Photography Laws

N

Nickyj

Messages
45
Name
Nicky
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend e mailed this to me recently and I wanted to share the information - I apologise if there is a thread already as I couldn't find one ..
Photography laws

So what are the most common Legal questions asked by photographers?

Q. Can I photograph people and places as long as I am standing on public property?

A. YES! If you are standing on public property you are legally allowed to photograph anyone or anything you like, even if your subject is on private property or is a private building. We would of course always encourage you to exercise common sense, be courteous and respectful to others and behave in a sensible and moral way.

Q. Can I sell/publish photographs taken on public land?

A. YES! You are within your rights to use images editorially, in a book, on a website or in an exhibition. However if a person is recognisable and you use their picture or that of a privately owned building without their permission to endorse a product such as in an advertising campaign, this could result in legal action.

Q. Can I sell photographs I take of private property?

A. YES! Unless you have gained entry illegally. You may need permission from the property owners if you intend to use the image to endorse a product. Many institutions such as the National Trust, English Heritage, Disneyland and Graceland that allow ticketed access to the public, make it a condition of entry that photographs may be taken, but may not be used for commercial gain of any kind.

Q. When asked by private security staff am I required to give my personal details?

A. NO! When stopped by security guards, you are not obliged to provide any personal details. Private security guards do not have any police powers, nor do they have any powers to view or delete images or confiscate equipment.

Q. When asked by the Police, am I required to give my personal details?

A. NO! Unless the police have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in terrorist activities, they have no powers to take your details, look at your photos or to confiscate your camera. However, failing to cooperate with the police when questioned may lead to a charge of obstruction. Cooperation and politeness are the most efficacious ways of dealing with police enquiries.
 
Yes, have seen this many times.

Many people though, are unclear as to what constitutes public land / property, so those two for example are fairly ambiguous.
 
I'm not convinced the police one is absolutely correct - if they arrest you for any reason (not just terrorist offences) I'm fairly sure they can temporarily confiscate your camera and ask for your details (you can of course refuse to identify yourself , but this is incredibly stupid as it will just make them suspicious)
 
big soft moose said:
I'm not convinced the police one is absolutely correct - if they arrest you for any reason (not just terrorist offences) I'm fairly sure they can temporarily confiscate your camera and ask for your details (you can of course refuse to identify yourself , but this is incredibly stupid as it will just make them suspicious)
Click to expand...

While true, this is really a ludicrous situation.

If it is my right to not identify myself, why should the mere assertion of my right lead to suspicion?

Either respect my right to not identify myself without raising suspicion OR change the law to force me to identify myself in the first place.
 
But why would you not identify yourself to a policeman if you have nothing to hide ?
 
big soft moose said:
But why would you not identify yourself to a policeman if you have nothing to hide ?
Click to expand...

Umm...because the law says I dont have to?

If you want to force me to give details then change the law. But don't pretend we have a right that does not exist if by exercising it suspicion is aroused. The perfect catch 22
 
(And actually the law doesn't say you don't have to; it simply doesn't say you have to. Different.)
 
Steve said:
Umm...because the law says I dont have to?
Click to expand...

there are all sorts of things where we could make a police officers life very difficult by following the letter of the law... but equally there are also a lot of things a cop can follow the letter of the law on which would make our lives very difficult too

isnt it better for both sides (not that i see the cops as the otherside personally) to display some common sense and courtsey and just cooperate with each other , especially when theres not really any reason not to.
 
It's right to say a tomato is a fruit, it's completely wrong to put it in a fruit salad.

It's not illegal or immoral, it's just wrong.

Not to comply with an officer of the law is a flipping stupid thing to do. And yes I've seen policemen behave in terrible ways. But if we're going to have a police force and they're going to do their job properly we have to appreciate that they don't need to be wasting hours ruling us out as a suspect when a 2 minute conversation could do the same thing.

Lets not be dick heads just because we have a perfectly legal right to do so?
 
Phil V said:
It's right to say a tomato is a fruit, it's completely wrong to put it in a fruit salad.

It's not illegal or immoral, it's just wrong.

Not to comply with an officer of the law is a flipping stupid thing to do. And yes I've seen policemen behave in terrible ways. But if we're going to have a police force and they're going to do their job properly we have to appreciate that they don't need to be wasting hours ruling us out as a suspect when a 2 minute conversation could do the same thing.

Lets not be dick heads just because we have a perfectly legal right to do so?
Click to expand...

agreed (y)
 
I'm with the Moose here. A bit of cooperation with the police and helping, even in a small way, to make their life a bit easier seems the way forward, even if the law doesn't require it.

If I'm in a public place and a couple blokes tell me that if I take their photo they will smash my camera and smack my head in, what should I do? Take no photos and walk away or snap away while informing them that the law allows me to do so?

Dave
 
or call the police and report them for threatening behaviour ;) (from a safe distance)
 
Actually some security guards can ask for details and also have other powers under the governments accreditation scheme that following the successful completion of the relevant course gives them limited "police" powers.
 
magicaxeman said:
Actually some security guards can ask for details and also have other powers under the governments accreditation scheme that following the successful completion of the relevant course gives them limited "police" powers.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you point me to the legislation that covers this? I'd like to read up on it.
 
To be honest if a policeman stop me and ask me to identify myself i alway have,and as well i havnt been stop that many times in my whole life.

Once when i was younger i was hitching along a motorway,when the police stop me and told me i couldn't,he was a bit gruff in the first place but we had a chat and i gave my details,he check them, everything was alright then he smile and said ;come on son its a long way back to the sliproad let me give you a lift to a place you can hitch from;
So cooperate can help :)
 
That's a two year old article relating to a limited number of guards in a specific location... By now they may have repealed that decision... It's certainly not one I've heard implemented elsewhere (though I do stand to be corrected).
 
I'd not heard of this either but the initial scheme around some London stations has expanded, or at least it had up to December 2010.

The following is from the Home Office website -

The last survey conducted in December 2010 showed there were 26 forces participating in the scheme with 2,219 individuals accredited with specific powers. Scheme participation has increased annually and we anticipate will continue to rise as forces and organisations continue to recognise the benefits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...he-community-safety-accreditation-scheme-csas

Dave
 
And what happens when the private place is mod land? Or you are photographing certain things I won't talk about...

That link insinuates voyeurism is legal... Which is not. Also whilst you can refuse to give your details to the police, they can find a reason to make you give them. I've refused on d to give my details to the police, but I was just being difficult and he knew I had him over a barrel.
 
viv1969 said:
That's an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Sammy is trying to be clever and failing.

He's referring to Sect 3(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (1989) which defines 'Prohibited Places'.

Interestingly Sammy didn't know about this himself until he asked a rather silly question on a military fan club website a couple of months ago!
 
I have not once suggested that not co-operating with the police is a good idea. If questioned I would give my details and anything else to help.

All I'm pointing out is that the right to not provide details is not really a right if the act of exercising it is deemed to be suspicious.

The 'if I've nothing to hide' argument is facile. Where does this end? If the police ask to search your house without a warrant do you let them? After all if you have nothing to hide.....

As for accusations of trolling....read the thread and the first troll post was one accusing me of being an armchair anarchist. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. I made the mistake of retaliating whith a cheap jibe and apologise for that.

If you want the police to be able to demand details, then change the law. Make everyone carry ID cards if you want. But don't give us 'rights' that cannot be exercised without raising suspicion.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
I have not once suggested that not co-operating with the police is a good idea. If questioned I would give my details and anything else to help.

All I'm pointing out is that the right to not provide details is not really a right if the act of exercising it is deemed to be suspicious.

The 'if I've nothing to hide' argument is facile. Where does this end? If the police ask to search your house without a warrant do you let them? After all if you have nothing to hide.....

As for accusations of trolling....read the thread and the first troll post was one accusing me of being an armchair anarchist. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

If you want the police to be able to demand details, then change the law. Make everyone carry ID cards if you want. But don't give us 'rights' that cannot be exercised without raising suspicion.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that there's a time and a place to exercise your rights, and if you've done nothing wrong, and complying will clear things up better than not complying, answer the question and get on with your life.

If you feel you're being fitted up, you're guilty of something or you look like a convenient suspect or you want legal advice before you answer any questions, that's the time to say as little as possible and to use your 'rights'.
 
Reminds me of something I once read....

If common sense is so common then why is it not more common
 
Phil V said:
I think the point is that there's a time and a place to exercise your rights, and if you've done nothing wrong, and complying will clear things up better than not complying, answer the question and get on with your life.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap:
 
Phil V said:
I think the point is that there's a time and a place to exercise your rights, and if you've done nothing wrong, and complying will clear things up better than not complying, answer the question and get on with your life.

If you feel you're being fitted up, you're guilty of something or you look like a convenient suspect or you want legal advice before you answer any questions, that's the time to say as little as possible and to use your 'rights'.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's easier to comply, and as I said before, I would too.

But I'm not comfortable with the assumption that anyone asserting their rights must be suspicious.

As I've said before, give us rights that we can assert without suspicion OR change the law to give the police greater powers by removing the right to not give details.
 
Steve said:
All I'm pointing out is that the right to not provide details is not really a right if the act of exercising it is deemed to be suspicious.
Click to expand...
It's not supposed to be. The Met/ACPO/various others have stated many times that declining to volunteer your identity is not to be seen as suspicious behaviour by itself.

Mind you, they've also said the act of taking a photo isn't to be seen as suspicious either, and yet we had one of our local senior officers on the radio last year saying that anyone carrying a camera should expect to be questioned by police.
 
This topic comes up frequently, especially on this forum more than any others I think due to the nature of the hobby bringing you into proximity with security guards, PCSOs and the police etc. There are a lot of well documented, glaring examples in this sub forum of the police overstepping the mark trying to trample the rights of the people they are talking to because they don't like the answer they've been given.
 
magicaxeman said:
Actually some security guards can ask for details and also have other powers under the governments accreditation scheme that following the successful completion of the relevant course gives them limited "police" powers.
Click to expand...

Anyone can ask but you have no obligation to provide it.


Steve.
 
Steve said:
Umm...because the law says I dont have to?

If you want to force me to give details then change the law. But don't pretend we have a right that does not exist if by exercising it suspicion is aroused. The perfect catch 22
Click to expand...

Not read all the replies so far so apologies if this has been addressed.

If the police suspect an offence, no matter how minor or technical, you DO have to provide details for a potential service of summons. If this isnt provided, you will be arrested.

If no potential offence is suspected, they wouldn't bother asking for your details in the first place...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Not read all the replies so far so apologies if this has been addressed.

If the police suspect an offence, no matter how minor or technical, you DO have to provide details for a potential service of summons. If this isnt provided, you will be arrested.

If no potential offence is suspected, they wouldn't bother asking for your details in the first place...
Click to expand...

Well, the offence we are referring to is carrying/using a camera.

A camera could be used in connection with an offence, but are you saying that it is reasonable to suspect a photographer to be committing one solely on the basis they are using a camera?
 
Steve said:
Well, the offence we are referring to is carrying/using a camera.

A camera could be used in connection with an offence, but are you saying that it is reasonable to suspect a photographer to be committing one solely on the basis they are using a camera?
Click to expand...

There is no such offence.

But, in terms of being stopped with your camera, it depends entirely on the circumstances, the where's and whys. Its not black and white.

Pointing and clicking a camera at a naked child on the beach (that isnt yours), or outside a location with a high security status will arouse suspicion of possible offences.

The point is, police dont walk around asking for peoples details for the sake of it, they have better things to do, so if they do ask, they will suspect something, ergo, will have the power to demand said details.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Not read all the replies so far so apologies if this has been addressed.

If the police suspect an offence, no matter how minor or technical, you DO have to provide details for a potential service of summons. If this isnt provided, you will be arrested.

If no potential offence is suspected, they wouldn't bother asking for your details in the first place...
Click to expand...

I agree Jim, but in that case they'd have to follow GOWISELY because if you are talking about a summons, then they should have been cautioned.

I think that we are just talking about a casual 'on the street chat' here, rather than a full Stop & Account- and even then there are no powers to demand details. :)
 
odd jim said:
Not read all the replies so far so apologies if this has been addressed.

If the police suspect an offence, no matter how minor or technical, you DO have to provide details for a potential service of summons. If this isnt provided, you will be arrested.

If no potential offence is suspected, they wouldn't bother asking for your details in the first place...
Click to expand...
Spend a bit of time watching Street Wars/Frontline 999/other fly-on-the-wall-police-show or a bunch of videos on YouTube and you'll see that's not the case.

It's a common occurrence for them to confirm no offense has been committed or is suspected, but they just want to take your details "to record that they've spoken to you".
 
DemiLion said:
I agree Jim, but in that case they'd have to follow GOWISELY because if you are talking about a summons, **then they should have been cautioned**.

I think that we are just talking about a casual 'on the street chat' here, rather than a full Stop & Account- and even then there are no powers to demand details. :)
Click to expand...

Not always, they might leave the caution until after they've formally reported them, which would be after taking the details, but I know what you're saying.

If its just a casual chat, and I've had many, I'm not sure why they'd want persons details other then a first name :) ?
 
HMansfield said:
Spend a bit of time watching Street Wars/Frontline 999/other fly-on-the-wall-police-show or a bunch of videos on YouTube and you'll see that's not the case.

It's a common occurrence for them to confirm no offense has been committed or is suspected, but they just want to take your details "to record that they've spoken to you".
Click to expand...

I dont need to watch those, 11 years as a copper kind of gives me a fair idea. ;)
 
I think jim was saying that he might know 'slightly' more about being a cop than you get from watching a crap documentary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top