The law regarding photographing in a public place (UK)?

<p>Can anyone clarify general principles of law regarding "Paraparrazi"type photography in a public place?(UK).As I understand it anyone can photograph anything in a public place theoretically unhindered even of unwilling or downright hostile subjects?(With the very few exceptions of certain kinds of voyeuristic photography which has been found to be a breach of privacy...)However where does one stand if ones subject or premises owner-ignorant of the law-takes offence and objects-perhaps violently?-A blazing row is not sensible.Could a photographer be accused of "provocation"of some sort?Press photographers seem to have more protection if equipm,ent is damaged etc.It was not so long ago in the UK that during events like demonstrations etc.Police used to seize cameras-rip out and expose the film-then return the empty camera to their owner.Was this lawful?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Keith, it is all a bit complicted. First of all England and Wales have somewhat different legal provisions to Scotland but taking England and Wales the situation is broadly :<br>

On private property you always need the owners permission though you can photograph the propoerty from a public place.<br>

In public spaces there is usually no restriction on photography itself but the photographer may infringe other laws such as harrassment, invasion of privacy or obstruction. Occasionally there are restrictions on public place photography where the purpose of the photograph is commercial.<br>

Here is a useful summary of UK law as it relates to photography :<br>

<a href="http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf">http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is also this website which seems comprehensive.<br>

<a href="http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html">http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html</a></p>

<p>This case caused some concern earlier this year:<br>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm</a><br>

The Sherrif gave a justification on this later:<br>

<a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photo_fine_was_fair_claims_court_news_269513.html">http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photo_fine_was_fair_claims_court_news_269513.html</a></p>

<p>I am not convinced that if someone appealed to a higher court that the verdict is guaranteed to stand, but the limits to privacy and to data protection are changing every year so it is relatively new territory. The good thing about digital cameras nowadays is that if you feel you are being accused unfairly you can show the aggrieved person the pictures on the screen and hopefully things will calm down.<br>

I think you need to be most careful when photographing children in public areas.</p>

<p>The Royal Photographic Society wrote to the Home Office earlier this year.... <a href="http://www.rps.org/news/story/111"> read more here.</a></p>

<p>"<em><strong>Occasionally there are restrictions on public place photography where the purpose of the photograph is commercial"</strong></em><br>

But note however that the restrictions apply to the use of such photographs and not on the right of the photographer to make them. <br>

The issue of your right (or lack of it) to photograph is relatively clear cut.  What is much less clear is what support you can expect from the law in the event that someone objects or attempts to prevent you from taking pictures you are legally entitled to take.</p>

<ul>

<li>It is clear from the cases reaching the press that many members of the police are ignorant of the law on what a photographer is or is not allowed to do.  I don't imagine there will be any concerted effort to put this right anytime soon, nor to discipline those who make up the law as they go.  In fact I suspect that forces and individual policemen are quite content to operate in an ambiguous environment because it seems to allow them to decide whether they can stop someone photographing or not depending on how they see the circumstances.  The fact that the actual law offers them no such rights doesn't seem to bother policeforces much, to their shame IMO.</li>

<li>So you won't be surprised when I say that the help and support I'd expect from the police in the event of a dispute  would be zero.  Whether the photographer is within his rights or not.  I would not expect a policeman to explain to a group of angry mothers that actually this guy has every right to photograph their kids in a public place, to explain to a shopkeeper that the guy across the street has absolute right to photograph his store and so on.  I would expect the policeman to suggest gently or otherwise to a photographer that he desists and if the photographer demurs then to allude to some other charge that could be brought against him.  Its wrong, its misuse of power,  but thats the way it happens.</li>

<li>of course most of the time the police will not be involved and so the resolution of any debate will depend purely on your resolve or negotiating skills.  I have found personally that a light but firm explanation of the law will work with some people who genuinely don't understand your rights.  However some folks start from a conviction that they have every right to prevent you shooting them or their property from a public place and frankly are not open to a counter view.  You then have to decide how important the photographs are and whether to carry on whilst incurring their displeasure, return later or give up.  I must admit that the more strident and objectionable the person, the more likely I am to pointedly carry on; but I can understand that not everyone will want to choose that route.</li>

</ul>

<p>Finally note that as indicated above your rights are restricted to public property, but that there is a big difference between public property and places to which the public has access.  There are probably as many debates about this as about any aspect of photographers rights.  I generally tell those that insist that I'm on private property that looks like it might not be, to prove their contention, adding of course tha I will cease photographing as soon as they do so.</p>

<p>Hmm Thanks for all the great responses and articles posted.I found these very helpful.Still not clear-have security the right to erase memory photos?,does mere possession of a camera(no actual photo taken) constitute breaching of the agreeing "not to take" photos rule?I suppose it depends whether the wording is no photography or no picture taking...?As cameras get smaller and more flexible it is going to be harder and harder to keep them out of large public events.To fully search every individual of say 20,000 visitors taking say 10 minutes per visitor would be impossible!As it would create such long lines that it could take 4 weeks for everyone to get in!Wi Fi camera signal detectors can detect wireless cameras apparently-when in use-such as those used by Exam Cheats or Casino Cheats-"beaming"photos outside but they do not work on ordinary cameras.But its a losing battle.I have regularly observed very many suspected breaches at many events with people freely using mobile phone cameras and so on in droves.Presumably this was because "Security"had been unable to "confinscate"visitors mobile phones,hold them safely till the end of the event and then return them to their rightful owners at the end on leaving to the tune of 7500 mobile phones!</p>

<p>>>have security the right to erase memory photos?<br>

Absolutely not.<br>

>>does mere possession of a camera(no actual photo taken) constitute breaching of the agreeing "not to take" photos rule?<br>

No. But the landowner or his agents always have the right to decide if you're a trespasser or not. They don't need to give you a reason for asking you to leave private property, if they don't like your face, your tone of voice or whatever. You're only ever on private property by the landowner's permission.<br>

Note that photographs *can* still be taken in violation of a no-photos rule, you can still use them, they cannot be seized and you still have full rights to them. There is a possibility that the landowner could apply to a court to prevent you benefiting from the photographs on the grounds that you were a trespasser but I've looked and can find no case law on the subject. So, assuming you stood your ground, the risk would be on them to make the case - an expensive prospect (and expensive, should it come down to it, for you to defend, probably.)</p>

<p> </p>