# Legality of Taking Photos - Explained



## Meysha (May 12, 2005)

This is just a bit of info for everyone on legal rights.
Ok, the never ending question... is it legal to take photos in public of people, buildings?

I've collected a few sites that have lots of info. What's even better - they're all written in plain english! (for the most part)

http://www.photopermit.org *USA* and international section as well.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze  US discussion
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BwDn&unified_p=1 US more recent discussion

http://critics.4020.net *Australia*

http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/crt/national/Dtimage.htm *French Law* (en français)


I'll quickly summarise what I've read.
*In the US* you can take a photo of whoever you want so long as they are in a public place (ie not in their living room) and you can do whatever you want with it so long as it doesn't degrade the person or you don't make money from it. You are allowed to take photos of any building so long as there is no "Photography not permitted" (or equivalent) sign. If it is a private building, and a staff member does come up to you and tells you it's legally forbidden, you must stop, but they can't force you to delete the photos you've already taken.

*In Australia*, we don't really have a right to privacy act like the americans do. So, as long as you don't degrade anyone in your pics then you're fine. Same conditions apply to the buildings as the americans have I think.

*For the UK*, I haven't actually found the law itself yet, but reading the web, it seems you're similar to US and Australia. Although you might have more pressure to get people to sign releases.

*In France*, they're just a pain. You, legally aren't allowed to take a photo of most of the buildings in Paris (lit-up eiffel tower, the louvre pyramid) because they are all copyrighted. The laws relating to people are really really confusing. Journalists can basically show whoever they want on TV if it's of significant importance to the country, or if the person is in public and cleary not wanting to not be photographed. But normal photographers, can't even _take_ pics of people in public without their permission. There's a whole nother law about diffusing the pics. But that brings me to wonder, what distinguishes a journalist from another photographer? Am I a journalist because I take photos and put them on my blog (which is a source of news)? Does that mean the journalist rules apply to me?
I think Germany is similar to France by what LaFoto has been saying.

And I'm purely guessing that New Zealand laws are going to be pretty similar to Aus and US laws.

I couldn't find any information on taking photos in one country and then publishing them (say on the net, no profit) in another country. 

Oh and just to cover my own butt now. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Always talk to a qualified lawyer before making any decision!


----------



## Meysha (May 12, 2005)

Just found a great PDF for the USA that explains it all.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

And a PDF for the UK!!
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Read the comments on this one as well - there's heaps more info there, especially about photographing private buildings.


----------



## Big Mike (May 12, 2005)

Looks like you have collected some good info.  I'll have to read some of it....one of these days.  

Just curious, in the US, you say that if a representative of a building comes and tells you that it's "legally forbidden" to take photos...you must stop.  What would make it 'legally forbidden'?  What laws would a photographer be breaking by continuing to shoot?  There is the issue of logos & trademarks on buildings but I can't see how it can be perfectly legal to photograph a building one minute and then not legal the next, only after someone with no public authority tells you so.


----------



## Digital Matt (May 12, 2005)

Thanks Meysha.  It's important to know your rights when you are out there photographing.


----------



## Meysha (May 12, 2005)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Just curious, in the US, you say that if a representative of a building comes and tells you that it's "legally forbidden" to take photos...you must stop.  What would make it 'legally forbidden'?  What laws would a photographer be breaking by continuing to shoot?  There is the issue of logos & trademarks on buildings but I can't see how it can be perfectly legal to photograph a building one minute and then not legal the next, only after someone with no public authority tells you so.



My messy words "Legally forbidden" would mean that you are standing on private property photographing a private building or part of it and the company (or whatever) that owns it has a no photography rule. I'm not sure if the company needs to have that rule in place but either way it's a private company and they can set whatever rules they want. I'm pretty sure no one can make you delete your photos in any case - but they could arrest you if you really are in the wrong (ie, standing private property, photos of private building and no photography sign right next to you). Then the court will tell you to delete them.

Again - I'm no lawyer, just gathering info off the web.


----------



## Meysha (May 12, 2005)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> There is the issue of logos & trademarks on buildings but I can't see how it can be perfectly legal to photograph a building one minute and then not legal the next, only after someone with no public authority tells you so.



Well actually I think they do have the 'public authority' in this case, because they're representing a private company who can make up whatever rules it likes. And if these rules aren't clearly visible then how are you suppossed to know them? But as soon as they do tell you the rules you know them so you must obey them.

However this contradicts the small amount of legal studies I did do, which says that you don't need to know a law for it to apply to you. Think about all the people in the world who have been tried for something, they didn't necessarily know the law, but they were punished or benefited from it.


----------



## Big Mike (May 12, 2005)

Thanks,

I get what you are saying, I just thought that what you meant was that if you were on _public property_ someone could come out and tell you to stop.  That didn't seem right.  As I understand it, if you are on public property, you can photograph whatever you want...(not counting privacy laws etc.)

If you are on public *edit: private* property, it's fully understandable that the property owner/rep. has the authority.


----------



## Meysha (May 12, 2005)

I think you meant 'private property' in your last sentance there.


----------



## Big Mike (May 12, 2005)

Here is another, slightly related, point about legal copyrights in Canada.

Similar to most other countries, Canada's laws say that if someone takes a photograph, they own the copyright. _However, here is where it differentiates from other contries..._  If the photograph (or other artwork)  is commissioned (if you are paid to make it)...the copyright is then owned by whoever commissioned it, not by the photographer.  This puts Canadian photographers at a disadvantage in a global market and there are a few groups working to ratify the laws.


----------



## Rob (May 14, 2005)

Thanks for that - it's been the only paper on the UK law I've seen which has been written by someone with a qualification in law, rather than a photographer. The only bit I didn't realise at all was the power station stuff - It's going to make me thing next time I'm doing some industrial stuff.

It also explains why the photographers outside the Old Bailey hang out on the opposite side of the road with 70-200 lenses!

Rob


----------



## LizM (May 14, 2005)

> I'll quickly summarise what I've read.
> *In the US* you can take a photo of whoever you want so long as they are in a public place (ie not in their living room) and you can do whatever you want with it so long as it doesn't degrade the person or you don't make money from it. You are allowed to take photos of any building so long as there is no "Photography not permitted" (or equivalent) sign. If it is a private building, and a staff member does come up to you and tells you it's legally forbidden, you must stop, but they can't force you to delete the photos you've already taken.


 Not to be rude but that is sooo wrong.  Buildings built after a certain year (can't remember which - would have to look it up) are actually protected by copyright law in some instances.  In theory, you can't photograph them for anything other than news or personal use without permission whether it be public or private property.  In practice, it is rarely enforced.  On older buildings you can snap away as much as you want as long as you are standing on public property and not invading the expectation of privacy (i.e. no taking photos through the windows of a house with the zoom lens).  Of course, after 9/11 photos are getting harrassed more and more for taking photos of "sensitive" possible targets.

As far as people go, it is the recognizable standard that is most often applied.  If the person is recognizable you (legally) must have a photo release from that person for commercial use.  If you are shooting for a news agency or just for personal use this doesn't apply.  However, even a news agency can get in trouble for defamation of character (i.e. person napping on park bench with a caption about homeless people when the person isn't homeless).  Also, in many states a photo release is not valid unless you pay the person for their release. (A rule I personally hate!)


----------



## Meysha (May 14, 2005)

LizM said:
			
		

> Not to be rude but that is sooo wrong. Buildings built after a certain year (can't remember which - would have to look it up) are actually protected by copyright law in some instances. In theory, you can't photograph them for anything other than news or personal use without permission whether it be public or private property.


I know there's different laws if you're going to actually be making money off the photos. I think I forgot to mention that the same 'no money making' rule applies to the buildings.
I think it's generally understood that if something is private property and you're going to be making money off selling a photo of it, then you need permission.



			
				LizM said:
			
		

> If the person is recognizable you (legally) must have a photo release from that person for commercial use. If you are shooting for a news agency or just for personal use this doesn't apply.


I did mention that what I stated is only for non-commercial use and so long as it doesn't degrade the person.


----------



## Lensmeister (May 14, 2005)

Certain places forbid photos and they usual have reason like security.

I know that in certain parts of the world you are forbidden to take photos at airports as some military aircraft use them to.  aABritish magazine produces a guide book to the world with whenre and where not to photograph.  I found it helpful.  

Places of political or social tension are also problimatic.  In Jerusalem you can take photos of things like the Wailing Wall (I was able to back in 1993/4), and some of the other places of interest.  But it's forbidden to inside the environs of the Muslim temple - The Dome on the Rock.  In fact when we visited it, it was insisted that cameras were left in a security hut.  

When we were at the Wailing Wall, you used descretion and stood back to photograph and tried not to be intrusive.  But on the approach we had to go through a security scheck point.  Israeli soldiers and police are not to be photographed.  They got guns ... and thats another good reason.

On the security side of the issue, what may appear to be a regular tourist taking their snaps may actually be a someone plotting or planning an act of terrorism.  Unfortuneatly this are the times we live in.  

Another issues I encountered but only as a minor one.  Whilst visiting a place in England, I was approached by a member of staff and asked not to photograph inside the grounds.  When I asked why they told me that many people had visited and taken photos and then produced saleable products.  Thus they got no cut in the profit.  This I suspect is more the reason why places don't want serious hobbists taking photos.  

After all Little Johnny with his little compact camera isn't a threat...... whereas the likes of us with good equipment can produce better results than some of the publicity they already have.

There is proof of that in another post on the fourm about an aquairium - Case rested.

So in summary; the two main problems are security and money ....... but this is only my opinion and not legal fact.  This isn't based on any legal knowelage just on what I have seen and heard.  

anyone else agree ?


----------



## Lensmeister (May 14, 2005)

Oppps forgot to say thanks meysha for the guides.  

Sometimes I start looking for things like this then come accross something else and go off at a tangent.  

I tend to end up look at other things and rarely finish the thing I was do ..

hgmmm now whats that in the other window?

opps there I go again .... and rarely finish what I was doing ....


----------



## Lensmeister (May 14, 2005)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Here is another, slightly related, point about legal copyrights in Canada.
> 
> Similar to most other countries, Canada's laws say that if someone takes a photograph, they own the copyright. _However, here is where it differentiates from other contries..._  If the photograph (or other artwork)  is commissioned (if you are paid to make it)...the copyright is then owned by whoever commissioned it, not by the photographer.  This puts Canadian photographers at a disadvantage in a global market and there are a few groups working to ratify the laws.



BIPP view 

HMSO copyright info 

Hi mate these should help but I know these are only for the UK.  Try a google search on the Canadian view ... worth a try.


----------



## photong (May 14, 2005)

while it may or may not be illegal. i think if you're going to take photos of a building (on perpose though. im not talking about accidental. on their property or not.) you should ask. it could be a private business, or governmental and you don't know it. they may have policies in place for this sort of thing.


----------



## aghastpumpkin (May 14, 2005)

Lensmeister - little point you directing people to a document which is the equivalent of a very large book.
You'd be best off finding the relevant passage and quoting it.
As far as I am informed, it is Illegal to take pictures of children without parental consent. It is also immoral to take pictures of peoples houses and personal property.
There is, of course, a certain amount of leeway.


----------



## Matty-Bass (May 14, 2005)

In Canada, I think, and probably in the US, it is illegal to take picture of minors without parental consent. I know at my school, when we register for next semester, there are like 5 or 6 different forms about being in or sharing media with anyone (being in pictures, having a painting or something in the hallway) and I assume that there's a strict law. It's also so there are no gaps someone could file a lawsuit in. People these days look everywhere to file a lawsuit.


----------



## aghastpumpkin (May 15, 2005)

People sue if they get a mouldy chip at Maccy Ds.
Artemis - you shwoed me your magazine the other day with information regarding photography in other countries? Did that have anything about legality?

My brother went to The Gambia in Africa, where there is a strict law that no person may ever take photographic evidence of Memorials, National Monuments or suchlike. upon obtaining a picture of their National Monument, a large group of Gambia natives got very angry and demanded the negatives were destroyed.
They don't want Westerners publicising their National Identity, so to speak. They want it kept private.


----------



## Rob (May 15, 2005)

aghastpumpkin said:
			
		

> As far as I am informed, it is Illegal to take pictures of children without parental consent. It is also immoral to take pictures of peoples houses and personal property. There is, of course, a certain amount of leeway.



There aren't any laws against photographing children in public without consent, however, you've got the parents to contend with and it's not something I would attempt to do on the sly! Also, you are not easily going to sell any to image libraries without some kind of release.

I take loads of pictures of kids doing activities like feeding the ducks at the park. You wouldn't catch me hanging around a playground because of the obvious implication, but you couldn't be arrested for it (you'd be more likely to get beaten up in London!).

I think you're being a bit OTT with the word "immoral" to describe taking pictures of people's houses and property. There's very little which is actually public in the UK and taking pictures of individually or corporately owned properties - offices, houses, cars, whatever is about as average as you can get. It's nice to ask of course, but, it isn't exactly a requirement - it is after all, normally a compliment.

We all see things every day and it's our own responsibility to make judgements about what is morally acceptable and what is not - the law is concerned with protection, not morality. We could all make money taking pictures of celebrities making arses of themselves or whatever - if you don't like it, don't buy it or do it! It's a not a free country, but there's a good deal of flexibility here.


----------

