Legalities of candids?

[ShoeQueen]

Interesting thread - have been wondering about this.

The main point for the original question was to answer whether or not there were any legal implications of taking and displaying photos taken without somebodies knowledge or consent. The question arose after a conversation I had with a friend, who said he would not be happy if he saw a photo of himself on the internet or a magazine etc. if it had been taken without his knowledge. He pointed out that he would take legal action over it because he hadn't consented to it's publication, hence my question.

At Christmas I wanted to take some dancing shots at an event I was at - and one of the dancers objected and said if he was even in the background of any shots he'd sue me. This was in a restaurant so would that be considered being on private property?

I complied with his request more out of not wanting to annoy him than anything else (though that ended annoying others who wanted nice photos for a blog to help encourage more people to come!). But I have wondered where I would have stood on that legally. Are restaurants/hotels considered private property? What about sports clubs? (Eg social events held in a function room at a golf/bowling club.)

(This is in reference to adults, I avoid taking pictures of children unless its with parents' permission.)

 

[seriousrikk]

Interesting thread - have been wondering about this.
At Christmas I wanted to take some dancing shots at an event I was at - and one of the dancers objected and said if he was even in the background of any shots he'd sue me. This was in a restaurant so would that be considered being on private property?

I complied with his request more out of not wanting to annoy him than anything else (though that ended annoying others who wanted nice photos for a blog to help encourage more people to come!). But I have wondered where I would have stood on that legally. Are restaurants/hotels considered private property? What about sports clubs? (Eg social events held in a function room at a golf/bowling club.)

(This is in reference to adults, I avoid taking pictures of children unless its with parents' permission.)

It is is on private property then it is up to the owner of the property to state the rules on photography.

There is nothing that dancer could have done anyway - the owner of the property or a representitive of them could have asked you so stop shooting and indeed they could ask you to leave if you do not comply. But sue you?

Frankly the dancer was just being a nob

 

[Islander]

Why do people talk utter rubbish just ask her what the law covers over the use of CCTV cameras. When did the police, local, and regional councils, private security firms and government get my permission to take images of the public with CCTV cameras, or is she saying they are all breaking the law and all CCTV cameras should be removed.

CCTV is covered by the DPA. If you have a CCTV system that points into public places, you must register with the Information Commissioner and provide images if a subject access request is made subject to the usual clauses.

 

[ShoeQueen]

It is is on private property then it is up to the owner of the property to state the rules on photography.

There is nothing that dancer could have done anyway - the owner of the property or a representitive of them could have asked you so stop shooting and indeed they could ask you to leave if you do not comply. But sue you?

Frankly the dancer was just being a nob

Thanks, that's helpful. I did think it would be down to the restaurant to set the rules on whether photography was allowed or not - and unlikely for a restaurant to ban photography surely? Especially in a function room as I'm sure many people would have parties there and take a lot of photos.

 

[MartynK]

Why do people talk utter rubbish just ask her what the law covers over the use of CCTV cameras. When did the police, local, and regional councils, private security firms and government get my permission to take images of the public with CCTV cameras, or is she saying they are all breaking the law and all CCTV cameras should be removed.

The law, which is passed by parliament, gives the state the authority to do all sorts of things without asking for your permission per se. They can, and do, delegate this to HMRC, the police, intelligence departments, local councils and various other "authorities". Remember the fuss about ID cards, which the previous government wanted to introduce? There was no public demand for these, and the public wasn't even consulted on what amounted to a radical change in the peacetime law. There are lots of other examples.


The theory of it is that we consent to be governed through the polls, and that is when you give your "permission". In practice, there are very few constraints on how we are governed.

 

[big soft moose]

Im going to guess at that being wrong.
If you are stood in a public place with a telephoto lens taking photos of someone in their own home, im going to guess that you would fall foul of the law.

you and haggis are both right

hes correct that so long as you are on public land* you can take pictures of private land without the owner of that land having recourse - however you are right that people have a reasonable right to privacy - so if someones shooting pics through your window with a telephoto the harrsament and stalking laws come into play

* incidentally public land doesnt include being on a public footpath on private land - the RoW legislation gives you the right to freely pass and repass with usuall acompaniments (such as a dog or carrying a camera) but it doesnt give you the right to take photos.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I recently had a meeting with a chamber of commerce business advisor and the subject of privacy came up She was adamant that if you take a picture of someone in a public place they have the right to ask to view it and to tell you to delete it and refusal to comply with their request is unlawful. She said it is covered under the data protection act. I argued that the subject has no legal right to view or delete any photo that I take in a public place. She refuses to accept my argument and even says that everytime a paperazzi takes a pic they are breaking the law. Now this is a person who is employed to provide advice on business matters.
Is there anywhere I can view an official statement regarding this subject that I can show her so that;
1. She doesn't continue to give incorrect advice
2. I get to win the argument

A few years ago we at TP and many other photographers took part in petitioning our local MPs to ask the government to clarify the laws on photography in public places.

We all got replies and guidance back from the Home Office in one form or other. My reply from the Home office is below, The Home Office also re-clarified the actual law and our complaint and back to government departments and our police forces. .. hopefully I think therefore, back to the private security companies also. Those days of excessive and ill informed ‘stop and search’ issues are certainly much less often and more up to date than back then.

…she didn't get that memo it seems.

From

Home Office
The Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP
MINISTER OF STATE

To

The Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP
House of Commons

Reference M5266/8

Thank you for your letter of 26th March on behalf of Mr Adam Bishop of (address)about photography in public places.

There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

Its is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)are acting appropriately with regards to photography in public places , and any queries regarding this should be addressed to the Chief Constable.

However, decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example to protect children. Any questions on such local decisions should be addressed to the force concerned.

Tony McNulty

..and back on topic.

 

[NorthernNikon]

CCTV is covered by the DPA. If you have a CCTV system that points into public places, you must register with the Information Commissioner and provide images if a subject access request is made subject to the usual clauses.

Indeed. Dom Joly covered it in his series "The Complainers". He wore a t-shirt with a phrase emblazoned on the front or carried a placard with the same and walked in sight of CCTVs. He then returned a day or so later and asked the shop owner or local council to retrieve the data they held on him in that footage under the DPA. IIRC none of them were able to comply.

 

[gramps]

Indeed. Dom Joly covered it in his series "The Complainers". He wore a t-shirt with a phrase emblazoned on the front or carried a placard with the same and walked in sight of CCTVs. He then returned a day or so later and asked the shop owner or local council to retrieve the data they held on him in that footage under the DPA. IIRC none of them were able to comply.

DPA covers CCTV controlled by business and similar organizations, it does not cover systems installed by many members of the public in their own homes.

 

[simonblue]

useful thread, oddly had someone come and get right in my face the other day for taking a single candid picture of them in a town centre... Apparently taking a picture of them without getting permission is against the law and I risk going to prison... If I dont delete the picture right now he WILL call the police.... Just walked off without saying a thing, clearly a nutter!

Sam

Yep this happen quite often,even to famous photography.
Just read the afterword,in Don McCullin book Perspectives,and he talk about being chased down the road by someone after he took their photo,some very good words in their about taking photos on the street of England,well worth a read

 

[whiteflyer]

So how do tabloid newspapers in other countries where a model release is required print pictures of their celebrities in Bikinis? Or are we the only country with such tabloid newspapers

I assume the tabloids will argue editorial use - which doesn't require a release - and that there was no expectation of privacy when/where the photograph was taken.

It's called publicity, something celebrities yearn for and need. In a lot of cases the celebrities agents tell the media where they will be and when. I've heard stories that the Beckhams are notorious for telling the press what they are up to and which restaurant they will be eating more or less on a daily bases.


If a real celebrity wants privacy they can get it no problems.

 

[gramps]

... and so to page 4 ....?

 

[gramps]

.... nope!

 

[Islander]

DPA covers CCTV controlled by business and similar organizations, it does not cover systems installed by many members of the public in their own homes.

As long as they only capture images within the boundary of the private property, If they intentionally overlook public areas then they may well fall foul of the DPA.

 

[Islander]

... and so to page 4 ....?

Eh? It's showing a page four link for me but it leads back to page 3...

Weird!

 

[Islander]

Poo! I've spoiled it!

 

[gramps]

 

[gramps]

As long as they only capture images within the boundary of the private property, If they intentionally overlook public areas then they may well fall foul of the DPA.

That is not the case with 'static' cameras, which are used to 'monitor' property but in the course of doing so overlap external areas.

 

[Islander]

That is not the case with 'static' cameras, which are used to 'monitor' property but in the course of doing so overlap external areas.

Hence the intentionally

General advice is to make sure that any cameras only monitor your own property to avoid problems

 

[Dave *]

As long as they only capture images within the boundary of the private property, If they intentionally overlook public areas then they may well fall foul of the DPA.

I would doubt it, as personal use is exempt from the DPA
from the ICO
www.ICO.gov.uk

Q: My neighbour has installed a CCTV camera and it is pointing towards my house/garden. Is this a breach of the Data Protection Act?

If your neighbour’s camera is installed on their residential property and being used for their own personal domestic use, they are unlikely to be breaching the Data Protection Act. This is because the use of CCTV cameras for domestic security purposes is exempt from the data protection principles.

This applies when a person uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas near their home. If your neighbour is using CCTV for business purposes they will need to comply with the Act.