Do I need Permission for Street Photography?

Joeturner11

Joeturner11

Messages
6,428
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Iam looking to getting Into street photography and want to capture some images for my website and flickr not for Commercial use , Will I need Permission from the people in the images? I will be photographing in large Towns and Cities.

Cheers

Joe
 
You do not need to ask permission to shoot strangers in a public place, as there is no "expectation of privacy".

A bit of common sense is required though - if someone is clearly annoyed by being shot then it's best to stop shooting them :D
 
You need to be mindful of private property. Many 'public' spaces are actually private property. If a big guy in a black bomber jacket with security on the back comes up and asks you if you have permission to shoot there, you're probably on private property. Large parts of London's South Bank are a good example of 'public' private property.

Also never use images for commercial or stock use if you don’t have the agreement of any identifiable individuals in the background even if you have permission of the main subject.
 
If somebody's identifiable in an image that is going to be used for commercial purposes then I think you should have their permission.

I recently did a shoot where there were there were a number of other subjects in the background because of their connection to the main subject. I got a signed permission sheet from each of them which the client then asked for after seeing the images. She was not prepared to print the images without these permission sheets. Whether she needed them 'legally' I'm not sure, and it would be highly unlikely that these people would have complained, but in the end, the client takes a risk in printing them so they will always spot these potential problems and, in my experience, err on the side of caution.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the insight, Clare. I for one hadn't considered the tight-rope walked for commercial shoots!
Not that I'm likely to be doing any but all info is potentally useful and welcome.
 
A while ago, I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that for every recognisable person on a photo you need a model release form if the photo is for stock purposes.
 
A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed.

Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.

Note that the photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but usually licenses the photograph to someone else to publish. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release because he is merely present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives him more opportunity to licence the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it. Unless a photo is actually published, the need (or use) of a model release is undefined. And, since some forms of publication typically do not require a model release (e.g., news articles and other editorial use), the existence (or non-existence) of a release is irrelevant.

Note that the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them, commercially or not. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States.

The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by jurisdiction. Although the risk to photographers is virtually nil (so long as proper disclosures of the existence of a release, and its content is made to whoever licenses the photo for publication), the business need for having releases rises substantially if the main source of income from the photographer's work lies within industries that would require them (such as advertising). In short, photo journalists almost never need to obtain model releases for images they shoot for (or sell to) news or qualified editorial publications.

Photographers who also publish images need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release. Whether or not publishing a photo via the internet requires a release is currently[when?] being debated in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is likely that any and all exposure to the public of unreleased photos via any vehicle will constitute civil liability for the photographer.


Les
 
Big Andy said:
While this maybe true for the stock image company it's not the legal position in the UK. If you're in a public place no permissions are required.
Click to expand...

No permission is required to take the photo or use it for editorial purposes but permission is required if you wish to licence the image for commercial use (ie advertising etc)
 
justinminns said:
No permission is required to take the photo or use it for editorial purposes but permission is required if you wish to licence the image for commercial use (ie advertising etc)
Click to expand...

Thats not true in the UK. It is true elsewhere in the world though.
 
Does this boil down to the fact that you can take someone's photo and make money from it, in the U.K., without their permission?
 
justinminns said:
No permission is required to take the photo or use it for editorial purposes but permission is required if you wish to licence the image for commercial use (ie advertising etc)
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate - celebrity pics?
 
ClaireL said:
Also never use images for commercial or stock use if you don’t have the agreement of any identifiable individuals in the background even if you have permission of the main subject.
Click to expand...

This should be filed under MISSINFORMATION .
 
justinminns said:
Really? Most stock libraries won't accept images of people for royalty free use without model release forms
Click to expand...

If you read what i said is missinformation then it stands as missinformation.. I agree with what you ahve written.. but thats not what I quoted.. and as somoene who earns a living selling pictures wiht people in the background (not to stock agencies but commercial was also mentioned) then I am 100% confident the bit i quoted is missinformation.. the bit you posted is true enough.. but thats not what i was quoting was it :)
 
KIPAX said:
If you read what i said is missinformation then it stands as missinformation.. I agree with what you ahve written.. but thats not what I quoted.. and as somoene who earns a living selling pictures wiht people in the background (not to stock agencies but commercial was also mentioned) then I am 100% confident the bit i quoted is missinformation.. the bit you posted is true enough.. but thats not what i was quoting was it :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough...as I said, just ignore me :) I made an assumption based on my experiences which was clearly incorrect.

I will say that several clients of mine (National Trust for example) won't use non model release images of people AND if you want to sell stock, regardless of UK law, get model releases as you'll have trouble selling your shots without them.
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
Hi,

Iam looking to getting Into street photography and want to capture some images for my website and flickr not for Commercial use , Will I need Permission from the people in the images? I will be photographing in large Towns and Cities.

Cheers

Joe
Click to expand...

To repeat what I said earlier NO permission is required in the UK particularly if in relation to the OPs original post.
 
If someone under 18 is in the background do any laws apply to this? Or should they not expect reasonable privacy in a public place to?

(wouldn't include them if I could help it)
 
topcat07 said:
If someone under 18 is in the background do any laws apply to this? Or should they not expect reasonable privacy in a public place to?

(wouldn't include them if I could help it)
Click to expand...

Nope - there is no right of privacy for anyone in the UK in a public place.
 
KIPAX said:
If you read what i said is missinformation then it stands as missinformation.. I agree with what you ahve written.. but thats not what I quoted.. and as somoene who earns a living selling pictures wiht people in the background (not to stock agencies but commercial was also mentioned) then I am 100% confident the bit i quoted is missinformation.. the bit you posted is true enough.. but thats not what i was quoting was it :)
Click to expand...

I guess it depends for which type of publication you are taking the shots. If it's one that's interested in printing long lens images of Holly Willoughby's cellulite (if she has any) then I guess it's open season. If it's for the cover of Horse and Hound then you've got to expect a different set of rules. In this sense it's not misinformation it's a good rule.

In my experience, commercial clients who would fall into the latter group will want model release forms for all identifiable individuals in images (I'd exclude large crowds of people in this). If I don't get them, they wont print the images. If I tell them they don't need to worry because it's not against the law, then they'll say, "thanks for letting me know" and use someone else in future. In this sense it doesn't matter what the law says because the client is always right.

This seems to have gone way off topic but all I would say is that if you are taking pictures of someone which you are planning to sell then it's probably best practice (and good manners) to get those model release forms signed. Of course no one is going to slam you in gaol if you don't have the signed forms but it might make for a disastrous situation with a new client.
 
justinminns said:
.

I will say that several clients of mine (National Trust for example) won't use non model release images of people.
Click to expand...

that's true ( I work for the Trust) and we are required to get release from every identifiable person we photograph if we want to use the images for work purposes.

That however is a Trust policy , not the UK law
 
Hey, I haven't read all of the other replies so I'm not too sure on whether this has already been noted. However in my experience, your subject person may look a little worried at times or even angry. There is one easy way to fix this, smile and move on. no matter how disappointed they seem a smile always seems to cure their distress! try it out, and get some good shots. :)

PS: If you are worried about having legal permission to take photographs, or if anyone confronts you on this issue then simply reply by mentioning security cameras! do they ask permission? No. always remember this when worried about taking someones photograph without there permission.
 
Last edited:
nath2hig said:
PS: If you are worried about having legal permission to take photographs, or if anyone confronts you on this issue then simply reply by mentioning security cameras! do they ask permission? No. always remember this when worried about taking someones photograph without there permission.
Click to expand...

way to agravate the situation

why not just politely explain that you don't need permission in a public place
 
I was merely stating a fact, aha, of course it would be ideal to not elevate the situation, I also didn't quite mean to give the advice that security cameras should be used to bash your photographic victim. however my English did make it seem that way, sorry on my behalf. To clear things up I meant to say that knowing that security cameras do not ask for the public's permission may relax you while enjoying street photography.
 
Trouble is security cameras are a red herring - the obvious response from joe public is " yerbut they're official an that innit , and you aint is yer " some may be less litterate and well spoken :LOL:

also you get security cameras in a lot of private places like shops where you would need permission
 
The OP did originally say that it was not for commercial gain.

Best advice I can give is just to 'shoot and scoot'. Smile, say thank you and move on.

No need to be risk adverse.
 
Many seem to get confused between what is legal and what a stock agency requires, they are not the same thing at all.

There is no legal requirement for release forms in the UK, but an agency may want them, same as there is no legal requirement for photos to be in focus, but I'll only buy those that are.
 
ClaireL said:
I guess it depends for which type of publication you are taking the shots. If it's one that's interested in printing long lens images of Holly Willoughby's cellulite (if she has any) then I guess it's open season. If it's for the cover of Horse and Hound then you've got to expect a different set of rules. In this sense it's not misinformation it's a good rule.
Click to expand...

Both the Willoughby shot and H&S H are editorial, ergo no consent required.

If anything, an H&H cover is legally on much sounder ground.
 
If someone under 18 is in the background do any laws apply to this? Or should they not expect reasonable privacy in a public place to?

boyfalldown said:
Nope - there is no right of privacy for anyone in the UK in a public place.
Click to expand...

not entirely true ,,there may be for certain children
 
donutagain said:
not entirely true ,,there may be for certain children
Click to expand...


it is entirely true in a public place. I think if you're asked to stop its sensible to do so. But there is no protection legally against having your photo taken in public. Why do you think otherwise?
 
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.
 
donutagain said:
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.
Click to expand...


The trouble is while interesting, lots of thats irrelevant, because it talks about private places (schools, sport clubs etc etc) and publication, not in public
 
Last edited:
donutagain said:
If someone under 18 is in the background do any laws apply to this? Or should they not expect reasonable privacy in a public place to?


not entirely true ,,there may be for certain children
Click to expand...

Your later post relates to publishing of a photograph, not the taking.

No one has a "right to privacy" in a public place. Some people may not want to be photographed, but there is no law to stop anyone being photographed in public places (unless you are alluding to the taking of photographs that might contravene section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but then questions would need to be asked why that child was in a public place in a manner to contravene the laws).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top