What is the law about photographing people?

[jezzyjj 10]

Oops double post!

[Chumley 10]

There's a fairly detailed article on the law (or lack of) relating to photography in this month's Digital Camera.

[Weldit 10]

OK i've been on the group a bit and i've played with my camera alot. To further my skills im doing a GCSE in photography and really enjoying it. Our first pattern and texture project went really well.

 

Our second project is portraits. I always try to look for something a bit different from the rest of the class. I had an idea that 3 or 4 photos of homeless / tramps (i know its probably not the right word but thats what some of the older ones are) They have interesting faces that look like they have a lifetime of stories in the lines.

 

What is the law regarding photographing people. Ideally i would ask if i could take their photo but i'm not sure how some would take it, and i don't want to offend.

 

I read somewhere that you need cocent forms signing but with some homeless that could prove a real stumbling block. Is this necessary just for a college project?

 

Any advice would be really useful. Thanks

 

 

#With the public it goes like this, if it looks like the bloke may give you a slap for taking pictures of his wife and you are not big enough to defend yourself then go ahead snap away.

[matsalleh 10]

This is more up to date,as this is an old thread.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

Learn to shoot from the hip .

[DaFoot 10]

Trouble with shooting from the hip is if someone takes exception to it I'd imagine you'd have a harder argument ahead of you as you are apparently trying to conceal what you are doing and that is I think what upsets people as much as actually having their pic taken.

[matsalleh 10]

It is quite easy with a small compact,with flash and all noise off if you can.

Not with a SLR and zillion zoom lens.

[Steve Wood 10]

The original question was about the legality of taking photos. The legal situation is quite clear - in a public place you can legally take what photos you want. The photographer then has copyright and can do what they want with the photos. And then there is the practical situation - officious security men, PCSO's, PC's and teachers who feel that a photographer must be up to something sinister . It no doubt is possible to get arrested by, or on behalf of, such people, but not convicted.

[shirleyF 10]

First the capital letter writing, now the incoherent ranting. Next the name calling.

These threads never change.

I notice this thread has moved away from the original posters subject and degenerated into a pit of self opinionated people arguing, can we get back to the point. The original poster never mentioned photographing children, it was just a side comment made by some one else. So, photographing street people is not illegal but you do need to take care. I once had such a person shouting at me in an underpass, and I felt that everyones sympathy was with him, so I left. Money will help. Another method is to use a long lens and stay out of sight.

[Cyclone 10]

My capitals were not a sign of anger it is just to make it clearer to you as you are missing the point.

You see it as a photographers point of view, I see it as a parents point of view.

I do not persume every photographers a peodo I think that this should be played safe and for the safety of the child, you will never convince me that it is OK to photograph children without the permission of the parent, If that interferes with your good work then "tough".

 

As a parent do you think that making things up about what is legal and illegal is a good example to set for your children?

 

Fortunately nobody has to convince you of anything, it's perfectly legal to take photos of children and nobody has been arrested in Westminster for it have they!

 

Even in the case DaFoot mentioned, where a school has a sign up saying no photography, that wouldn't make it illegal, people can put up any sign they like but they aren't all legally binding.

[DaFoot 10]

Even in the case DaFoot mentioned, where a school has a sign up saying no photography, that wouldn't make it illegal, people can put up any sign they like but they aren't all legally binding.

I'm not so sure that is correct, if you are on private land (a school counts I believe) and the owners and/or his representatives ask you to desist, you don't it could then become a form of trespass.

 

Now whether it would be possible to get any sort of prosecution or such is another matter, but continuing when asked not to on private land (eg by a sign) would be grounds for Police to get involved if the landowner (/agent) so felt.

[Cyclone 10]

That's right, at which point they've have the remedy of asking you to leave. It would only become a criminal offence if you refused.

 

A land owner can ask you to leave at any time of course for any or no reason, so the sign doesn't make any difference except to give you forewarning.

[jezzyjj 10]

So you think its right taking photos of kids though its all with good intent.

Who cares about your good judgement, at the end of the day you take photo's of children in any guise you are doing wrong.

Todays society as we know is not what it once was, theres the internet for one thing, you have access to this as I do and any photos taken of kids can easily land on the net, as they do, infact there is no such thing as good intent.

Photo's of kids should be taken by there own parents or under a controled enviroment like school photo days.

 

You can bellow as much as you want that its not against the law or I'm a good guy who has good intent, the ruling is YOU DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF CHILDREN.

Apologies to the author of this thread as its now gone of the topic but my advise was simply avoid taking photos of kids, just advise which is what you asked for and if others can only see that as scaremongering then why bother replying to this thread in the first place.

You are the problem that needs dealing with.

And a quite serious problem you are too.