Legalities of candids?

[Ershin]

So what's the point in model release forms if we can just print and make money off people without their permission?

if you take a picture of someone in the uk, you can use it in the uk without any ramifications, if you however, then sell it in a country where youd need a model release to do so legally, you can be done in their court, by the person in the picture

but if you are only going to use it in the uk, there are no issues whatsoever, in my understanding, other than misrepresentation, or defamation

 

[Ershin]

photos on their own cannot be libelous since they are recording a moment which would be a truth. only if they are manipulated or titled in a libelous way would you be able to sue

depends on the context its presented in

take for instance, a stupidly unlikely example, but im tired, so youl have to put up with it;

a celebrity has recently been in the media for a cocaine habit, and then, while in public, has quite accidentaly got a white powder all over her, or something like that. there is a picture thats placed in a prominent publication, with a leading example, without actually stating it, something like 'look at what shes up to' or whatever

not a lawyer, but my understanding is if a court finds it to be presented in a way that a normal person could reasonably be expected to draw the conclusion, and it harms charecter, your liable. obviously this varies a bit if the picture is just posted on the net somewhere, instead of a publication. a publication is expected to plan what they submit, and thus can reasonably be expected to be deliberatly placing it to incite that belief

please, someone correct me if im wrong, id be interested to know, but thats my understanding on defamation and harm of charecter

 

[Milesawaygirl]

I was searching for threads regarding a similar issue I wanted to ask about, so I hope you don't mind me asking here instead of opening a new thread.

Yesterday I unofficially photographed an open day at a sailing club I am a member of. Some of the photos may feature in the club magazine, but it was mainly an opportunity for me to get some practice. A lot of the photos I took were candid shots of families and children. Some of these shots I am quite proud of and may wish for some critique on here.

I gather from the comments in this thread that I am perfectly in my own right to do as I wish with the photos, but obviously with children being the subject, I'm concerned about the ramifications surrounding this sensitive subject. For example, what if the parents saw the photo on the net and weren't happy about it? Or someone stole the shots and used them elsewhere?

I feel it is probably safer to not publish them on the net I would really appreciate advice on this.

 

[nano]

With adults in UK law there is nothing on this, go nuts

In European law there is a certain right to privacy, i believe the phrasing is "reasonable expectation of privacy" So someone getting changed and you see them through a bedroom window, don't publish. They could reasonably expect their bedroom to be private (probably) but someone at a sailing club event, with lots of people around, probably with their own cameras (phones) then... i don't think they could reasonably expect not to get photographed?

This bit i'm a bit more vague on but its so obscure i've never worried much about it. With kids there is a weird bit regarding children in protective custody but i think thats to do with publishing details of them, you'll notice newspapers refer to children like Baby P or something but i figure the chances of randomly taking pictures of one of those kids is so slim. Just don't publish the by-line under one of them "Child that Ryan Giggs fiddled" on the off chance it might be true

 

[herieta]

:d ; hi guys,

i dunt know how it is in England , but in France, french people in street dont really like taking picture of them. i have had a not very nice experience in candid photo in Paris, so i gave it up xD

But in general, i think that it will be ok for candid photo if we dont public it out in newspapers or on TV ... or elses , no ?

 

[petersmart]

I've just come back from my favourite spots the Corby Boating Lake.

While I was there I took some shots of a family and their little girls tossing bread to the geese and their goslings.

I took these pics because after they'd thrown a few bits of bread they were suddenly flash mobbed by literally dozens of geese and goslings who came running in from far and wide.

I explained to the parents what I had done and if it was OK for me to put them onto Flickr if they came out.

They were perfectly happy with what I had done and gave permission straight away - so no probs.

But if they had objected I would certainly NOT put them up - and I've found in the past when photographing my niece's kids on the swings in the park that other parents have no probs either even standing still so as not to get in the way if I'm taking a pic.

It seems most ordinary people have no real problems with togs it's those in positions of minor authority who cause the problems.

.

 

[ziggy©]

But they can ask you to stop taking them, or to leave.

But the subject is not usually aware that someone is taking a picture. That is usually what makes the picture interesting.

 

[ziggy©]

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

 

[mastertrinity]

Just to stir things up,


How would it go about if the person you took a photo of was on the witness protection list?

Colleges and schools I've attended all have a form asking about media and whether I'm on witness protection before it get's published so they can blank the faces out, but what about us who go out take an "award winning photo" and then have it published only to find out that the subject was on WP and it's too late to do anything?

 

[clowds]

your friend should have a look at the capture a stranger street style thread all legal

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=100633

 

[MartynK]

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.

 

[nano]

Just to stir things up,


How would it go about if the person you took a photo of was on the witness protection list?

Colleges and schools I've attended all have a form asking about media and whether I'm on witness protection before it get's published so they can blank the faces out, but what about us who go out take an "award winning photo" and then have it published only to find out that the subject was on WP and it's too late to do anything?

I've heard of Colleges and schools starting to do this, its more of a CYA thing than based on any legal case thats ever happened. The School just doesn't want the first time to be them. Think of it from the other side, if you were on witness protection would you turn up at a school play where you could reasonably assume there will be parents and cameras?

 

[KIPAX]

Yesterday I unofficially photographed an open day at a sailing club I am a member of. Some of the photos may feature in the club magazine, but it was mainly an opportunity for me to get some practice. A lot of the photos I took were candid shots of families and children. Some of these shots I am quite proud of and may wish for some critique on here.

Sounds like a nice day out

I gather from the comments in this thread that I am perfectly in my own right to do as I wish with the photos,

Correct

but obviously with children being the subject, I'm concerned about the ramifications surrounding this sensitive subject.

there are none

For example, what if the parents saw the photo on the net and weren't happy about it? Or someone stole the shots and used them elsewhere?

In 8 yrs the only people asked me to rmove pictures are women who think they look awful.. if any parent asks then I would gladly remove..just because I am nice

If anyone steals and uses elsewhere.. well sorry but thats really not your fault.. you can't guard against that... i get catalouges through my front door with full glossy colour pics of kids and adults in hundreds of pages of clothes adverts...I watch telly every day theres thousands of kids shown.. and to be perfectly honest if someone wanted pics of kids they could go buy a cheap camera and get them themselves.. i really wouldnt worry about people taking yours

I feel it is probably safer to not publish them on the net I would really appreciate advice on this.

If you dont then you ahve let your paranoia beat you and less people get to see your pictures ...what about the flip side? what about the parents who see your pictures and are happy and want copies and thank you for taking them... what about them if you dont publish?

 

[petersmart]

This is one of the shots I took of the family feeding the birds.

As I said the family were quite happy about the fact I had taken them.


CBL/25 May 2011/4152

and another:

CBL/25 May 2011/4159
​

.

 

[Jamtea]

The worst I've ever come off in street photography is taking a pic of a homeless person taking money from a random passer-by.

He started swearing and shouting that he would smash my f-ing camera if I didn't delete the picture immediately. As I was shooting film that day I obviously couldn't, but if people protest in this fashion, I assume you are under no obligation to destroy the photo in any case. Would that be correct?

 

[donut]

Just to stir things up,


How would it go about if the person you took a photo of was on the witness protection list?

Colleges and schools I've attended all have a form asking about media and whether I'm on witness protection before it get's published so they can blank the faces out,QUOTE]

just trying to work out where the witness protection list comes into it , and why they would want to know why you are on it?

now the at risk register i could understand

 

[simonblue]

The worst I've ever come off in street photography is taking a pic of a homeless person taking money from a random passer-by.

He started swearing and shouting that he would smash my f-ing camera if I didn't delete the picture immediately. As I was shooting film that day I obviously couldn't, but if people protest in this fashion, I assume you are under no obligation to destroy the photo in any case. Would that be correct?

Yes

Don McCullin,has a good bit of writing about this, in his book Perspectives,called Afterword,at the end of the book,well worth a read

 

[rakirun]

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

 

[boliston]

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

Did you ask her what the situation would be if you were shooting film?

 

[rakirun]

Did you ask her what the situation would be if you were shooting film?

No, I didn't think of that at the time!

 

[cornishboy]

What about if the child in the picture was the subject of a child protection order and in care with foster parents? (As a teacher I have 4 children in this situation in a school of 100) Publishing the picture could cause a great deal of problems which is why I request any photo-taking by parents is for personal use only. You clearly cant police everyone but a bit of thought would be nice.

 

[gramps]

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

26 August 2010
Dear Colleagues
Guidance for Photographers

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.

There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:

• There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
• We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
• We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
• Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
• Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.

If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter
Chief Constable
Chair of ACPO Communication Advisory Group

 

[Mistayblue]

Interesting thread as I do feel, as a newcomer to photography, a bit uncomfortable with candid shots of people. I have just completed a short college based course and one of the tasks was to go out and take shots of people in the street.

I suppose I found it hard it's because I wouldn't like someone taking my photo if I was out and about unless they asked first. I did ask people if they minded but of course they became self-conscious and the moment had gone.

Difficult for me!

 

[Tokkelossi]

I have paid thousands of pounds to lawyers on this matter. Its very simple ... sort of. Everything is ok in public until someone complains or gets the 'system' involved.

As a rule (it can be broken), a subject in public has no real redress in law if 'they are not the main subject/focus" of the shot.

Taking photos of the high street with you walking past will fall flat in court. However the frame being filled by you and only you and that picture apperaing on my web site will be making a judge ponder. Me making money from the photo will have the judge looking at motive, commercial law and all sorts.

The nighmare is that there are no real rules about this until a judge tells you that you are wrong ... or right.

As we are seeing with several issues in the press, nobody quite knows whats going on. its all a bit wikileaks.

So in my book .... you have many choices but it boils down to this. Take the shot in public and understand that this may come get you later on. Ask permission ... they may say no. Publish a photo and they may object. Sell the photo and they want their cut or sue.

Just like being a pilot, its not as easy as just flying the plane. Are you legal, within hours and up to date on air law.

In reality only test cases will set the line in the sand ....... until the tide washes it away again.

The world of 'no win no fee' will soon bring this to the news and courts. Thats when the fun starts.

The sad thing ... as i have said before ... is that in hundreds of years when people look back on archives of our time they will say this

"where are the photos of kids playing, every day street life and people" then they will say "why are there so many photos of teen girls with their boobs out"

Thinks twice press once

 

[Russ77]

I think the key in your post tokkelossi is the commercial aspect.

From what I've heard/read, if you are in plain sight and in a public area you can take pictures of people but they have the right to ask you not to take pictures of them.

If you're only using the candids for personal use (no financial gain) then there's never really going to be an issue as the chances are subject will never see that photo.

If there's going to be a public display of that photo then the way it's displayed and portraits the subject is key and if they deem it to be defamatory or offensive then they would have grounds to take action.

If the photo is going to be used for commercial purposes then as you say, there's a whole new set of rules and IIRC, you would need some kind of model release form to cover yourself.

 

[Tokkelossi]

I think the key in your post tokkelossi is the commercial aspect.

From what I've heard/read, if you are in plain sight and in a public area you can take pictures of people but they have the right to ask you not to take pictures of them.

If you're only using the candids for personal use (no financial gain) then there's never really going to be an issue as the chances are subject will never see that photo.

If there's going to be a public display of that photo then the way it's displayed and portraits the subject is key and if they deem it to be defamatory or offensive then they would have grounds to take action.

If the photo is going to be used for commercial purposes then as you say, there's a whole new set of rules and IIRC, you would need some kind of model release form to cover yourself.

Yep agree ..... unless it goes to law ... then i will just sit there wishing the eyes to fall on you so i can slink out

Tiptoe through that field, you never know what you might tread on/in

 

[simonblue]

Interesting thread as I do feel, as a newcomer to photography, a bit uncomfortable with candid shots of people. I have just completed a short college based course and one of the tasks was to go out and take shots of people in the street.

I suppose I found it hard it's because I wouldn't like someone taking my photo if I was out and about unless they asked first. I did ask people if they minded but of course they became self-conscious and the moment had gone.

Difficult for me!

Can be hard ,but me I don't care if anybody take my photo in the street,I an being watched all day long by CCT

 

[Eden]

I fear my brain is going to explode.

 

[Jonathan Shl]

Probably, In law.

But I think that we all have a responsibilty to help the authorities prevent the actions of a sick minority.

I was quite happy to oblige and I think that we all should, in similar circumstance, rather than stand up for our rights.

We should stand up for our rights as IMHO child protection has gone far enough without any of this.

 

[Jonathan Shl]

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

Try here: http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/ or here (follow link) http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2

Data protection is used as an excuse for a lot of things.

 

[ianjmatt]

We adopted a little boy a few years ago, and his biological parents both live within 30 miles of us. Because of this, social services drilled into us NOT to allow pictures to be taken at plays, nativities, parties etc where we didn't know everyone there in case Jack was spotted.

I was rather keen to do this at the time as the biological father was a junkie with a history of serious violent behaviour!! Worried for our son AND for me!

However, it was obviously going to be impossible, and rather than ruin all the other parent's fun with their little ones at playgroup presentations etc we decided that there really was nothing we could do and life just had to go on.

I HATE the idea that the actions of a tiny minority (and strangers are even a tiny minority of those who abuse children) dictate how we are with kids these days.

 

[Auwyn]

It's the same as CRB checks, I need one as I run a basketball club for kids, now I have one I can go out and run wild and free, it only catches out the people who have been caught before they ask for one. Crazy world eh:shrug:

Its not that crazy when you consider the fact that people who are that way inclined, actively seek out opportunities to abuse children (sports clubs seem to be a favourite, but schools churches etc. All have their own appeal). CRBs are not a complete system in and of themself, but they are a valuable part of a necessary system.

 

[Auwyn]

As long as your are on public property you can take photos of someone who is on private property. It's the place the photo is taken from that's important (legally)

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.

 

[Tokkelossi]

Im going to point something very odd out here. When Im shooting in other countries, I have never been stopped or approached about taking photos in public, even pics of kids.

When I shoot in the UK, if im approached ... its by a Brit. No others. I have been all over this planet and no place is as bad (even China) as here.

Its all a bit odd, nuts, strange, over the shoulder sort of big brother stuff here.

You are all a bit odd

 

[MartynK]

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.

Taking a photograph of someone on private property from a public place isn't quite the same thing as taking a photograph of them "in their own home" with a telephoto lens. I think the test of reasonable expectation of privacy would apply here, and it would be judged on its own facts.

 

[Grizu]

Im so glad I don't live in the Uk anymore, this level of paranoia is at the least, disturbing with people allowing themselves to be dominated by a media that wants you to be scared of anyone and everything, its xenophobia on the mass populace. Very scary and if not reversed soon will lead the Uk into some very dark times.

I don't need to point out the current headline grabbing media storm at the moment, this is your time to say "No" to a greedy, immoral and downright criminal media.

If you want a say visit www.avaaz.org

 

[sam_cat]

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

 

[Grizu]

Yes Sam clearly a nutter, but this reaction is starting to be the norm instead of the exception. A country full of aggressive, overreacting, misinformed people.

 

[whiteflyer]

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

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.

 

[sam_cat]

Yes Sam clearly a nutter, but this reaction is starting to be the norm instead of the exception. A country full of aggressive, overreacting, misinformed people.

And that is worrying. If he had asked in a calm manner what I was doing I would probably have had a chat, shown him some pics and explain that they are for nothing more than a personal project... And if I had been taking excessive pics of the same person then I would expect it... Normally with candid shots 1-2 you can get away with, more than that and people get funny.

Sam