (AKA Parliamentary Counsel) in lucrative business. As a customer, it seems to me that they should concentrate on making the law simple to understand and easy to implement.
 
Having done 25 years in the police service I am firmly convinced that laws are deliberately written by lawyers to be subject to interpretation in order to keep lawyers in work.

Look at something like the 1968 Theft Act. To prove the offence you had to show that the suspect: "Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive."

So you have to prove each and every element: dishonesty, appropriation, property, the ownership not being theirs, intention to permanently deprive.

There is little wonder Legal Aid costs the Government so much. Thee was a group of solicitors in Barnsley who collectively owned racehorses, one of which was named Legal Aid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top