Taking pictures inside shops / cafes?

Messages
2,854
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone enlighten me over the legality (or morality) of posting a picture taken of someone inside of a shop? I did not seek permission of either the shop or the person. On reflection - and in hindsight knowledge that I think it is such a good image - I should have asked.
 
Were you inside the shop or on a public road outside looking in? Was it in the UK?
 
It was inside a coffee shop in UK. In this instance have deleted it and will learn by my mistake. As is the way, had I asked before, the moment would have past. After could have been seen as an invasion of privacy.
 
Last edited:
Was there anything to say that photography was not allowed inside the coffee shop?
Did the photo show anyone in a bad light?
What did you envisage doing with the photo?
 
Was there anything to say that photography was not allowed inside the coffee shop?
Not that I saw.
Did the photo show anyone in a bad light?
The image was a lady, having eaten something looking somewhat remorseful. So the interpretation would be in the eye of the beholder, but possibly.
What did you envisage doing with the photo?
And this was the reason I deleted it. I really learnt today that a story in a picture is a gem. I guess I wanted to show off how clever I was. In reality, we had just gone in after walking around with a camera in my hand and I saw an opportunity.
 
A small group of my Club members were visiting London led by one of them who was born in London. After a full days photography they ended in a small café for a cuppa before returning home. One of the Group spotted a very good looking young lady sitting on her own and badgered her into him take a few photographs. At this point a large guy emerged from the toilets demanding to know why his girlfriend was being photographed. just before punches were thrown the Group leader stepped in to smooth things out but it was largely because he still had a cockney accent otherwise it might have been a nasty situation. Clearly, the photographers instinct was wrong and, had he waited and considered more slowly, I doubt that he would have asked the boyfriend but, had both agreed, he might have had some shots he could have used. I believe he had to delete those he had taken before he left the café which were of the glamorous genre.

Dave
 
.. walking around with a camera in my hand and I saw an opportunity.
So take the picture.

So far as I understand things, in a semi-public place like a restaurant, English law is silent on the matter of privacy. If a proprietor wishes to regulate the actions of guests and customers, they have to inform each person of the conditions before the person enters. If the person violates published rules, they may be asked to leave and reasonable force can be used against them but only if they refuse.

What seems to be the case is that if they go past those basic rules, attempting to confiscate a camera or force the user to delete an image, they cause a tort and possibly commit a crime. However, I'm no lawyer, so all of this is worth precisely nothing.

Meanwhile, someone enjoying their food...

Woman eating filled roll in bakeri Innsbruck Austria NIK_0916.JPG
 
Not that I saw.

The image was a lady, having eaten something looking somewhat remorseful. So the interpretation would be in the eye of the beholder, but possibly.

And this was the reason I deleted it. I really learnt today that a story in a picture is a gem. I guess I wanted to show off how clever I was. In reality, we had just gone in after walking around with a camera in my hand and I saw an opportunity.
Would you have asked the question if you took the photo through the window?
 
It's interesting isn't it? If it was in the road I wouldn't hesitate to do with the image as I wished, but it wasn't. I wouldn’t dream of asking permission to take pictures because someone is good looking and out of any other context, just because and especially if they have a big boyfriend. I think my main issue was that the lady could appear to have some remorse about eating something and probably would not want that image out in the world especially if she has an issue. And that sandwich above looks like something that deserves to be enjoyed!
 
If I thought it was a picture I wanted to keep I would have asked afterwards. I would explain that photography is your hobby and why you captured this image (I wouldn't say remorse but I might say contemplative or an engaging expression). I would explain to her that you sometimes post your images on a photography forum and/or Instagram and wondered if she would mind you doing so. IF she said she did mind I would say okay and just keep the image in a folder on my computer marked 'not for sharing'. If she said she didn't mind I would be sure to give her my website/instagram/email address and ask her if she would like a copy then she just needs to contact you.

You don't have to ask of course but the above is what I would do and have done.
 
If it was in the road I wouldn't hesitate to do with the image as I wished,
Then I don’t understand the reason you give for not keeping it.
Surely how she appears is irrelevant to inside or outside?
Unless you planned to submit it to a newspaper or something for publication how would she be adversely affected?
 
This is a subject I've had to have some familiarity with since I started doing street photography back in 2007. One of the most important aspects of the law relates to the expectation of privacy. As an example, if someone sits by a cafe window during daylight hours they can't expect privacy. If they sit at the back, as far away from the window as possible, they might expect privacy if they can't be seen from the street. At night, when you can see all the way to the back, can they then expect privacy? Well, that might have to come down to what a court decrees. So the best advice IMO is to be careful.

It's also advisable to be aware of what constitutes 'publishing' of a photo. Uploading it to a public forum like this one is publishing, as it uploading to Flickr, Smugmug, Instagram, Facebook, or anywhere else the public has access to. I'm only mentioning this because before the rise of social media some people thought that publishing meant having it printed in a magazine, newspaper, or book.

There are also some places where photography isn't allowed (think military, police, air force, etc), and some where it's at the discretion of the owners (think shopping precincts). And some where professional photography isn't allowed but amateur photography is, provided that you don't use a tripod or monopod as, for some reason, the security people think they're to be considered as pro gear.

Anyway, I've uploaded a few things to my Dropbox. Feel free to download them. The first is the most useful: a guide to photographers' rights in the UK. This dates back to 2009 but as far as I'm aware nothing in there is incorrect. The second is an explanation of the Section 44 Terrorism and Photography Act of 2000 by the Chief Constable which dates from around 2010. The third is a copy of a letter from Ivan Lewis MP re photography in public places. I hope this helps.

UK Photographers' Rights

Section 44 Terrorism and Photography

Home Office photography letter
 
Can anyone enlighten me over the legality (or morality) of posting a picture taken of someone inside of a shop? I did not seek permission of either the shop or the person. On reflection - and in hindsight knowledge that I think it is such a good image - I should have asked.


Photogrpahers being scared of taking pictures is the only problem I can see..
 
This is a subject I've had to have some familiarity with since I started doing street photography back in 2007. One of the most important aspects of the law relates to the expectation of privacy. As an example, if someone sits by a cafe window during daylight hours they can't expect privacy. If they sit at the back, as far away from the window as possible, they might expect privacy if they can't be seen from the street. At night, when you can see all the way to the back, can they then expect privacy? Well, that might have to come down to what a court decrees. So the best advice IMO is to be careful.

It's also advisable to be aware of what constitutes 'publishing' of a photo. Uploading it to a public forum like this one is publishing, as it uploading to Flickr, Smugmug, Instagram, Facebook, or anywhere else the public has access to. I'm only mentioning this because before the rise of social media some people thought that publishing meant having it printed in a magazine, newspaper, or book.

There are also some places where photography isn't allowed (think military, police, air force, etc), and some where it's at the discretion of the owners (think shopping precincts). And some where professional photography isn't allowed but amateur photography is, provided that you don't use a tripod or monopod as, for some reason, the security people think they're to be considered as pro gear.

Anyway, I've uploaded a few things to my Dropbox. Feel free to download them. The first is the most useful: a guide to photographers' rights in the UK. This dates back to 2009 but as far as I'm aware nothing in there is incorrect. The second is an explanation of the Section 44 Terrorism and Photography Act of 2000 by the Chief Constable which dates from around 2010. The third is a copy of a letter from Ivan Lewis MP re photography in public places. I hope this helps.

UK Photographers' Rights

Section 44 Terrorism and Photography

Home Office photography letter


Most of that is accurate and relevant.

However Sect 44 was repealed in 2011.
 
I took a short video of my then small children next to a Dinosaur advertising display in a large supermarket and a couple security guards approached me with the deputy manager. They demanded that I stopped videoing but I already had stopped. I did explain that I did not plan to video any more but they got stroppy and demanded that I hand over the camera. I refused and explained that if they took the camera it would be theft. As they continued to be aggressive, my wife left the shopping trolley, as she no longer wish to buy anything from them given their attitude. I explained that I would be complaining to head office and we left. They tried to impede us but fell short of actually stopping us from leaving and were not interested in my suggestions of calling the police. As I am a Member of Which?, I wrote to them and their legal folks confirmed that I had done nothing wrong as I stopped as soon as requested (actually before). They also confirmed that, if they had taken the camera or recording material, they could be charged with theft. Which? contacted the Supermarket head office and their legal department wrote a letter of apology though with lots a weasel word to deny any liability but did say that the Deputy Manager would received some further training. As it was so many years ago (and they did apologise), I do not think it fair to mention the name of the Supermarket though my wife has never used any branch since,

Dave
 
Most of that is accurate and relevant.

However Sect 44 was repealed in 2011.

Thanks. I must have missed that at the time. But Section 43 is still in force, I believe. I doubt that it would apply in a cafe unless it's a canteen in an official government building.

 
Law aside, if you're not comfortable with taking photos inside cafes and shops then don't. Nothing worse than being all awkward/nervous with a camera for making it look like you're up to no good.
I have the same internal discussion with myself around photos on the Tube - I generally don't bother.
 
Chris,

Some of the replies above remind me why I never even think about taking pictures like this as you just never know what's going to happen with either a member of the public or some official but all is not lost as if you're anything like me a memorable passing moment will be filed away in your memory possibly forever.
 
I think that if in doubt don't. It isn't worth it. I should have known that from the start but it took a while to sink in.
 
I have the same internal discussion with myself around photos on the Tube - I generally don't bother.
I've never had a problem taking pictures on the tube.

Learn to use your camera without looking through the finder and all will be well...

Standing on the tube Fisheye 7244.JPG
 
... or alternatively have the balls to take the picture without trying to hide what you are doing.
Rudeness may be your policy but it isn't mine. I would rather take my pictures without disturbing others.
 
Rudeness may be your policy but it isn't mine. I would rather take my pictures without disturbing others.

i would suggest trying to hide what your doing and being caught is a lot more rude and disturbing than being open and nobody bothering :)
 
i would suggest trying to hide what your doing and being caught is a lot more rude and disturbing than being open and nobody bothering :)
That would be true if the photographer is attempting to be sneaky. If all you're doing is taking a picture without disturbing others, you are simply being polite. What I consider rude is disturbing others to gratify yourself.
 
Last edited:
I've never had a problem taking pictures on the tube.

Learn to use your camera without looking through the finder and all will be well...

View attachment 383377
I think that this exemplifies my original dilemma. Having had a chance to think it through, I don't want to take a picture that is underhand or that I thought may hurt someone without reason. If I cannot confidently take it, I don't want to - but each to their own.
 
I test cameras at Full Aperture here in BRENTWOOD Essex when I am in my Favourite 'CAFF ' Konch's Cafe and never had any problems but I hold Camera at waist level and 'Guess' the Focus -- here is lone testing a Canon Rangefinder 50mm f1.4 Canon lens at f1.4
CANON 13.jpg
 
... but I hold Camera at waist level and 'Guess' the Focus ...
So you, like me, are being "sneaky". :naughty:

Another picture taken without disturbing the subject...

Young woman in London erotica cafe S10 NIK_0575.jpg
 
Seems that a number of photos taken of Boris and colleagues in no10 "partying" without permission, led eventually to his downfall. Wonder if he would have any redress if such photos were deemed to be illegally taken or illegally published. One wonders. Many years ago in a camera club during the summer we would have an evening competition wandering the town to take photos which would go in a winter comp. One topic was "men at work" and I spied a couple of policemen arresting a motorist for some breach of the law. I was noticed by said constabulary taking photos of them and was told in no uncertain terms I was not allowed to photograph the police doing their duty. Was that right? nightly on the TV in papers and social media images of the police arresting suspects etc are numerous.
 
A friend started to take photographs of a policeman directing traffic near our local Racecourse. He took the opportunity at a quieter moment to go over to the photographer who explained that he was an amateur from the local club. The policeman then said could you take me from over there? Is that for safety? No the policeman said its my best side. I think he later sent the policeman a copy.

Dave
 
A friend started to take photographs of a policeman directing traffic near our local Racecourse. He took the opportunity at a quieter moment to go over to the photographer who explained that he was an amateur from the local club. The policeman then said could you take me from over there? Is that for safety? No the policeman said its my best side. I think he later sent the policeman a copy.

Dave

Maybe he used it on his social media as the ladies do like a man in uniform :D
 
I took a short video of my then small children next to a Dinosaur advertising display in a large supermarket and a couple security guards approached me with the deputy manager. They demanded that I stopped videoing but I already had stopped. I did explain that I did not plan to video any more but they got stroppy and demanded that I hand over the camera. I refused and explained that if they took the camera it would be theft. As they continued to be aggressive, my wife left the shopping trolley, as she no longer wish to buy anything from them given their attitude. I explained that I would be complaining to head office and we left. They tried to impede us but fell short of actually stopping us from leaving and were not interested in my suggestions of calling the police. As I am a Member of Which?, I wrote to them and their legal folks confirmed that I had done nothing wrong as I stopped as soon as requested (actually before). They also confirmed that, if they had taken the camera or recording material, they could be charged with theft. Which? contacted the Supermarket head office and their legal department wrote a letter of apology though with lots a weasel word to deny any liability but did say that the Deputy Manager would received some further training. As it was so many years ago (and they did apologise), I do not think it fair to mention the name of the Supermarket though my wife has never used any branch since,

Dave
I get it that they were your children so this doesn't apply to you. But, my advice would be to never, ever, not in a month of sundays, not if it would be the best picture in history, not ever, never take photos of children without the parents express (never assume implicit) permission. I'm an ex teacher. Some years ago, whilst teaching Technology, I thought it would be a nice idea to photo the kids doing certain workshop tasks for future worksheets etc. The Head popped in, saw me doing it, and I swear the blood drained from his face. "One complaint from a snotty parent (not his exact words and we're on the front page of the papers and looking at the dole queue." a bit paranoid, but, hey it's the only way to survive.
I took a short video of my then small children next to a Dinosaur advertising display in a large supermarket and a couple security guards approached me with the deputy manager. They demanded that I stopped videoing but I already had stopped. I did explain that I did not plan to video any more but they got stroppy and demanded that I hand over the camera. I refused and explained that if they took the camera it would be theft. As they continued to be aggressive, my wife left the shopping trolley, as she no longer wish to buy anything from them given their attitude. I explained that I would be complaining to head office and we left. They tried to impede us but fell short of actually stopping us from leaving and were not interested in my suggestions of calling the police. As I am a Member of Which?, I wrote to them and their legal folks confirmed that I had done nothing wrong as I stopped as soon as requested (actually before). They also confirmed that, if they had taken the camera or recording material, they could be charged with theft. Which? contacted the Supermarket head office and their legal department wrote a letter of apology though with lots a weasel word to deny any liability but did say that the Deputy Manager would received some further training. As it was so many years ago (and they did apologise), I do not think it fair to mention the name of the Supermarket though my wife has never used any branch since,

Dave
They were your kids, so this doesn't apply to you. But, I would advise to never, ever. not ever take photos of children without the parents express (never assume implicit) permission of the parents.
 
I get it that they were your children so this doesn't apply to you. But, my advice would be to never, ever, not in a month of sundays, not if it would be the best picture in history, not ever, never take photos of children without the parents express (never assume implicit) permission. I'm an ex teacher. Some years ago, whilst teaching Technology, I thought it would be a nice idea to photo the kids doing certain workshop tasks for future worksheets etc. The Head popped in, saw me doing it, and I swear the blood drained from his face. "One complaint from a snotty parent (not his exact words and we're on the front page of the papers and looking at the dole queue." a bit paranoid, but, hey it's the only way to survive.

They were your kids, so this doesn't apply to you. But, I would advise to never, ever. not ever take photos of children without the parents express (never assume implicit) permission of the parents.
Ooops, mucked up the post. Sorry.
 
I get it that they were your children so this doesn't apply to you. But, my advice would be to never, ever, not in a month of sundays, not if it would be the best picture in history, not ever, never take photos of children without the parents express (never assume implicit) permission. I'm an ex teacher. Some years ago, whilst teaching Technology, I thought it would be a nice idea to photo the kids doing certain workshop tasks for future worksheets etc. The Head popped in, saw me doing it, and I swear the blood drained from his face. "One complaint from a snotty parent (not his exact words and we're on the front page of the papers and looking at the dole queue." a bit paranoid, but, hey it's the only way to survive.
But making photos of children at school isn't the same as pictures of them in a public place
 
I think it is sad that we have got to this state but understand why. When my Children were first learning to swim, I was able to video them but of course we cannot see a video of my granddaughter and nor can we be there as she lives so far away. When taking my children to the Park, I would occasionally photograph other children if it made an attractive picture. But this was in the late 80's and certainly not to be considered now. I have used images of my children in the occasional club photographic competition with their permission but would not do so with any images of my Granddaughter.

At the Primary School my children attended, the headmaster took photographs and all the parent agreed to this. He was not a bad amateur photographer so was able to capture images and videos of our children we would not have otherwise seen.

Dave
 
I spied a couple of policemen arresting a motorist for some breach of the law. I was noticed by said constabulary taking photos of them and was told in no uncertain terms I was not allowed to photograph the police doing their duty. Was that right?


No... There was bank robbery close to where I live so I went and stood at the cordon just as the police with dogs arrived... I spoke to a polciewomen who was presumably there to stop anyone getting to close and said I was going to take some pics and I showed her my press card.... she wasnt sure and went to get a police seargant who when I tried to explain was rather rude and before I could mention press or show my card (I think these where his exact words) "what are you telling me for, I cant stop you" then walked away.. Even the polce women semed embarresd

blackburn_rd_8.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you feel the need to ask it is probably best not to take the photo.
In general, people in public places are fair game.
Provided the image is not harmful to them in some way, it is likely to be perfectly legal.
If you need to hide what you are doing you are far more likely to create an incident.
If you are friendly up front and open it is very unlikely that you will have problems.

Security guards and low level managers are another issue. and usually misunderstand company rules and conflate them with the law.
They have no power to confiscate equipment , view images or ask them to be deleted with out a court order.
However they can entirely spoil your day. so unless you enjoy a public conflict. they are best avoided.
 
If you are friendly up front and open it is very unlikely that you will have problems.
It is very seldom that I disagree with Terry but on this I will.

If you perfect the technique of taking pictures without being noticed, you will get the image you want and no-one will be disturbed. Using modern small cameras and being familiar enough with the equipment to compose the picture without drawing attention to yourself, you can avoid confrontation entirely. At any rate, it's worked well for me over nearly sixty years.

Panasonic G2_one 1200114.JPG
 
Back
Top