This site offers some information, albeit a little out of date.. http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/censorship/privateviews.htm
So I've sent a query to the Artlaw experts to see what emerges. BJP from time to time have commented unfavourably on legal developments.
But how can you buy a property which is - presumably - visible from a public place and claim immunity from it being photographed? (A rhetorical question only!)
Howard
Chris wrote:
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.
