Photography: Public Places

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

Shahid Malik (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Dept.)

The above statement was made on 1 April 2009 during a House of Commons debate concerning the introduction of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 and with regard to concerns that photographers were being treated as suspected terrorists by the authorities.

ultimately been a huge waste of police time and frustration for photographers. Perhaps its even becoming a little frustrating for police officers too?

As a result of continuing incidents, photographers have understandably responded with internet photography groups being created to publicise what have been some grotesque examples of the misuse of legislation by police and other supporting agencies. I’m a Photographer and Not a Crime champion and highlight the common right for all UK citizens to be able to take photographs. Sadly though, the message is occasionally not reaching those at ground level. A recent experiment by photographers in the City of London (June 2011) provides evidence that some private security staff view most, if not all photographers as being hostile, with some guards giving inaccurate instructions to photographers or making up the law on the spot. Hopefully the Home Office is taking note as it has invited representatives from a photography magazine (Amateur Photographer) to several meetings to assist in identifying a balance between the right to photograph whilst maintaining security. After all an extensive history of incidents demonstrate the improper treatment and sometimes illegal actions taken by police and security agencies. Time will only tell if apparent intentions within Government turn into greater common sense and the rule of law being applied by agencies at ground level.

Many photographers have become very defensive given that they have been treated with suspicion and in some cases, thankfully rare, been threatened with violence. Whilst numerous incidents have been published on the internet, its important that photographers understand that hostile confrontations are rare and that its important the they do not to react to hostility in a manner that could inflame the situation further. That does not mean to say though, that photographers should not stand firm, voicing their right to capture images in a public place.

Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and with so many examples of photographers being approached, some argue harassed, its important that photographers know what they can and cannot do. Ignorance at the end of the day is no defense in law!

Be Aware!

A whole range of issues genuinely relating to photography exist, such as the harassment of subjects, decency (particularly relevant to minors) and obstruction. There are even security issues in relation to specified buildings. In addition the rules regarding photography on private land tend to be very different to those on public land. A land owner can of course restrict permissions in any way they choose, although one grey area is private land that is open or accessible to the general public. There are occasional confrontations between photographers and security guards who have occasionally improperly used intimidatory tactics. Common sense would indicate if photography were restricted, there would be clear notices stating restrictions.

Consequently its important that photographers are conscious of their actions. The civil rights bulletin board URBAN75 offers a comprehensive overview of current issues and legislation regarding photography and is well worth a visit.

There have been occasions when the authorities, in all their public and private guises, make up excuses to dissuade photographers from enjoying their lawful hobby. These include:

Copyright exists on this building, therefore you cannot take a photograph of it!

They are correct, in that copyright laws does exist regarding buildings, however it doesn’t apply to photography.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 62 states:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display...

(1)This section applies to:

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by:

(a) making a graphic work representing it

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) [making a broadcast of] a visual image of it

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

You must delete that photograph!!

One issue that has occurred from time to time is when members of the public have been intimidated into deleting their images that they have captured? This was highlighted by an incident in 2009 as reported by The Guardian, when a father and son, both of whom were transport enthusiasts, were stopped by police and forced to delete their images. In a letter to the Guardian newspaper, the father Klaus Matzka wrote:

“I understand the need for some sensitivity in an era of terrorism, but isn't it naive to think terrorism can be prevented by terrorising tourists?”

The answer to the question of who can delete photographs is given by URBAN75:

“Security guards do not have stop and search powers or the right to seize your equipment or delete images or confiscate film under any circumstances.

In some circumstances, the police may grab your film or memory cards but they are still not authorised to delete any images.

After all, if you've committed an offence the images would act as evidence, and if you haven't broken the law, the images are innocent.”

In extreme cases those willfully deleting an image (or any electronic file) that is suspected as being of use for dishonest/terrorist purposes may be accused of perverting the course of justice; a serious criminal offence.

You must have the written permission from parents before you can take images that include children...

There have been incidents on sports fields when proud relatives have tried to capture images of offspring, only to be confronted by uninformed individuals inventing their own laws. Paranoia regarding paedophiles has resulted in photographers being aggressively targeted by members of the public. Anyone capturing images, particularly those that contain minors, should be aware of circumstances, using their own common sense and judgment. However as intimated by the quotation from Shahid Malik at the top of this page, the legal position when enjoying photography in a public place in relation to capturing images that contain either adults or minors is very very clear. Obviously taking or possessing indecent images of minors either printed or electronically would be a criminal offence, although images taken in a public place, particularly those taken in front of others are highly unlikely to be indecent.

The FA (Football Association) for example, has published a photography guidelines document. If photographers are confronted its important that they do not respond aggressively, clearly explaining everyone’s right to enjoy photography in a public place. If attending an event, they could raise the matter with officials (if possible or available), however if they are physically threatened, photographers should consider withdrawing and would be best advised to contact the police.

Sadly though the authorities don’t always know the law as demonstrated by police in Romford, Essex in an incident back in June 2010. The following month the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, admitted that there were times when he could not be confident that police officers would not act inappropriately, although the June 2011 experiment in Central London (referred to above) suggests that the message might now be reaching officers on the ground.

Adopt the Right Attitude!

The issues already mentioned are the results of the improper conduct of those in authority in a variety of roles. This could give the impression that every private security guard, police officer or PCSO will be incompetent and a liability. Its important though, that photographers maintain a sense of proportion, understanding that such incidents are relatively rare. That does not mean to say though, that any unlawful or illegal instruction or comment made by those in authority, does not undermine and bring into disrepute their own status. Ultimately it makes a mockery of the badge or status that they hold.

If photographers want those that are ignorant or abuse the laws they claim to represent to buck their ideas up, its important that they don’t allow these incidents to be used as an excuse to become disrespectful towards others. Its therefore a two-way-street with the authorities and photographers needing to earn the respect and trust of one another.

The attitude that photographers should adopt is a very personal call they need to make for themselves and will be dependent upon each and every circumstance. Should they stand their ground, arguing a point or walk away? One thing is crystal clear though... photographers should NEVER, under any circumstances, adopt a hostile approach, particularly towards the police. If anything be open and honest, as obstructiveness would probably arouse suspicions... after all, what does a criminal look like?!!

Photographers have every right to question anything they are told if they reasonably believe it to be incorrect or unlawful. Therefore its important that they research and understand the law and any issues or perceptions that affect photography. Perhaps they should even go as far as carrying copies of the rules and legislation, so that if challenged, a photographer will have the proof they need to back their actions.

Caveat

The information on this page is written in order to highlight a few of the issues that genuinely apply to photography and is no substitute for professional legal advice. Links to other sites are for information purposes. District Dave cannot be held responsible for information hosted on another website.