Do I need Permission for Street Photography?

[donut]

no Hugh ,it talk about in a public place and then goes on to say

"The Children Act is also the cause of problems at sports clubs and similar venues, as the supervising adult has a legal duty to safeguard these enhanced rights to privacy."

and Dave ,in keeping with the original post ,Joe wants to put the images on his website and flickr ,

 

[Phil V]

pasted from elsewhere

Can I take photographs of children?
Photographing children in public places is, for most children, exactly the same as photographing adults under the same circumstances. That is, there is no right to privacy and hence it is legal.
The exception is children (and vulnerable adults) who are wards of court or subject to a child protection order, or on the 'at risk' register. The Children Act 1989 creates special rights of privacy ('the rights of the child') which make it an offence to publish any photo that might place them at risk from, say, an estranged violent parent by divulging their location. A photograph of a child in a public place wearing school uniform, or accompanied by others whose whereabouts are known to the would-be assailant, might conceivably do this.
The Children Act is also the cause of problems at sports clubs and similar venues, as the supervising adult has a legal duty to safeguard these enhanced rights to privacy. And since part of that right is confidentiality about the child's status, usually they will not know themselves which children in their charge the Act applies to. Their safest course of action then becomes one of challenging any photographer as an imminent threat.

'Elsewhere' isn't really what I'd describe as a reliable source, and as Hugh said that article veers into some strange territory.

But we'll start with this:
"The Children Act 1989 creates special rights of privacy ('the rights of the child') which make it an offence to publish any photo that might place them at risk from, say, an estranged violent parent by divulging their location."

We're talking about the taking of photo's - a very different thing.

But when it gets to here:
"The Children Act is also the cause of problems at sports clubs and similar venues, as the supervising adult has a legal duty to safeguard these enhanced rights to privacy. And since part of that right is confidentiality about the child's status, usually they will not know themselves which children in their charge the Act applies to. Their safest course of action then becomes one of challenging any photographer as an imminent threat."

That's just tosh. You'll note there's no link to actual guidance, and all it's saying is that a club owner has to assume that some of the children may be protected and therefore challenge any photographer. Just complete rubbish. The sensible course of action for any organisation that deals with children who may be photographed is to have a blanket photo release on the membership details, there has to be no reason given - no breach of confidentiality, then any photographer can simply be instructed which children's photo's can't be published.

I shot an event in the Summer with close to 1000 kids present, and we had forms with photo's for half a dozen we weren't allowed to publish, it couldn't be simpler to sort.

And note: private event and publish, not public place and take. I answered it as you brought it up, but it has no relevance to the OP.

 

[donut]

got to agree about the tosh bit ,,,in fact as a photographer how is anyone going to know who is at risk / ward of court ,,?
anyway as far as the op's question goes ,personaly i'd just get on with it

 

[Musicman]

Re: Children's Act 1989

I figure this relates to s97 of the Act, Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/97

(2) No person shall publish [to the public at large or any section of the public] any material which is intended, or likely, to identify—

the High Court, a county court or] a magistrates’ court in which any power under this Act [or the Adoption and Children Act 2002] may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or

(b) an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings.

However, the section continues

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the published material was intended, or likely, to identify the child.

So, unless you know or have a reasonable expectation that the child in question is subject special privacy provisions, you have a defence in law. If you're taking photos inside a refuge for victims of domestic abuse, it would probably be inadvisable without checking first; taking photos on your local high street is likely pretty safe, though.