Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK
A brief guide for street photographers.
(© urban75, updated 16th April 2009)

Index of contents:
» Street shots
» People and Privacy
» Photographing children
» Photographing Buildings, Football Grounds and Interiors
» Tube and railway stations
» Trespass
» Obstruction, Public Order and Photographing Demos
» Deleting images
» Breach of the Peace
» 'Anti Terrorism' measures
» Photographing the police (Section 76)
» Your rights on arrest
» Info and legal advice
» Legal resources, case studies & related articles
» Photographing protests

Despite the law being clear on a citizen's rights to freely take pictures in public places (with a few restrictions) there is growing evidence of the police, police community support officers (PCSOs), security guards and general jobsworths failing to respect the rights of photographers going about their lawful business.

Following on from our recent article on UK photographers protesting about increasing police harassment, this article hopes to outline your legal rights as a photographer, whether you're taking snaps on a mobile phone camera or wielding a monster Nikon about.

Some material in this article has been sourced from the excellent - nay, indispensable - UK Photographers Rights website, which offers a downloadable PDF info file and ongoing legal feedback giving advice to photographers' questions. We strongly recommend you visit the site.

We've detailed some of the common points below, but bear in mind that this is intended purely as a rough outline of your rights and not a definitive legal statement. Some aspects of the law can be complex, changing and open to interpretation - with Scottish law sometimes carrying a different spin on clauses - so always seek proper legal advice if you get into trouble.

Please also read our Photographing protests feature which gives advice on backing up images, streaming video and keeping your photos safe at demos.

Street shots
If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely).

DPP -v- Jones (1999): The Court recognised that the public may enjoy a public highway for any reasonable purpose, provided it does not amount to public or private nuisance or obstruct the highway "by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and re-pass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway."

There's nothing stopping you taking pictures of people in pubic places within reason, but if you start shoving your zoom lens up their nostrils or taking action shots of their every step, there's a chance you might get a clip around the ear from your aggrieved subject or possibly face a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace.

Harassment is defined as a 'course of conduct' (so it has to happen at least twice) that causes another person 'alarm or distress', but we have to say that the bullying and aggressive antics of the paparazzi would suggest that prosecutions are few and far between.


Photographers are free to use their photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain.



Note: Professional photography is banned in London's Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square as well as the Royal Parks. If you start breaking out the tripods, glampussy models, make up crew, Winnebagos and huge lights and reflectors, expect a parkie to turn up on the scene pronto demanding a hefty fee. However, be a little more low key with your shooting and you should have no problems.



People and Privacy
UK laws are fairly vague when it comes to defining what constitutes an invasion of privacy, but while street shots should cause no problem, you might get in hot water if you're strapping on colossal telephoto lens and zooming in on folks stripping off in their bathrooms - even if you are snapping from a public place.

The key seems to be whether the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a statement that seems vague enough to keep a team of lawyers gainfully employed for some time.


With some countries having stronger privacy laws, UK snappers looking to commercially exploit images of recognisable people snapped without their consent may find international clients unenthusiastic unless a model release has been obtained.

There's also a remote chance that photographs of people in public places may be subject to the Data Protection Act, but that's pretty unlikely if there's no other identifying information accompanying the image.

Photographing children

There are no laws against taking photos of children, but someone taking an unhealthy interest can rightly expect to attract unwelcome attention from the authorities (and quite probably passers by) pretty sharpish.

Be also mindful that if you're taking pictures in areas where dodgy folks, drug dealers and ne'er do wells may be in view, they're unlikely to be pleased with the attention and probably won't be bothered about the niceties of the law in their response.

If someone asks you to stop take pictures of them, it's generally a good idea to do so.

Update: According to this blog, Home Office Minister Tony McNulty MP has commented on the current legal situation regarding privacy.

"There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

It is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and Police Community Support Officers are acting appropriately with regards to photography in public places, and any queries regarding this should be addressed to the Chief Constable.

However decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example to protect children. Any questions on such local decisions should also be addressed to the force concerned."



Photographing Buildings, Football Grounds and Interiors
Property owners have no right to stop people taking photos of their buildings, so long as the photographer is standing in a public place (e.g. the road outside).

However, if you're standing on private property and the landowner/occupier objects, then they have every right to request that you stop immediately and ask you to leave if you refuse.

Many museums, art galleries, football grounds, concert venues and similar places ban photography as a condition of entry, so you can hardly complain if you get turfed out after you've whipped out your camera.

The same applies to all private property open to the public in general - e.g. offices, shops, even your local chippy - with the owner or occupier having the right to demand that you stop taking photos and get the hell out.

Most shopping centres and malls stand on private land with many gaining a notorious reputation for speedily dispatching stroppy security guards demanding that you stop taking photos.

The irony that they're already busy filming you from every angle via a flotilla of CCTV cameras is generally lost on them.



Tube and railway stations
You do not need to ask permission in most circumstances, although that doesn't stop some security-obsessed jobsworths trying to stop you. However, it's worth checking with individual companies before snapping.

Network Rail's official line is that enthusiasts are very welcome and can be beneficial to security by providing extra 'eyes and ears.' All they ask is that people notify station staff and don't do anything silly like hanging over platform edges as trains are approaching, which isn't unreasonable.

Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal use. For any commercial photography, prior permission must be sought from the appropriate train operator or, from Network Rail at their 17 major stations. On busy stations the use of a tripod may cause a dangerous obstruction to passengers and you may be asked not to use one.

In addition, tripod legs must also be kept away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. Flash photography on platforms is not allowed as it may distract the attention of train drivers and train despatch staff and is therefore a potential safety hazard. You are also not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment such as CCTV cameras.
Guidelines for rail enthusiasts

Tube stations
Seeing as we've heard so many instances of people being hassled over this, here's the low down: non-commercial photography on tube stations is most certainly allowed - and if any busybody tries to tell you different, politely tell them to bury their head in part 10 of rule Sa109 in the Working Reference Manual:

10.1 Passengers can take photographs with small cameras for private purposes, provided flashlights and/or tripods are not used no obstruction or inconvenience is caused to staff and/or passengers.



Trespass
If you start stomping over private property taking photos without permission, you're committing a trespass, and the same applies to anyone who "interferes" with the property.

The "interference" law is a bit of a daft one and can be used for something as trivial as scrambling up a bit of wall to take a photo over the top or even resting your camera on a fence.

If you've been given access to property on the condition that your camera stays firmly in your bag, the second you start snapping you're no longer entitled to be on the land and are thus guilty of trespass (Scottish law differs in this regard).


Landowners, occupiers, security guards and bouncers etc are allowed to use 'reasonable force' to prevent a trespasser entering their property and they can also use reasonable force to eject a trespasser who is refusing to leave their land, but the law is very strict about what constitutes reasonable force.

This means that almost any violent attack would be unreasonable under the law, as would threatening someone with a knife, club, Ninja sword, Nunchaku, AK47, thermo-nuclear device or any other weapon.

Note: Property owners or their employees and security staff have no right whatsoever to confiscate or damage a photographer's camera or insist that images are deleted.



Obstruction, Public Order and Photographing Demos
Under UK law, it's a criminal offence to obstruct free passage on the highway and this includes footways, bike paths and roads.

If you're standing on a thoroughfare to grab a photograph and you're not impeding the movement of traffic or people to any degree, then you're absolutely within the law. Sadly, some protest photographers will be familiar with the Old Bill tactic of claiming that they're causing an obstruction in often the most frivolous of circumstances.


It may be a pain, but it's usually best to move yo' ass when asked as it's not uncommon for innocent photographers to be arrested for obstruction at demos - or even get their collars felt for supposedly obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.

Taking photographs is unlikely to amount to a 'breach of the peace' or be seen as 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace', but if you're stuck in the thick of a heated demo or street riot, you'll have to be careful that the police don't confuse you with the participants and treat you accordingly.

Deleting images
Security guards do not have stop and search powers or the right to seize your equipment or delete images or confiscate film under any circumstances. In some circumstances, the police may grab your film or memory cards but they are still not authorised to delete any images. After all, if you've committed an offence the images would act as evidence, and if you haven't broken the law, the images are innocent.



If you've a photojournalist card, wear it on a tabard so you can easily show it to the police if challenged, but if you're a freelancer you might find it harder to convince the cops that you're not one of the rampaging hordes.

The best advice is to keep your eyes open and to speedily back off when the police start to charge your way.

Note that there is no law preventing you taking photographs of the police at demos, unless there are any overriding security/law enforcement concerns.

Breach of the Peace
Another legal catch-all sometimes employed by the police against photographers refusing to leave a scene when doing their job is, "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace."

We can't think of any successful prosecutions of press photographers under this law, but it has certainly been used on occasion Police sued over stolen cameras.

Some legal precedents:
In R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383, Watkins LJ said "... we cannot accept that there can be breach of the peace unless here has been an act done or threatened to be done which actually harms a person or in his presence his property or is likely to cause such harm or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done." while in DPP v Percy [1995] 3 All ER 124, the court clarified that conduct could be breach of the peace if there was a real risk that it would elicit violence from a third party.

This could apply to a photographer hassling people in such a manner that he/she might elicit a violent response from those around them, although we'd suggest that this kind of offence would be extremely rare. Our advice would be to retire at a rate of knots when threatened with an arrest under breach of the peace.





Anti Terrorism measures
With the increasing paranoia over security and terrorism, photographers being have been increasingly challenged by police when taking photographs of potentially sensitive subjects like power stations, refineries, bridges and ports.

Photographers taking innocent photos of such places may find themselves being questioned about the nature of the business and the purpose of their photos, with the police citing the Official Secrets Act 1911 (that's pushing it) or the handy catch-all of The Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44 has been erroneously used several times by PCSOs to take details of photographers deemed to be acting 'suspiciously').
Section 44 information



Unless you've crawled into a nuclear bunker and have been caught red handed taking photos of things marked 'TOP SECRET' it's unlikely that you've actually broken any laws.

However, if you're snapping in an area that could be deemed sensitive, it's generally wisest to calmly answer their questions and put up with them rummaging through your camera bag - but remember they have no right to seize your equipment or demand that memory cards are deleted/confiscated.

For press photographers, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) national police-press guidelines makes their rights clear:

"Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and [police officers] have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record."

"It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

The guidelines also warn that any police officer who deletes a photographer's images could face criminal, civil or disciplinary action.


Photographing the police

In Feb 16 2009, the Commencement Order No 2 brings several sections of the Counter Terrorism Act 2009 into force including Section 76 which could make it an offence to photograph police officers at, say, a political demo.
Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime (BJP Jan 2009)

Protest against Section 76
» Scotland Yard, London, 16th Feb 2009

Justin Tallis, a London based freelance photographer and NUJ and BPPA member, was grabbed by a Metropolitan Police Forward Intelligence Team sergeant when photographing a Gaza protest against the BBC on Saturday 24th January 2009.

Tallis explains what happened:
"The police officer said 'let me have a look at that picture.' I said, 'No'. The police officer then said, 'You’re not allowed to take photos of police officers'. I then said, 'Don't be ridiculous of course I can take pictures of police officers'. The police officer then tried to take my camera from me.

After a bit of time I think the police officer realised he was in the wrong trying to forcibly take my equipment from me. He then got very close to me, way into my personal space, and said again 'you shouldn't have taken that photo you were intimidating me'. I think that if Marc had not been there taking these photos the situation could have ended very differently.
Via

UPDATE: 1st APRIL 2009. Parliamentary discussion
When questioned about the ramifications of section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said

"I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued."
Read the full transcript on the Hansard site

COMMENT: G20 POLICE FOOTAGE COULD BE GOOD NEWS FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS (Editor, 14th Apr 2009)
All the video and photographic leaking through into the mainstream from the G20 protests is going to make it really hard for the police to try and stretch anti-terrorism legislation to cover banning photography at future demos.

Surely even the most right wing media must now appreciate the importance of recording protests from all sides now.

Even if the police do try and implement terrorism laws to force photographers to hand over their cameras and video footage, new mobile streaming technologies will soon make it a redundant gesture.

Using fast 3G connections, protesters will be able to take movies/photos on their mobile phones and upload them directly onto YouTube from within the 'kettle,' so there's no way the cops can stop the footage getting out (unless they delve even deeper into their dodgy powers and force a mobile signal blackout - a move which would surely prompt questions from the general public).

Quite a few phones are already capable of uploading videos directly on to websites and as the technology becomes more commonplace it's going to become increasingly difficult for the police to try and suppress legitimate press and personal coverage of demonstrations.

MORE INFO:
Jail for photographing police? (BJP)
'I'm a Photographer... not a Terrorist'
Join the discussion:
Taking photos of Police to be considered a crime under terrorist legislation




Your rights on arrest
If you are arrested, keep calm and do not panic. Remember that you have the right to be treated fairly and with respect by the police.

When you are arrested you do not have to say anything to the police. BUT if you are later charged with a crime and you have not mentioned, when questioned, something that you later rely on in court, then this may be taken into account when deciding if you are guilty.

We suggest you respond with:
"I have been advised that I should answer no questions. It is not right that I should have to give a complete case for my self until charges have been made and properly explained and until there are other people around to check that questions put to me are fair and legal. I will say nothing until I am advised to do so by a fully qualified legal advisor."

There may be good reasons why you do not wish to say anything to the police, and you should not be intimidated into answering questions. Get a solicitor down to see you in the police station as soon as possible.

Remember that it is wise not to discuss the case with the police until you have consulted privately with a solicitor. If the police are about to arrest you or have already arrested you, there is no such thing as a 'friendly chat' to sort things out. Anything you say can later be used against you. Think before you talk.

Info and legal advice
Please check out out our legal rights section but bear in mind that this information is provided as a guide and we make no guarantees of its accuracy.

Always get proper legal representation if you get into bother with the law.



Legal resources
Your rights on arrest - legal help and useful information
Stop and search powers of Section 44, Terrorism Act 2000
Police complaints - legal help and useful information
Civilian Powers Of Arrest - overview
Standard Powers and Duties of Community Support Officers

Case Studies and related articles
Photographers protest against Section 76
Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime (BJP Jan 2009)
Tory MP stopped and searched by police for taking photos of cycle path (Telegraph Jan 2009)
Petition to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public (Sept 2008)
Home Secretary green lights restrictions on photography (BJP July 2008)
Are photographers really a threat? (Guardian June 2008)
"Street photography is illegal in the town" (Apr 2008)
Innocent photographer or terrorist? (Apr 2008)
Photographers being arrested to seize evidence: NUJ (Mar 2008)
Birmingham police 'forced press photographer to delete images' (Mar 2008)
Street photographers fear for their art amid climate of suspicion (Mar 2008)
Police order photographer to 'delete' pictures (Feb 2008)
Anger at police statement on 'covert' photography (Jan 2008)
Police admit being 'overzealous' in Christmas lights fiasco (Nov 2007)
Police 'stop and quiz' press snapper under Terrorism Act (Nov 2007)

More information:
UK Photographers Rights (downloadable PDF downloadable file)
UK Govt petition to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public (deeadline 13 Sept 2008).
Association of Chief Police Officers national police-press guidelines
Photographers' Rights in the US, the UK and Australia

USA
The Photographer's Right (US guide)
New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it? (US guide)
War on Photography (US blog)
Union Station: photographers hassled

AUSTRALIA
Photographer Rights (PDF file)


Further discussion:
You are welcome to discuss the issues on our bulletin boards Photographers rights in the UK: discussion. Please note that you will have to register to post comments (it is free).

Also: Photographing protests in the UK - advice on backing up images, streaming video and keeping your photos safe



Disclaimer
This article attempts to be a brief educational guide to the sometimes-complex matter of your rights as a photographer. It is not legal advice. Interpretations of the law can change over time, so we strongly recommend consulting the UK Photographers Rights website for updates and immediately seeking out proper legal advice if you encounter problems.


« Back to photo mag