Slashdot Mirror

Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.

At least here in the UK, permission is required to film on private property.

The real issue is in public, there's no expectation of privacy unless there is.

for the police officer to take his camera/phone away. the police officer presumably thought he had rights under section 44 of the UK terrorism Act but this has been declared illegal by the European court of human rights, the government is appealing this but its likely to lose. The most sensible thing is to make a direct complaint to the Police complaints authority.

Now having said that the space where the photograph was taken specifically forbade the man from using any form of camera, now if that place was considered public as in their was pubic right of way then it is illegal restrict photography but it is legal if it is on private property

this area of law is complex and one of the best place to get detailed information is http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 which supplies a downloadable pdf with the relevant sections of law

A good site for photographers rights is: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

As others have stated - property owners have no rights to prevent phots taken from public places - so this allows pretty much all aerial photography of stonehenge - and any from outside of the property.
Then they can only restrict photographs taken on the site, by requiring this on entry to the site so they must actually state this in the contract (when you buy your tickets).

In the UK you would still need permission to use a photograph of someone, if they're the subject of the photo, and not at some public event.

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

Actually, its not illegal to photograph the police - only if its provably of use to terrorists (or whatever is no longer flavour of the month for our esteemed Home Secretary). However, in typical British fashion, nobody is entirely sure of what is allowed/not-allowed, and that includes many officers on the beat.

The British Journal of Photography (http://www.bjp-online.com/ - just search for police on there) is littered with cases where overzealous officers have declared taking pictures of such-and-such an offence, even to the point of deleting the photos. Needless to say, lots of these cases have follow-ups from the police saying they were wrong.

The police can not stop you because you are taking a picture - they must have reasonable grounds for suspicion under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/pace-code-a-amended-jan-2009) or under the Terrorism Act 2000 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44). If you are stopped at worst case they can confiscate your photography equipment, but they certainly can't get you to delete stuff (arguably, if they did, you could claim it was destruction of evidence).

Bear in mind IANAL, so the above is at best a summary. http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php has a proper guide to UK photographers' rights written by someone with legal training.

This is all a classic case of poorly drafted legislation, large amounts of mis-information, the ocassional police officer on a power-kick and the Home Office repeatedly spouting "the terrorists are gonna getcha". Sadly, this is happening all too often in the UK now :(

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

Apart from a couple of places it looks like there is no restriction on taking photos from a public street as long as you are not causing an obstruction.

The UK version of Photographers' Rights

(The following text applies, I believe, in the USA, Australia, the UK and maybe other places, check with your local lawyer, I'm not one.)

Unfortunately, inside privately owned buildings they (being the owners, managers or agents) can prevent you from taking photos (or, ask you to leave). (If they ask you to delete your photos, you tell them to fuck off, or just pretend to. But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)

However, outside, on public property, they can't do shit, and you tell them that.

Most of the time, you just need a smaller camera. It won't take as nice photos (perhaps), but it is much less obvious, and beats not being able to take photos at all.

By the way, the often used "security threat" or "terrorism" bullshit, is just bullshit. If a terrorist wants to take a photo, they don't need a big obvious camera, they just use a small one. More to the point though, tourists (terrorists?) take photos of public buildings everyday, unless you are willing to fuck with your tourist revenue...

For comments around public photography and laws around photography in the UK:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=56
For the USA:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.photosecrets.com/law.html
Lots of links for different countries:
http://www.photolawnews.com/
There are also guides for Australia I believe, and other countries.

You're also wrong in the UK, the US, Australia and most other countries I can think of, unless by 'claim offence' you mean they can claim they were offended rather than seek legal remedy. What sources exactly have you based your opinion on?

Here's a few of links explaining the situation in the UK, Australia and US for photography of people in public places :

UK
US
Australia

If you plan to publish for profit or just for public display and are not a news outlet, getting releases is crucial. Using someone's image without permission is a sure-fire way to having a lawsuit handed to you.

In the UK (which is where we are talking about) there is no legal requirement to get a model release to use photographs of someone.

I quote from the UK Photographers Rights guide

The lack of any coherent law of privacy in the UK means that photographers are not only free to take photographs of people in public places but they can use those photos as they wish, including for commercial gain. In some countries, individuals have rights over the commercial use of their images, hence the importance of obtaining a model release for the use of an image that contains a recognisable person. UK law does not, at present, recognise this right.

The guide does go on to say that what you do have to be wary of is conforming to the Data Protection Act which applies to anyone who controls the 'processing' of 'personal data'. But the act contains exceptions for publications of journalistic or artistic material, which would cover almost all photography.

This 'duty' doesn't exist for the photographer. It's always the responsibility of the final client to ensure that a model release exists. Just because the photograph in this case was free does not mean that Virgin / their advertising agency can suddenly forget about that.

Model releases aren't required in all countries. For instance, they are *not* required in the UK (see here), and according to this discussion board thread are not required in Australia either.

That's not entirely accurate; The guide linked from http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php gives a very good overview of what you can and can not do with a photograph.

That's not entirely accurate; The guide linked from http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php gives a very good overview of what you can and can not do with a photograph.

...please don't take it personally if I take your camera and smash it after you take a picture of me? (I mean no threat, just bringing up a point) if someone cares enough to purposefully not post themselves on the web, perhaps out of fear of a stalker, what right do you have to "publish" without consent?

The UK might be different, but I'm pretty sure if I don't give express or implied permission to the photographer then when they publish it they'll either have to blur my face or just do it out of decency. I see that all the time.