Photographing Under-18's

Arkady said:
That's two years old - all the relevant info is in the links I provided at the start.
Click to expand...

Arkady said:
"Additional care must betaken with under 18's because parental or guardian consent is required whether or not a child or young person agrees to be photographed or filmed..."
Click to expand...

Which of the acts is this from?
 
Rob - I appreciate that the information is somewhere in the acts you've posted the links to - but I (and I suspect others!) simply don't have the time to plough right the way through. The reason I am asking is that my Husband works in the law - he is unaware of any new legislation but has said that if someone can tell him the Act/Section of act that changes things for photographers then he will both look into it and also try to shed some light for us on here.

This would be a complete change in the law as in the past there has been no problem with taking photos of people unless you are on an area designated as restricted (ie official secrets or some such). People have frequently trotted out the old line that you legally have to ask for a persons permission before you take their photo, but until now this has not been substantiated.


The protection of Children Act 1978 - have just looked at this link - this refers explicitly to indecent images - I would hope that we are all well aware that taking indecent images of children is illegal - but it's irrelevant to honest upstanding folk simply taking "people shots".
 
Someone at MoD spent about three months wading through all this and came up with a precis which I'll eventually get around to translating into 'civvi-speak for you all. I'm a bit busy at the mo.

My advice at the moment is don't photograph any kids til we all know the new rules inside out - I don't want to read about any of you guys being used as a test case for the new legislation.

If in doubt (this is the easy bit...) get the parent's permission beforehand - it's not rocket science.
 
I was asked last week by a work collegue to take some shots of his son undergoing football trials. The wee lad is 5 and is looking like he's got some real talent with a ball.

I emailed the team's youth academy leader and was told that I couldn't photograph the trials unless I had written consent from all the parents of the other kids there that day. It all went pearshaped from there and my m8 had to resort to using his phone camera to get some shots of his boy playing a blinder.

What should have been a day to remember for father and son will have little to look back on. :(
 
Arkady said:
I don't want to read about any of you guys being used as a test case for the new legislation.
Click to expand...

I'm still unclear as to what the new legislation is. None of the acts quoted have been updated recently according to the OPSI website. The lawyer on the UKPR site only last month asserted that there were no specific laws about photography of children (save for indecent ones covered by the PCA). I would also think that the MoD would have different interests, limitations and restrictions than those of an amateur taking shots for non-commercial use.

digitalfailure said:
I emailed the team's youth academy leader and was told that I couldn't photograph the trials unless I had written consent from all the parents of the other kids there that day.
Click to expand...

This is the usual over the top approach for the DPA that many schools, clubs and organisations have taken. The DPA has exemptions if the photos are for personal, family, or household use and this is a situation where it would apply.
However, if the trials took place on private property the owner can set whatever conditions they want such as a ban on photography.

Exemptions for the DPA
http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_rights/exempt_information.aspx

DPA myths
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/docume...ation/data_protection_myths_and_realities.pdf

DPA legal guidance (heavy going)
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/docume...guides/data_protection_act_legal_guidance.pdf
 
As I understand it, IF it turns out that the Data Protection Act requires permission (and 'they' haven't decided yet) then it won't just be for kids, you'll have to get permission from everybody you take photos of. The only difference with children is that they're not allowed to give permission themselves, their parents have to do it for them.

So all these schools and clubs saying you need permission from all the parents aren't actually covering their asses in any way, shape or form because if the DPA starts applying to photography in the way we're all discussing, those schools and clubs will only have permission for the photos of kids, when what they'll really need is permission from everyone, regardless of age.

Sorry that's longwinded but it's the most concise I can actually say it clearly.
 
fingerz said:
As I understand it, IF it turns out that the Data Protection Act requires permission (and 'they' haven't decided yet) then it won't just be for kids, you'll have to get permission from everybody you take photos of.
Click to expand...

It's already decided, you do need permission as a photograph is personal data as it can be used to identify an individual. It gets a little vague when there's more than one person in the shot. Two people might still need permission, a crowd shot wouldn't.

The key point is why the photo is being taken. Non-commercial use taken by an amateur falls under the exemption of personal use and permission isn't required not matter what the age of the subject is. The journalistic, artistic, literature exemption can also be used but has other conditions as well. AIUI that means taking a shot of the u11's final for the local rag would be exempt as it would meet all 4 of the conditions for this exemption.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and worry over this but I think it's pretty cut and dry. If you're an amateur shooting for your recreation you're exempt from the DPA. If you're a pro shooting to make money then you need permission which you will get one way or another (model release, press pass, etc.).
 
fingerz said:
What are the four conditions for journalistic/artistic use?
Click to expand...

the personal data are processed only for the special purposes;

the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material;

the data controller reasonably believes that, taking account in particular of the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and

the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with the provision in respect of which the exemption is claimed is incompatible with the special purposes.
 
Photographs are NOT data for the purposes of the DPA. They do not fall within the definition.
 
Witch said:
Photographs are NOT data for the purposes of the DPA. They do not fall within the definition.
Click to expand...

Personal data are defined in the Act, at section 1(1), as follows:-
“data which relate to a living individual who can be identified:-
from those data; or
from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller

If you have any doubts about this call the ICO's helpline on 01625 545745. Ask them if you need to register under the DPA if you are taking photographs of people for commercial purposes. It's really no different from CCTV and there's a legal requirement to register and fufill access requests, etc.
 
I'm just wondering where this is going to leave shots including kids for journalistic purposes. For example, the chairman of Reading FC is opening an kids art exhibition at my kids' school, and I asked the school if it was okay to come along and take some shots. I can probably get written permission from the school's head, but as yet don't know which kids are going to be present (if any), so obviously it's a bit tough trying to get permission from the parents beforehand. If the shots are good enough, I'd like to send them to the local press... Can parental permission be obtained retrospectively, or will the head's written permission suffice?
 
Head's permish is sufficient - complaints (if any) can then be directed at him in his guise as in loco parentis...
 
That's a good question Chris, for the purposes of a lot of legislation, teachers are considered to be in loco parentis in the absence of the parents, but I'm not at all sure that that's within the spirit or intention of this legislation. If you take this right down to the wire, my gut feeling is it will come down to parental consent in each individual case, especially if parents will be in attendance.

God... this is depressing!
 
It is. We reckon that we'd have to contact the school, get them to send out a parental consent form before any event took place and any that didn't want their kids photographed would have to be taken off to one side while any photos were taken.

However that's discrimination as well and could be seen as victimising the kid... no fun at all...
 
Oh, how I would love to get a shot of Ken Livinstone taking a pee in the fountain in Trafalgar Square :nuts:
 
Arkady said:
It is. We reckon that we'd have to contact the school, get them to send out a parental consent form before any event took place and any that didn't want their kids photographed would have to be taken off to one side while any photos were taken.

However that's discrimination as well and could be seen as victimising the kid... no fun at all...
Click to expand...

Most schools will already send out a details form for checking eg name address, doctor, which they get out of their management system and many schools will add media consent onto that. This consent basically means that photos or video can be made by the school (or those instructed by the school). Some schools send this as a seperate document for parents to sign others have it as a tick box.
 
fingerz said:
But pxl8's saying that journalism/personal/artistic use is exempt from the DPA.
Click to expand...

I know what he's saying - the problem is that the new legislation is open to different forms of interpretation. Until a test case goes to court, it's all a bit vague. If a parent decides to take you to court because you were taking 'Artistic' photos of their kids in a public place, they can do so under the new law.

All I'm saying is that everyone should be careful. We're waiting to see where this goes at the moment and there's a moratorium on Kiddy-pix from the Military until it all get sorted out in the courts.
I'm merely suggesting that you all do the same unless you have permission from the parents first.
If your intent is honest, what's the problem with asking the parents' permission?
People here are saying it's an infringement of our right to photograph people in public areas...what about the rights of those who may not wish to be photographed?
And under the new legislation, under 18s cannot give that permission - it has to come from the parents/guardian.
 
Have I missed something?

The human rights act will not effect any photographer unless they are employed by a public authority, I.e Arkady.

The DPA is open to interpretation, but it always has been. I don't think I have ever heard of any one being prosecuted under this act. Have any of the act been changed recently?

The protection of children act is all about indecent and pseudo-photographs. Again not something that can be used to prosecute the normal Tog.

At the end of the day the Paparazzi are out there every day photographing celebs and not so celebs without their permission. In fact quite the opposite.

Most of us will break one law or another every day of our lives and not be any the wiser. The chance of anyone even attempting prosecute another person for taking photos is so remote and unlikely it is not worth sparing a second thought about.
 
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but what new legislation? Which act specifically has changed and now states permission is need from parents/guardian for u18s?

This one simple answer could clear up a lot of doubt and confusion.
 
pxl8 said:
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but what new legislation? Which act specifically has changed and now states permission is need from parents/guardian for u18s?

This one simple answer could clear up a lot of doubt and confusion.
Click to expand...

It could, not least because my other half has already said that if we can confirm to him what it is that is meant to have changed, he will look into it for us and try to clarify the situation so we ALL understand it!
 
Our school deals with photos of kids in this way :

They simply state that unless notified otherwise, they will assume that shots of kids ARE allowed.

No one has bothered to write in and say "No".
 
Marcel said:
Our school deals with photos of kids in this way :

They simply state that unless notified otherwise, they will assume that shots of kids ARE allowed.

No one has bothered to write in and say "No".
Click to expand...

I spoke to the school head today and she said that they adopt a similar policy. Makes sense to me!
 
I think its a great 'back door' to get round stupid rules and regs. :D
 
fingerz said:
I thought there was no general/guaranteed right to privacy in the UK? At least, that's what I remember being told on the legal module of my journalism degree.
Click to expand...

That's what's just changed - you have to read through all the legislation to find the relevant clauses though and as I've said it's open to interpretation - err on the side of caution if in doubt.
Since digital photographs could arguably be classed as data, the legislation is relevant to photography of people of all ages, not just minors - the caveat being that as long as parental permission is sought and given, we're in the clear. As to over-18's permission should still be sought. You may not intend to sell the images at the outset, but may wish to do so at a later date. Cover your backs, in other words.
 
There's no way artistic photographers will ever gain permission from all the people they photograph in public places.

Any law requiring them to do so just couldn't be upheld.

Well, it could... But there'd be a lot of photographers in jail.
 
If it's a crowd, it's unworkable, agreed, but with individuals there's no reason not to try and get permission.

And who said that any Euro-led legislation was supposed to make sense?
 
What about that Cartier-Bresson shot of the guy jumping over the puddle? I know his face isn't visible but let's suppose it was, and instead of HCB taking the photo many years ago, it's me taking the photo today.

So I'm supposed to go up to him afterwards and ask his permission to use the photo? What if he says no? I just throw away what would have been one of the world's great photos, do I?

It's stupid.
 
Yep. To you it is - but what if he's bunking off work and faces getting the sack if his Boss sees the photo?
 
Or if he's in London (say) and his Mrs thinks he's in Leeds on a Seminar? All kinds of issues and reasons why people may not want to be photographed...
 
Hang on - the HRA has changed and now gives us a right to privacy in a public place?

Or looking at the same issue from another angle. The puddle jumper is watched performing the leap by his boss. The boss now can't do anything because he'd be invading the skiver's privacy. In fact just looking at someone in public would be an invasion of their privacy...

hogwash!
 
For the 3rd time. The human rights act does not apply to private indivduals it can only be breached by public bodies. In no way shape or form does it need to be part of this discussion.

Any one of you could stand in the middle of Trafalger Square taking photos of as many people as you like and you could not, in any way, be breaching their human rights. -

ARTICLE 8
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 
The other half tells me that there have been no changes to The Human Rights Act 1998 since.....1998.

Threads like this can be quite dangerous IMO - here we have a number of people with effectively no legal training trying to interpret legislation and, in essence, then giving their own slants on it which may, or may not be correct. The problem with that is there is a danger that people will walk away with an innacurate picture of what they are or are not allowed to do, and then you have a risk of people getting into trouble.

I have asked the other half again and he confirms that if someone can point him in the direction of the new legislation in question (just a name of an act or regulation that has been changed) then he would be happy to take a look at it and translate it into something which we can all understand and make use of.
 
Fair comment Witch. This thread is going round in circles a bit.;)

As has been pointed out - one private individual can't infringe the rights of another under the Human Rights Act.

I used to have a lot of dealings with The Protection Of Children Act, 1978. For our photographic purposes, it solely deals with the taking of indecent images of under 18's, and nothing else - hopefully having no bearing whatsoever on what any of us here may want to do.

The Data Protection Act? I honestly don't know whether it applies to photographic images or not, but what's needed is the relevant act and section(s) which says it does, or some quoted precedent (case law) which says it applies.

I shall continue to do what I've always done and consider people in public places to be in the public domain. Obviously when photographing children, a large dollop of caution and common sense needs to be used in view of the current climate of suspicion and misunderstanding. With regard to photographing people in public generally - quite apart from the legal side of things, a little respect for the privacy and wishes of the individual go a long way - as they they always have. After all, we're not the paparazzi, and I for one have no wish to be. ;)
 
Yes - I believe that a precedent/case law would also enable himself to find out more - so far as he is aware at the moment though there is no such precedent, although I'm sure he'd like me to clarify that by saying that it's not an area he's done a huge amount of work in.

Paparazzi? I thought at least one of us on here did have ambitions in that direction?! :p
 
Just had a read through the DPA. A few years ago I did receive some training but I am in no way an expert.

You have to really look at the the spirit in which the legislation is written. Firstly it is clearly directed at Companies, local authorities and large scale data gathering. Yes it does apply to small business as well.

When you look at the definitions of "Data" and "personal data" it is clearly aimed at data not photographs. However it is not clear and I guess that is where the confusion starts.

But look at the bigger picture. Firstly, any breaches of the data protection act are dealt with by the data commissioner, he is directly appointed by the government. Any prosecution under the data protection has to authorised by the Attorney General.

Do you really think that given all that, they are going to be in the slightest bit interested in what individual photographers are up to? Especially as the law is not crystal clear in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top