Anyone know the law on street photography in the UK!

That style confuses me. As far as I am aware/have read, you can take pictures of people in the public, no problem at all.

If someone doesn't like it, then just best not to make a fuss and delete the pic if they request.
 
Yep, all okay in a public place (not just a place where the public have access) but be tactful if challenged, as above - do not 'stalk' someone to take photos or you risk breaking the law.
 
Carlh said:
but banks or any government buildings I believe you may get some hassle off the Police or security guards.

I'd stay away from Nurseries, Schools etc.. too :)
Click to expand...

Yes that is why the link is there.(y) Security guards nothing to worry about,no powers what so ever,I am one :).
 
medwaygreen said:
Yes that is why the link is there.(y) Security guards nothing to worry about,no powers what so ever,I am one :).
Click to expand...
ah nice :) You should be able to get some great Street photos, be good to see them Rich, I love street photography just dont seem to have the time these days to go out and about unless its at a retail park (yawn).

Need to get down to birmingham via the train, should be able to catch some interesting characters around
 
Lots already posted in F&C (y)
 
I think it is good to know the law but as already indicated, that's not much use to you if a burly man or woman doesn't like what you are doing - the "You lookin' at ME" syndrome:)

I think you need to be comfortable doing street photography - and rather perversely the best way of doing that is to do plenty of it - I'm still getting there myself:)

I have tried just having the camera hanging down by side and pressing the shutter so that it wasn't obvious I was taking pictures - but I have decided not to do that anymore as if spotted I/you could get into some hassle with BM/BW.

If challenged my default position is that:

'I am trying to take interesting pictures and you just happen to be in it'

But I haven't actually been challenged yet:) but - to me - knowing how I would deal with it helps me feel more comfortable in the first place.

Of course if you take your street pictures openly - as I am suggesting - then you run the risk of people rushing to get out of the way because they don't want to 'spoil' the picture - and of course they are 'spoiling' it by moving:)

A related theme is asking strangers if you can take their picture - and I occasionally do this just to test my nerve. I have only had one refusal - from a Big Issue seller, despite offering to make a financial contribution

I think you will find that if you use a phone (say) to take your street pictures then you are very unlikely to be challenged as people are used to it; if you use a BIG DSLR then you are most likely to - no logic to it but there it is:).

Which reminds me (sorry don't usually go on like this:)) ...

.. I occasionally go and sit in the public gallery at Nottingham High Court (very interesting and strongly recommended) and at the security check in I had to (unsurprisingly) hand in my little Panasonic compact. I asked why it was that I had to hand in the camera but people didn't have to hand in their phones that also had camera in them. The only answer I got was:

'Being a camera isn't their main purpose'

Work that one out!!:)
 
I agree with what Chris has said above, and I know he was not advocating taking photos in a court. However, as he has mentioned Courts and although people can take camera phones in, I think it is worth clarifying that they must never use them to take photos in the court or of those involved in a trial etc whilst entering or leaving court.

It's contained in the Criminal Justice Ct 1925
41Prohibition on taking photographs in court.
(1)No person shall—

(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;

and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2)For the purposes of this section—

(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice, including the court of a coroner:

F1, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner:

(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.
 
Well worth taking a look at 'Taking Photographs is not a crime' - lots of good links regarding the law on photography - covering the UK and beyond. Plus stories of those that have fallen foul of 'jobs worths' that have tried to stop perfectly legal photography (it's a facebook page - but you don't need a FB account to view it)

10338691_709237529134499_2552283391237674365_n.jpg


Link to their page > https://www.facebook.com/TakingPhotographsIsNotACrime
 
Last edited:
It might be illegal to take unsolicited photographs in such a way that the subject is capable of being identified. Such photographs may count as personal data and may be covered by the data protection act.
This has yet to be tested in court, however, and is probably reasonably unlikely to come to court, but it's worth keeping at the back of your mind.

http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/data-protection
 
Came across this video in another forum recently which shows you the potential trouble you might run into... Ultimately though if you're on public ground you should be fine.

 
ghoti said:
It might be illegal to take unsolicited photographs in such a way that the subject is capable of being identified. Such photographs may count as personal data and may be covered by the data protection act.
This has yet to be tested in court, however, and is probably reasonably unlikely to come to court, but it's worth keeping at the back of your mind.

http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/data-protection
Click to expand...

The Data Protection act does not apply to private individuals, it applies only to public bodies, Companies and other organisations, so if a photographer is taking photos as part of their hobby they are not effected by the act. It is also worth remembering that a person cannot have an expectation of privacy in a public space, this is also covered in the Human Rights act, and has been tested in court.

We have not yet descended to the situation as in Hungary, where every person in a photograph must have given you their permission before you take an image. Imagine being a sports photographer at a football match in Hungary......... :O

Crack on and take photos, and use common dog per the situation at the time - taking photos of looters during civil disorder situations might be a wee bit silly for example ;)
 
Jim Dunne said:
We have not yet descended to the situation as in Hungary, where every person in a photograph must have given you their permission before you take an image. Imagine being a sports photographer at a football match in Hungary......... :O
Click to expand...

Interesting point - I wonder if there's a condition of buying a ticket and entering the ground means you are giving your permission to being photographed? Other than that, as you say - - - - almost impossible to take a picture.
 
Jim Dunne said:
The Data Protection act does not apply to private individuals, it applies only to public bodies, Companies and other organisations, so if a photographer is taking photos as part of their hobby they are not effected by the act. It is also worth remembering that a person cannot have an expectation of privacy in a public space, this is also covered in the Human Rights act, and has been tested in court.

We have not yet descended to the situation as in Hungary, where every person in a photograph must have given you their permission before you take an image. Imagine being a sports photographer at a football match in Hungary......... :O

Crack on and take photos, and use common dog per the situation at the time - taking photos of looters during civil disorder situations might be a wee bit silly for example ;)
Click to expand...
The data protect act can apply to individuals. It applies to anyone handling or holding personal data, which is usually an organisation but could be an individual.
Read the JISC link, it's quite thorough and sensible.
I wouldn't worry about taking street photographs, but it's worth bearing in mind that the legal reality is a little more muddied and nuanced than the usual photographer's mantra of "I can do anything I want in a public space" makes out.
 
ghoti said:
The data protect act can apply to individuals. It applies to anyone handling or holding personal data, which is usually an organisation but could be an individual.
Read the JISC link, it's quite thorough and sensible.
I wouldn't worry about taking street photographs, but it's worth bearing in mind that the legal reality is a little more muddied and nuanced than the usual photographer's mantra of "I can do anything I want in a public space" makes out.
Click to expand...

It only applies to Sole Traders, covered by 'The Data Protection Act controls how your personal information is used by organisations, businesses or the government.' It does not apply to private individuals.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
 
ghoti said:
It might be illegal to take unsolicited photographs in such a way that the subject is capable of being identified. Such photographs may count as personal data and may be covered by the data protection act.
This has yet to be tested in court, however, and is probably reasonably unlikely to come to court, but it's worth keeping at the back of your mind.

http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/data-protection
Click to expand...
I'd worry about any 'authoritative source' that relates to the Data Protection Act, when the pertinent act is the DPFOI, that's the 'Data Protection and Freedom of Information Act'. Never trust a legal source that misses an obvious and important issue.

And the HRA on photographs in public has been tested quite a bit recently (so is definitely the one to watch for), the publisher of a photograph breaching someone's right to a private life is certainly in danger of breaching the HRA.
 
ghoti said:
5.3(a) in that link makes provision for the act to apply to private individuals.
Click to expand...

But then section 32 allows for excemptions for Journalism, literature and art.
The act is designed to cover automatic recording of images.
 
ghoti said:
5.3(a) in that link makes provision for the act to apply to private individuals.
Click to expand...

Without reading the whole Act I'm pretty sure you are misreading that section.

Directly from the ICO:

Images of people are covered by the Data Protection Act, and so is information about people which is derived from images – for example, vehicle registration numbers. Most uses of CCTV by organisations or businesses will be covered by the Act, regardless of the number of cameras or how sophisticated the equipment is.

The Data Protection Act does not apply to individuals’ private or household purposes.

So if you install a camera on your own home to protect it from burglary, the Act will not apply.
Click to expand...
http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/cctv
 
Dave1 said:
Without reading the whole Act I'm pretty sure you are misreading that section.

Directly from the ICO:


http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/cctv
Click to expand...
I'm not misreading it. It says that the act can apply to individuals. Your quote just talks about individuals collecting data for private purposes (e.g. CCTV). However, an individual could still technically fall foul of the act by mishandling that data (e.g. publishing it).
Like I've said from the start it's unlikely to be an issue with street photography, but the situation is more nuanced than most photographers like to claim.
Read the JISC piece. It's explains the potentially troublesome ways the act can be interpreted in a very calm, sensible and reasonable way.
 
Last edited:
For 15 years my job was compliance officer in a specialist organisation. We were covered by RIPA, DPA, HRA and many other forms of legislation relating to the collection, storage and use of 'electronic data', images (still and moving) and other forms of information and I was the named person on our registration with the Information Commissioners Office.

Private individuals are not effected by the Data Protection Act - note the word 'private', in this sense, the term 'Private Individual' means;

Persons acting only for themselves, and not representing any group, company, or organisation.

The problem with people not understanding such legislation leads to situations such as that mentioned by the OP - a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing someone once said, and it is very true.

As 'Private Individuals' we have nothing to worry ourselves with regarding the DPA, HRA etc.
 
ghoti said:
...
Read the JISC piece. It's explains the potentially troublesome ways the act can be interpreted in a very calm, sensible and reasonable way.
Click to expand...
The JISC piece refers to legislation (the DPA) which has been superseded, like I said, I would never take any notice of someone who doesn't know the name of the legislation they're advising on.
 
Phil V said:
The JISC piece refers to legislation (the DPA) which has been superseded, like I said, I would never take any notice of someone who doesn't know the name of the legislation they're advising on.
Click to expand...

I think Jim has hit the nail on the head with regard to people cherry picking a small amount of info whilst not having the necessary personal knowledge and experience of the subject and making 1+1=5.
 
Dave1 said:
I think Jim has hit the nail on the head with regard to people cherry picking a small amount of info whilst not having the necessary personal knowledge and experience of the subject and making 1+1=5.
Click to expand...

Situation normal on TP Dave - 8 out of 10 threads prefer it !
 
The DPA (The Data Protection Act 1998) is still the DPA.

The FOI (The Freedom of Information Act 2000) is still the FOI.

These two Acts have not been combined into one.
 
Jim Dunne said:
For 15 years my job was compliance officer in a specialist organisation. We were covered by RIPA, DPA, HRA and many other forms of legislation relating to the collection, storage and use of 'electronic data', images (still and moving) and other forms of information and I was the named person on our registration with the Information Commissioners Office.

Private individuals are not effected by the Data Protection Act - note the word 'private', in this sense, the term 'Private Individual' means;

Persons acting only for themselves, and not representing any group, company, or organisation.

The problem with people not understanding such legislation leads to situations such as that mentioned by the OP - a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing someone once said, and it is very true.

As 'Private Individuals' we have nothing to worry ourselves with regarding the DPA, HRA etc.
Click to expand...
I know from indirect experience that the DPA can apply to private individuals.
It also says right there in black (or blue, in this case) & white in the legislation that it is applicable to individuals: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

I'm not sure how your job as a compliance officer worked, but perhaps you were concentrating only on data protection issues that were relevant to organisations.
 
Last edited:
Jim Dunne said:
The DPA (The Data Protection Act 1998) is still the DPA.

The FOI (The Freedom of Information Act 2000) is still the FOI.

These two Acts have not been combined into one.
Click to expand...
They're always referenced as one where I work (govt dept) :eek:
 
Jim Dunne said:
@ghoti - please show me where......
Click to expand...
5.3(a) in the legislation.

It says the act can apply to any "data controller", and then goes on to define who can be a data controller. The first example given is that of an individual who is normally established and resident in the UK.

Later (36) it even goes on to talk about special rules for private individuals, e.g. they can use data for private domestic use. Such clarification wouldn't be necessary if the act did not apply to individuals.
 
Last edited:
The key issue would be whether a photograph constitutes "personal data". The ICO says it might, if someone is the clear subject of the photo and they could in principle be identified. They also point out that this is yet to be tested in court.
Personally I don't think street photographers will ever find themselves in court for normal street photography but people must acknowledge that the legal situation is a little muddier than "it's legal to photograph anyone in a public space", especially if you go on to publish the photographs.
 
Section 5.3(a) - Incorrect interpretation (or selective) - a data controller is a person (individual) appointed by, and acting on behalf of a group, company, or organisation.

If you read the Act (note the capital 'A' as it is an Act of Parliament) an

Section 36 - is a direct exemption to use in a domestic situation i.e. by a 'Private Individual' - and note that recreational purposes i.e. a hobby, is directly exempted from the Act.

36 Domestic purposes.
Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.

I can assure you, I am/was very clued up on legislation relating to 'Directed Surveillance' (Google it) and the collection, storage, and processing of information
 
Still, if nothing else, this thread is getting my post count up ;)
 
A photograph of an individual does not constitute 'personal information'.

Furthermore, nobody owns the copywrite to their own face. If they are in a 'public place' as defined. Photography of them is a lawful activity. It is in no way an evasion of privacy.

I'm talking about the UK only, it may be challenged at some point in the future, it may not. Until such times crack on....
 
Jim Dunne said:
Section 5.3(a) - Incorrect interpretation (or selective) - a data controller is a person (individual) appointed by, and acting on behalf of a group, company, or organisation.

If you read the Act (note the capital 'A' as it is an Act of Parliament) an

Section 36 - is a direct exemption to use in a domestic situation i.e. by a 'Private Individual' - and note that recreational purposes i.e. a hobby, is directly exempted from the Act.

36 Domestic purposes.
Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.

I can assure you, I am/was very clued up on legislation relating to 'Directed Surveillance' (Google it) and the collection, storage, and processing of information
Click to expand...
The ICO says that the only limitation on who can be a data controller is that they "must be a person as defined in law: individuals or organisations". It points out that most data protection issues will relate to organisations but individuals are covered in the act. They give the example of a self-employed consultant as the kind of individual who may find themselves on the wrong side of the DPA, but of course legal individuals are not limited to self employed consultants.
So I'd say my interpretation was correct. In fact, I know it's correct because, as I say, I have indirect experience of a private individual getting into legal bother under the DPA and other legislation for doing something silly with the personal information of a housemate. But that carries as much weight on an internet forum as your claims of expertise. So it's a good thing we can just look at the legislation and see clear provision made for private individuals.

Furthermore, why include the exceptions for private individuals in the act if the act can't apply to private individuals?
 
A self employed consultant works for a group, company or organisation - he is employed by himself!

The inclusions of exemptions are there to show they are exempt! There is a very common phrase used - "for the avoidance of doubt" .................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top