Permission for photography of religious symbols? (UK)

[jim_millen]

<p>First off I hope this is the right sub-forum - none of the others seemed appropriate, but do let me know if I should post this elsewhere!</p>

<p>Now onto my question. Somebody has recently commented on one of my pictures on Flickr, suggesting that I should have sought the subject's permission as he is wearing a turban. Apparently there is some law in the UK that requires you to seek permission to take a photograph which shows a religious symbol? </p>

<p><a href=" photograph and comment, and my initial response, are here.</a></p>

<p>I have done quite a bit of Googling about this; I'd never heard of such a law and it seems a bit unlikely - after all, as stated in the comment it would surely prevent any photography of churches, mosques and so on? It's also stated as permission to take the photograph at all - which again seems a little hard to enforce. Seeking permission prior to publication makes more sense, but I still can't find anything out about it.</p>

<p>I was under the impression that the only laws relevant to this sort of street photography were those of privacy <a href="http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html">as described in this article</a>.</p>

<p>Still, I could be entirely wrong and some obscure UK law does indeed prevent photography of religious symbols without permission. But I can't believe nobody on here knows about it if that is the case! So... any thoughts or advice?</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>You can photograph pretty much you like in a public place (with the obvious sensible exceptions).</p>

<p>You may use such work for editorial purposesl, and then - sensibly - if you do not defame the subject unnecessarily (unless they deserve to be ridiculed). Example - showing a pregnant woman in the street taken at random and then using it to illustrate an editorial piece on foetal alcohol syndrome without permission is a no-no as the implication could be that the indivdual has a drink problem. You get the idea. </p>

<p>You can use images for advertizing but it requires signed releases (because the subject of the image is presumed to be endorsing the product).</p>

<p>As far as I know the image you took breaks no laws.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The nature of that forum may be to be unconfrontational but otherwise, the person to ask would be the person who suggests "there is a law." Well, OK, what law? They should have some sort of valid, primary source reference.</p>

<p>Not saying there aren't obscure laws in the UK or elsewhere but isn't your daily experience that pictures of religious symbols are taken and published all the time? And even with all the frantic complaints about oppression of photographers in the UK, I've never seen any complaints about arrests for taking pictures of religious symbols without permission.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Generally, if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then taking a picture of them could be actionable--Like in a gym shower/locker room. Beyond that, there really aren't generally laws that prevent one from taking any image in public places, regardless of the circumstances.</p>

<p>But there can be really oddball laws out there. For instance, in the US, Texas has a law against taking any photograph of another person for the purpose of arousal without the consent of the person being photographed. Since there are SO many weird fetishes out there, I suppose one could be arrested for almost any photograph of a person without their permission!?!</p>

[peter_mounier]

<p>Turbans are worn by religious groups, but I think it's more cultural than religious.<br>

I don't think it symbolizes anything. It's a traditional way to keep cool in the desert.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Peter:<br /><br />At least for Sikhs turbans have a deep religious meaning. Same goes for many other religions and areas as well. A quick Google or Wikipedia search will turn up loads of examples.<br /><br />John is absolutely right that there are some very strange laws out there all over the place. Many of the really odd ones seem to still be on the books in the US. <br /><br />As mentioned before here - and in lots of other P.Net posts as well - it's very rare that simply taking a photograph is illegal. How that photo is then used is a different matter. John MacP is right all the way up until this sentence: "... (unless they deserve to be ridiculed). ". Editorial usage absolutely does provide a way to use pretty much any photograph without permission/releases. IMHO, it's important to remember that just because you can do something, that doesn't make it OK/right.<br /><br />Obviously there are no issues whatsoever with making a photograph of a man (or woman) wearing a Turban in public and use that image in an editorial manner to illustrate, say, an article on the religions in India, various Turbans and their significance, etc.</p>

[peter_mounier]

<p> I am aware that turbans have deep religious meaning, but so do beards. So to expand the scope of the question, should one ask permission before shooting anyone with a beard? I just think that if a person got called out for shooting a religious icon, the icon would have to belong exclusively in the realm of religion and not so easily confused with a standard cultural dress code. Perhaps a picture in a mosque would be illegal, but I can't see the OP being hassled for this picture based on religion. But reason and religion are two very different animals.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Maybe there would be countries where taking a picture inside a mosque would be illegal, but I don't think most countries legislate against things done on private property that are otherwise legal. If you were to photograph in any structure that forbid it, you might be charged with a crime, but it would be something like trespassing and not a violation of an ordinance against photography. Most likely, they would just be able to rescind your permission to be there and kick you off the premises.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Mikael - in the context of the OP's question I thought carefully before I made the comment:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"unless they deserve to be ridiculed"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and I had in mind for example some of the lunatic fringe political candidates we have here in the UK who may make a public exhibition of themselves and in so doing in a public arena are fair game for images that portray their eccentricities. I was not inferring that the judgment to ridicule someone rested with the photographer, rather the photographer is a recorder of the ridiculous.</p>

<p>Perhaps in retrospect I could have thought even more carefully and worded it better!</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>John:<br /><br />I think the problem arise when we try to define who deserves to be ridiculed. Here for instance we have Fed Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. They're the ones that think pretty much everything bad anywhere is because the US is a "homosexual nation". They picket funerals of service members preaching that they're grateful for dead soldiers. Most people I know would think that Feddie and his cohorts are a few cards shot of a full deck. Heck, I'm not even sure they have a deck at all.<br /><br />Do I feel that we can safely ridicule Freddie? Yes, I have to admit that I do. Does that make it right though because I think so? No, I don't think it does. After all, who gets to say who is OK to ridicule and who isn't? And where are the lines drawn as far as what is OK to do and what isn't? <br /><br />Then again, maybe I'm way off base. Maybe I don't give people enough credit as to their ability to being able to handle ridiculing as well as being the target of ridicule. From what I see of how people are able - or not rather - to handle a simple disagreement these days I'm not so sure. It seems like everything gets drawn to extremes immediately. Black or White. For or Against. <br /><br />I miss people being able to agree to disagree and be civil and polite to each other. Discussions without the need for wingnuts on either side to feel tat it is a perfectly valid argument to behave like 4 year-olds and shriek as loud as you can so nobody can hear what the other "side" is saying. OK, I'll leave the soapbox along now and will go back into radioshadow.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Everyone has different moral issues, however, the law sees things in neutral and that is what is most important when we discuss these things. Taking an image of a woman who is pregnant, an innocent bystander, and using it to illustrate fetal alcoholism is a problem. Taking a photo of a woman who decides to strip in public and using it to describe the event is totally different.</p>

<p>I don't quibble with individual decisions, but let's not confuse the two.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I may be wrong, but I don't think I am, in saying that a turban, a beard, a religious tatoo (or other body marking) are NOT religious symbols. Religious symbols are usually those items, shapes (symbols), specific art depicting religious ceremonies or deities and specific events, NOT clothing worn either by practitioners or clergy. Careful here, by clothing I mean just that - not jewelery and other paraphernalia worn by clerics.</p>

<p>In that respect, the turban, despite its deep significance for the Sikh, it is not classified as a religious symbol, much like the kipah (i think I spelled it correctly) in Israel (or even the Hasidic jews' hats or long side curls) and so on and so forth. Therefore, even if there is such a law in the UK, chances are you're on the right side of it...(unless the law specifically includes ALL these items by name, something which is highly unlikely).</p>

<p>All other advice offered about legal and reasonable use of the image is solid.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>I can't reply without straying too far off the OP, but aren't Sikhs still allowed to wear turbans in the UK where other headgear can't be worn? As employees for the Underground, bus company etc? If so, does that make the item(s) in question (that are allowed based on their religious significance) religious? No clue.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>I don't want to offer an answer to the specific question about the law in the U.K., because I I have no training in law in the UK and don't know the answer. </p>

<p>However, I did see this site which in turn refers to a pdf entitled "<strong>UK Photographers Rights Guide v2</strong>," written by a lawyer in the U.K. (I'd offer a direct link to the pdf, but the site specifically asks people not to do that.) </p>

<p>The site containing that link is here:</p>

<p>http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/</p>

<p>Might be a helpful resource ?</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't reply without straying too far off the OP, but aren't Sikhs still allowed to wear turbans in the UK where other headgear can't be worn? As employees for the Underground, bus company etc? If so, does that make the item(s) in question (that are allowed based on their religious significance) religious? No clue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps they are religious symbols but there is no UK law banning photography of them - in public or not.</p>

 

[jim_millen]

<p>Many thanks for all the responses - much appreciated! <br>

Since nobody else has heard of such a law either, I'm going on the assumption that my commenter on Flickr doesn't know what he's talking about. :-) Unless I hear otherwise, of course! Until then I will continue taking photographs like that one - always bearing in mind sensible consideration for peoples' privacy and feelings though.<br>

Thanks again!</p>