Well I'm not an expert in UK law, but it is not written down, common law evolves by precedent (I once lived with some law students). A know a judge once ruled (recently) that taking portraits in the street without permission (i.e. if the person could be identified) was illegal. Telephoto lenses are illegal now over here, at least "in the street" and "over the fence". However photographing buildings from public land is OK. Now I've been photographing monuments for English Heritage for several years as a volunteer during their millennium project. Some of the wealthy landowners were please and proud to have their pile photographed but others became angered and I was warned off to stop. One of the landowners is trying to sue little people like me for photographing their homes. There is a bill going through the House of Lords about this and I'm a little worried. Apparently lawyers have been doing measurements to see exactly where the photographs were taken. Some of the owners were out, so although I knocked, I had to find a legal place to stand. This is not always obvious. Some bought their property believing that it could not be photographed, in some cases that was true and I had to go empty framed. English Heritage, my employer at the time are not being sued. It is very nasty. Chris. -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Sent: 08 December 2004 15:57 To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: portraits and permissions / was: PF Exhibits on 04 DEC 04 U.K.Law: I was at a course on street photography at Tate Modern (London UK) only a few weeks ago. The law, we were told, is quite clear and this was what I understood: There is nothing illegal in taking photographs in public places - e.g. roads, parks etc. It is not an invasion of privacy to take a photograph of someone in a public place. If you are in a shopping mall or other clearly privately owned place it is then illegal to take photographs of both people or the property without the owners explicit (and I would advise) written consent. However, if a person objects to having their photograph taken the waters do become more muddy, though it's again not actually illegal. We were advised that if someone objects offer to destroy the negative or delete the digital file. Finally we were strongly advised to avoid taking photographs of children without the parent / guardian / caring adult's approval. Howard (Not an expert in U.K. law either) LScottPht@xxxxxxx wrote: >In a message dated 12/8/04 6:45:49 AM Central Standard Time, >wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > ><< I didn't know you were an expert on UK law ;o) > >> >You are right. I am not an expert on UK law; however, I have an agent >representing my work in the UK, and I have never had a situation come up where I >would need a model release for my photos no matter where they were taken (if for >editorial purposes). And, it was my own stupidity not to read all of the posts. >I did not realize we were talking about the UK. So, perhaps the laws are >different there, but my agent has never expressed this. > >Leslie > > > >
