Some questions about photography laws (UK)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

1) I've been receiving a bunch of bulletins and emails urging me to sign a petition to prevent the govt passing laws to make taking photos in public illegal. Is this really about to happen? Surely not?!

2) How does the law work when taking photos in a private place? Say I charge people £1 to enter my event and take photographs of them, then use their image to promote a future event - do I need to ask the people in question for permission? Would a poster as they come in saying something to the effect of 'Photographs are being taken tonight and may be used in future' have any effect? How's about just sticking those photos on a website in a gallery of the event? Most clubnights and gigs do this but is it legal? Do things change when it involves filming?

3) I've asked this before but couldn't find it on google. On those cop shows where they chase yobs about and catch them, why can the criminal choose to have their face blurred out and some not? Is this usually if the case has not been taken to court yet or if the individual is under 18, or do they get to choose whether to be blurred or not? (I feel someone may have answered this in my last thread, but I really cannot remember!)

And feel free to add any more questions here.

― NI, Thursday, 22 March 2007 01:46 (nineteen years ago)

1. There's talk of a privacy law, like in France, which would make it very difficult to use certain kinds of pictures -- including those of under-18s -- for just about anything.

2. Just now you've got basically no rights to your own image. A lot of clubs put a warning up at the door. It isn't strictly necessary, but could save on hassle later.

3. The criminal can't choose -- it has to do with the trial and the danger of prejudice. If someone has been charged there are very tight restrictions on reporting -- that's why you often see useless stories like "A man was charged yesterday with involvement in the death of a man". You can't use the images after charging and before verdict.

― .stet., Thursday, 22 March 2007 02:04 (nineteen years ago)

are you moderator of this law too?

― and what, Thursday, 22 March 2007 02:26 (nineteen years ago)

I reset the law's lost passwords is all

― .stet., Thursday, 22 March 2007 02:32 (nineteen years ago)

http://accel3.mettre-put-idata.over-blog.com/0/00/35/40/portraits2/franz-kafka.jpg

― libcrypt, Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:05 (nineteen years ago)

The government is not going to ban taking pictures in public. If anything - due to it's open access laws it has made it easier to take photos in public. I have talked to people who seem to think that you can't take photos in Westminister or Trafalger Square, it's incredible the amount of disinformation there is about. Here is a very clear and concise guide to taking photos in public...
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

― Ned Trifle II, Thursday, 22 March 2007 12:22 (nineteen years ago)

2. I organise a lot of events - class reunions, mostly - and we always get people to sign a consent form beforehand so we can take photos and use them on the website, in our magazine etc. I've no idea if it's a legal thing; it's just something my department has always done. At least it means we're not pissing anyone off. A nun comes to our events now and again and she has her own reasons why she doesn't want her photo taken, so she just steps aside when the camera comes out.

― Madchen, Thursday, 22 March 2007 12:49 (nineteen years ago)

The camera steals your soul, apparently.

― Mark C, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

About the rights to your image, there's a photographer for the regional (and some national) press who comes along to my clubnight and he always asks the person if it's ok before he takes a photo of them. I asked why and he said it relates to a court case where some guy who was cheating on his wife with some woman in a club and was spotted in the background of a photo published in a newspaper. Apparently he sued and won, I think it was something about 'reasonable expectations of privacy'. Has anyone heard anything about this and does it change things for my second question?

― NI, Thursday, 22 March 2007 22:15 (nineteen years ago)

I asked why and he said it relates to a court case where some guy who was cheating on his wife with some woman in a club and was spotted in the background of a photo published in a newspaper

i've heard several variations on this story; not saying it hasn't ever happened, but it's a bit of an urban myth.

i think his asking is more to do with common decency and the fact the PCC wouldn't be too impressed by someone turning up and taking pictures of people without their consent ... i mean, a club isn't a public place as such. but then my knowledge of how the law applies to photography is appallingly bad, and i should maybe rectify that.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 22:57 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

(Hi Simon!)

Ok new question. This weeks Heat magazine includes a photoshopped pic of David Beckham, with his head on a naked man's body. Even though it's a doctored photo is it legal for Heat to print a picture of a penis without some form of warning or age limit to buy the mag?!

Also, just to confirm - so people paying to get into a venue have exactly zero rights to their own image? I'll ask about this guy-in-club-sues story and post the info here.

― NI, Thursday, 26 April 2007 01:21 (nineteen years ago)

If it's not obscene it's legal. Mull of kintyre, intended audience, etc.

― stet, Thursday, 26 April 2007 01:37 (nineteen years ago)

Surely a penis is obscene? Heat usually has shots of breats and camel toes and the like, would they not be classed as obscene? (I'm not sure what you mean by Mull of Kintyre sorry)

― NI, Thursday, 26 April 2007 10:59 (nineteen years ago)

Mull of Kintyre test

― Ned Trifle II, Thursday, 26 April 2007 11:06 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.