Photography & the law in the UK

[condyk]

I have seen a number of 'discussions' about the right to take photographs in different places and some people in particular complaining about 'some UK law' preventing them taking photo's of children, however innocent the intention.

As an ex social worker who had the dubious 'pleasure' of having to work with some sex offenders and seen the impact their actions have on small children, I have little sympathy for many opinions I have seen on this topic. As in many situations the choices and actions of the few end up impacting upon the freedom of the many: well, that's just tough as far as I'm concerned!

Nevertheless, as I had some time I thought I would find out the facts rather than accept gossip as fact. So, here is a useful download and link to discussion where the document author elaborates on the situation, specifically re. images of children.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

[nitsch]

Thanks for the link Dave, it certainly helps to clarify the facts.

[neil_r]

I have little sympathy for many opinions I have seen on this topic. ....... well, that's just tough as far as I'm concerned!


Spoken like a true social worker.......

I have two grown sons (One 23 the other 19 ) I have a full photographic record of their growing up including many group photographs of them with their peers. If my house were to burn down tonight those photographs would be the first thing I saved.

I fail to see why the activities of what must be a very very small minority of people should influence or change the behaviour of society.

N

[condyk]

Spoken like a true social worker.......


:rolleyes:

[David1943]

It's a refreshing change to see a social worker talking common sense for a change. Maybe that's why you're an ex social worker though.

[condyk]

It's a refreshing change to see a social worker talking common sense for a change. Maybe that's why you're an ex social worker though.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Well there is certainly something in that.

[bikerider]

Spoken like a true social worker.......

I have two grown sons (One 23 the other 19 ) I have a full photographic record of their growing up including many group photographs of them with their peers. If my house were to burn down tonight those photographs would be the first thing I saved.

I fail to see why the activities of what must be a very very small minority of people should influence or change the behaviour of society.

N

Perhaps some Social Workers! I don't agree with Condyk either but I work with some very fine SW's and Early Childhood staff who would also disagree with changing society to control a minority of offenders. How much freedom are people prepared to lose in the name of control?
Roger.

[dewmuw]

This is a true story.

Couple of months ago I was shopping in JJB Sports and was browsing the football tops (LFC of course) and a little girl, maybe aged 6, came over and said "hello". I have a 5 and a 2 year old and said "hello" back and smiled. A woman then appeared and shouted at the girl "Lauren get here now! That man could grab you and hurt you." About 10 people in the store turned and looked at me. I shrugged my shoulders and made a "not me" kind of gesture and the left. The security guard followed me out of the store and watched me walk away.

With that type of mentality going about it is not surprising that many people, including myself, feel a bit concerned about taking photographs of kids other than their own.

[neil_r]

I have just read my earlier post and feel that I need to explain what, on re-reading , appears to be a rather rude statement from me.

I do not agree with condyk, I accept that there are some terrible people around who do terrible things but do we, as a society, have to completely change the way we behave. Sledge hammer / knee jerk legislation, whilst making it look like we are tackling a problem seldom resolves it. The banning of hand guns in the UK as a direct result of one horrendous incident, has not reduced gun crime it has simply prevented many law abiding citizens the opportunity of pursuing their chosen sport (the British target shooting team have to practice in Belgium and when the Commonwealth Games were held in the UK the British team had to hand the guns to the Army for safe keeping overnight )

There is a growing tendency in this country to over react to issues and this is heightened by the tabloid press homing in on the more salacious stories and reporting on them with almost voyeuristic relish, they then take a holier than though attitude and issue a clarion call to arms to galvanise their readership into action, thereby demonstrating their own influence and power.

I apologise for the “Spoken like a true social worker” comment but lines like

I have little sympathy for many opinions I have seen on this topic
and
well, that's just tough as far as I'm concerned!

Smack of that awful mummy knows best attitude of the terrible nanny state we are becoming (10 out of 10 for that mixed metaphor).

Regards and respect to all

N

[2goldens]

Very interesting. I didn’t know that such laws exist. My wife is a third grad school teacher and I have gone to her school and took over 300 photographs of the children and made a picture book for a retiring principle. The book was given to him at his retirement party as a gift. I never thought about this topic. Thanks.

[dewmuw]

Neil - I agree with a lot of what you say. It always makes me smile to see that I cannot go to Sainsburys and by more than 12 paracetamol tablets for fear that I may overdose myself. Has anyone actually been prevented from doing so by this stupid law? There are many other such instances.

You are correct about media creating hysteria - remember the Paediatrician who was attacked by a gang shortly after the Mirror ran its 'name and shame' campaign. The gang thought that he was a child molester because he had paediatrician written on his door!!!!

[Sean-Mcr]

My brother's a social worker dave, and he doesn't actully agree with you. We've spoke of it a few times. It's got to a point where many schools are now not allowing people to record the xmas play. Sorry but that really is the nanny state.

Most abuse happens in the home that's the sad fact about child abuse. The danger is normally much closer to home

[bikerider]

Well said Neil, you're right on the money! In my previous post I was goign to rant a bit about politics, the media and the current media promoted hysteria and the so called 'war on terror' but I remembered the rules of this forum-no religion or politics to be discussed. It's difficult sometimes to stay away from these subjects when so many issues seem interconnected. With that said I'll leave it there.
Roger.

[condyk]

I agree with the sentiments expressed here myself and apologies if anyone was offended. I accept that my original post was very clumsily written. I meant to say that if we operate within the actual law, i.e. understand what it is and act accordingly, then we have hopefully nothing to worry about.

I intended to counter the 'Sun Says' style opinions that I have seen elsewhere, on what people think is the law, by signposting to the actual law, as it relates to photography generally and photography of other peoples children. Hopefully, the document is useful.

[David1943]

I dislike my own picture being taken without my permission, so why should we expect children to be targets for any stranger who wishes to aim a camera at them?

[Sean-Mcr]

How would somome one like Bresson have made their name if they had to tap people on the shoulder and ask if it was ok to take a photo?. Some of the world's greatest artists would never have seen the light of day if the if they had to do that...

[condyk]

It's known that Bresson was a damn fine sprinter :lol: :lol: I am sure he suffered once or twice for his art.

[Sean-Mcr]

Well you know my story Dave:)

[David1943]

It's known that Bresson was a damn fine sprinter :lol: :lol: I am sure he suffered once or twice for his art.
Makes me smile though how there are candids of tramps and old ladies on some other forums but seldom, if ever, pictures of yobs with cans of lager in their hands.

[David1943]

How would somome one like Bresson have made their name if they had to tap people on the shoulder and ask if it was ok to take a photo?. Some of the world's greatest artists would never have seen the light of day if the if they had to do that...
Aren't you straying from the point somewhat? We're not talking about great artists but men with cameras being deterred from hanging around childrens' playgrounds taking pictures of children.

If I saw anybody taking a candid picture of a child of mine, you can bet I'd want to know why in a hurry!

[dewmuw]

Aren't you straying from the point somewhat? We're not talking about great artists but men with cameras being deterred from hanging around childrens' playgrounds taking pictures of children.

If I saw anybody taking a candid picture of a child of mine, you can bet I'd want to know why in a hurry!
I think you prove Neil's point. There simply aren't many people hanging round children's playgrounds taking photographs for nefarious reasons.

From what I understand paedophiles are not likely to be the dirty rain-coat wearing loners that the tabloids like to paint them as.

I have two kids and I am less worried about people taking photographs of them in the playground than I am about them cutting themselves on the broken glass that the yobs leave there ever Friday night.

[Sean-Mcr]

Aren't you straying from the point somewhat? We're not talking about great artists but men with cameras being deterred from hanging around childrens' playgrounds taking pictures of children.

If I saw anybody taking a candid picture of a child of mine, you can bet I'd want to know why in a hurry!

That's the stereotypical image of some old guy in a trench coat at some railings with a camera.


That's not what photography is about. Canid photography is one of the most artistic forms of photography. Children are people. I've shot loads of kids and their parents have been with them and i've never had a single word said to me. Infact took mails after and sent them on

Sadly my brother can't take photos of his daughter playing net ball, or at the school play. That's a world gone mad, and sadly you can bet your life that the majority those sick images that are out there on the net are not shot by strangers, it's far closer to home.

[dewmuw]

That's the sterotipical image of some old guy in a trench coat at some railings with a camera.

That's the point I was trying to make.


Sadly my brother can't take photos of his daughter playing net ball, or at the school play. That's a world gone mad, and sadly you can bet your life that the majority those sick images that are out there on the net are not shot by strangers, it's far closer to home.

At my son's Christmas play (he's 5) the school would only allow cameras and video equipment in if you signed a disclaimer absolving the school from any future legal action should the photos be used for any criminal or money making activity!!

[Sean-Mcr]

As someone said, it's tabloids whipping up fear as it sells papers. Who remembers the paediatricians window that got put through because some ignorant idiot thought it has something to do with being paedophiles:rolleyes:


World gone mad

[Sean-Mcr]

Dewmuw,

Just realised i've brought up two things you already have. Only just realised:)

[dewmuw]

Dewmuw,

Just realised i've brought up two things you already have. Only just realised:)

Great minds..........:)

[Matatazela]

I have two young kids, so this issue is very close to home. I photograph them at home and with their friends, and have yet to take a pornographic image of a child, my own or someone elses.

I have to say that if it meant that there would be one less child that suffers the perversion of a paedophile, I will gladly stop taking pics. However, the unfortunate fact is that I am not a paedophile (not really so unfortunate, come to think of it) and that paedophilia will not be stopped by stopping people that are not doing it. Does that make sense?

There is a strong analogy to the gun control debate - does controlling law-abiding, licensed firearm owners reduce crime committed by illegal guns? The short answer is no. Not in South Africa, Not in the UK, and nowhere else either. Not ever.

If you could license cameras it would still not stop paedophiles. All you are doing is criminalising / demonising the guy going about his business in the sports shop, or me, taking photos of mychildren at a school play, etc.

The nanny state is protecting kids from the wrong people, instead of actually doing something about the people that are really the predators of our kids.

I will now go and photograph some animals, unless someone wants to stamp out bestiality...

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is the part that continues to freak me out completely...

That somehow.. no matter what the particular issue is du jour.. somehow the ownership and use of a Camera is becoming as controversial in some peoples minds as ownership of firearms... ???

This is a FRIGHTENING trend that is on the rise :shock:
...and I simply can not see the foundation for it.

[kenyc]

Spoken like a true social worker.......

I have two grown sons (One 23 the other 19 ) I have a full photographic record of their growing up including many group photographs of them with their peers. If my house were to burn down tonight those photographs would be the first thing I saved.

I fail to see why the activities of what must be a very very small minority of people should influence or change the behaviour of society.

N

Agreed.

KAC

[Matatazela]

I agree with you that the firearms / camera analogy is freakish.

If you legislate against something that might make someone a criminal (gun, knife, axe... camera), rather than criminalising the the miscreant, you run the risk of having a greater detimental impact on the law abiding user / owner than the criminal, who by definition doesn't give a hoot for any law anyway.

Guns are dangerous, but serve a very useful role when used properly, whether for self defence, as a detterent, as a hunting tool or whatever. (Please don't give all the anti-gun rhetoric - I will have to respond with how evil cameras can be!)

Cameras are also useful tools. However, when either falls into the wrong hands, we have a problem. The issue is not about controlling the tool, but about making the hands that use the tool accountable in every respect.

Controlling items such as guns has proven to be very expensive, time consuming and generates tons of paperwork and an administrative burden that any government is ill-advised to take on as a replacement for actual anti-criminal work.

Databases full of figures, facts and addresses are great only when these relate to criminals, not when it relates to thousands of law abiding, well-intentioned citizens. If you criminalise unregistered cameras, criminals will most certainly want to not register theirs, for obvious reasons.

Make no mistake, I agree that cameras and guns should never be discussed as in the same category. What I am saying is that we may be headed that way if people continue to stigmatise well-meaning photographers in publc places.

If you are thinking about taking away a paedophiles access to equipment, maybe we should be looking at surgery rather than cameras.

[kenyc]

I agree with you that the firearms / camera analogy is freakish.

If you legislate against something that might make someone a criminal (gun, knife, axe... camera), rather than criminalising the the miscreant, you run the risk of having a greater detimental impact on the law abiding user / owner than the criminal, who by definition doesn't give a hoot for any law anyway.

Guns are dangerous, but serve a very useful role when used properly, whether for self defence, as a detterent, as a hunting tool or whatever. (Please don't give all the anti-gun rhetoric - I will have to respond with how evil cameras can be!)

Cameras are also useful tools. However, when either falls into the wrong hands, we have a problem. The issue is not about controlling the tool, but about making the hands that use the tool accountable in every respect.

Controlling items such as guns has proven to be very expensive, time consuming and generates tons of paperwork and an administrative burden that any government is ill-advised to take on as a replacement for actual anti-criminal work.

Databases full of figures, facts and addresses are great only when these relate to criminals, not when it relates to thousands of law abiding, well-intentioned citizens. If you criminalise unregistered cameras, criminals will most certainly want to not register theirs, for obvious reasons.

Make no mistake, I agree that cameras and guns should never be discussed as in the same category. What I am saying is that we may be headed that way if people continue to stigmatise well-meaning photographers in publc places.

If you are thinking about taking away a paedophiles access to equipment, maybe we should be looking at surgery rather than cameras.

Well said.

KAC

[dewmuw]

I agree with you that the firearms / camera analogy is freakish.

If you legislate against something that might make someone a criminal (gun, knife, axe... camera), rather than criminalising the the miscreant, you run the risk of having a greater detimental impact on the law abiding user / owner than the criminal, who by definition doesn't give a hoot for any law anyway.

Guns are dangerous, but serve a very useful role when used properly, whether for self defence, as a detterent, as a hunting tool or whatever. (Please don't give all the anti-gun rhetoric - I will have to respond with how evil cameras can be!)

Cameras are also useful tools. However, when either falls into the wrong hands, we have a problem. The issue is not about controlling the tool, but about making the hands that use the tool accountable in every respect.

Controlling items such as guns has proven to be very expensive, time consuming and generates tons of paperwork and an administrative burden that any government is ill-advised to take on as a replacement for actual anti-criminal work.

Databases full of figures, facts and addresses are great only when these relate to criminals, not when it relates to thousands of law abiding, well-intentioned citizens. If you criminalise unregistered cameras, criminals will most certainly want to not register theirs, for obvious reasons.

Make no mistake, I agree that cameras and guns should never be discussed as in the same category. What I am saying is that we may be headed that way if people continue to stigmatise well-meaning photographers in publc places.

If you are thinking about taking away a paedophiles access to equipment, maybe we should be looking at surgery rather than cameras.

However...guns are designed to kill and injure, cameras are not.

As far as I am aware there has been no suggestion in the UK that cameras should be controlled, licensed or registered.

[Matatazela]

Sorry CDS, but the foundation that you do not see is that the use of cameras is beginning to be limited in public places, as was the carrying of firearms. More stringent controls followed that until all firearms were banned from private posession. At this time I believe that reason will prevail. However, the people in the UK also thought that reason and sanity would prevail in the case of firearms. It doesn't seem to have...

Could cameras and privacy issues lead to the banning of carrying cameras in public? I hope not. The proliferation of cellphone cameras has lead to their banning from many industrial sites, so why should this ban not be extended to public places, such as schools, hospitals, etc? These are areas where taking photographs may be undesirable. So when that happens and the problem isn't solved, ban their use in all public places. And when that fails?

Yes, this is paranoia. It has also become reality in many places due to the damage caused by firearms. And when all firearms are banned, it still has not solved the problems. So back to square one. Responsibility. Use your camera in a responsible way and go out of your way to not offend or cause suspicion.

The government should focus efforts on combatting actual crime rather than making criminals where there are none. It is the duty of the citizens to make sure the government hears this and acts accordingly.

Wow. I am on a rant!

Gotta get back to the animals!

[kenyc]

However...guns are designed to kill and injure, cameras are not.

.....


No, you are over-simplifying. Guns also serve to protect and deter without any killing or injuring. Guns like cameras are tools, what they are used for is in the hands of the one wielding them. I can use a camera as a weapon in several different manners, just as I can use a gun in many different manners.


KAC

[condyk]

The intention of this thread when I started it was to refer people to facts in relation to UK law governing use of a camera in the Uk and the issue of taking pictures of children. This to counter ignorance and misunderstanding. The thread is relevant to people living or visiting the Uk and, of course, to this forum.

Please start a new 'gun totin' thread should you wish to discuss related issues with people who are interested in guns and their holding or use. If Guns are not relevant to this forum then perhaps look to discuss them in a more appropriate place.

If you want nto discuss the philosophical basis of individual rights and the role of Government then again this is the probably the wrong place.

If we are talking about rights of photographers then seems to me quite appropriate.

[dewmuw]

No, you are over-simplifying. Guns also serve to protect and deter without any killing or injuring. Guns like cameras are tools, what they are used for is in the hands of the one wielding them. I can use a camera as a weapon in several different manners, just as I can use a gun in many different manners.


KAC
I'm not going to get into an argument, I know people's views of guns vary widely.
However, I think using the banning of handguns in the UK to suggest that cameras could go the same way is a specious argument.

One could just as easily suggest that the banning of guns in the UK is leading to the banning of smoking in public cases. The argument is an erroneous one.

Where we should have concern is that the banning of cameras in places like swimming pool changing rooms and hospital wards (quite rightly too if you ask me) could lead to an escalation of legislation under so called privacy laws. We already know that many celebrities are seeking a change in privacy laws in the UK to protect themselves from paps. My worry would be that any possible law would have implications for all photographers.

[Belmondo]

The intention of this thread when I started it was to refer people to facts in relation to UK law governing use of a camera in the Uk and the issue of taking pictures of children. This to counter ignorance and misunderstanding. The thread is relevant to people living or visiting the Uk and, of course, to this forum.

Please start a new 'gun totin' thread should you wish to discuss related issues with people who are interested in guns and their holding or use. If Guns are not relevant to this forum then perhaps look to discuss them in a more appropriate place.

Okay.

When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras. (Borrowed and somewhat modified from anti gun control types.)

Although I agree that this thread should not get bogged down into a firearm discussion, I think the comparison is valid.

There are people in the world who still believe that if you take their picture, you steal their soul. Although this is offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek, don't rule out the possibility that overreactive politicians might someday base an argument on limiting camera use on something no less ridiculous.

The debate will eventually boil down to this: Is your right to photograph great than a person's right not to be photographed, and can that argument then be extended to an individual's property?

Expect lawmakers to overreact. It's their nature.

[condyk]

I'll leave you guys to to it ... it's all Dukkha as far as I'm concerned :lol: :lol: :lol:

Usually a waste of time focusing on facts in any discussion.

[75D]

Where does this leave the TOURIST? Will there be signs posted where we can and cannot use our cameras? Will we be given notice when we arrive? Will we be arrested if we break the rules?
If I hadn't been a member of this forum I would not have heard about this situation. Granted most of my picture taking will be of scenery and historical places but there may be some kids around, will I have to ask then to move out of the picture or wait till they have gone? (That could also lead to some interesting situations).
It is very disturbing that the world has come to this state, but with the advance of technology it is now possible for anyone to manipulate a perfectly innocent picture into something compromising.
Most of the discussion seems to revolve around London, does the same apply to Edinburgh and Glasgow?
Thanks for the heads up and I will try and stay within the boundries that have been written about here.
I will find plenty to photograph out in the country side.

Wayne

[kenyc]

I'm not going to get into an argument, I know people's views of guns vary widely.
However, I think using the banning of handguns in the UK to suggest that cameras could go the same way is a specious argument.

One could just as easily suggest that the banning of guns in the UK is leading to the banning of smoking in public cases. The argument is an erroneous one.

Where we should have concern is that the banning of cameras in places like swimming pool changing rooms and hospital wards (quite rightly too if you ask me) could lead to an escalation of legislation under so called privacy laws. We already know that many celebrities are seeking a change in privacy laws in the UK to protect themselves from paps. My worry would be that any possible law would have implications for all photographers.

I don't think there was/is any intent to say that one (gun banning) is leading to another (camera banning), but that they are both "doing" the same thing, banning something in an attempt to solve a problem. An approach that might or might not work and might or might not be ill-advised. My thoughts are to address the laws to the problems, not the tools. Address criminals, not the tools they use.

KAC

[kenyc]

I'll leave you guys to to it ... it's all Dukkha as far as I'm concerned :lol: :lol: :lol:

Usually a waste of time focusing on facts in any discussion.

Well, the ol' "I'll take my football and go home if you don't play my way." doesn't do much to forward the discussion. :)

We'll do our best to carry on without you.

KAC

[dewmuw]

I don't think there was/is any intent to say that one (gun banning) is leading to another (camera banning), but that they are both "doing" the same thing, banning something in an attempt to solve a problem. An approach that might or might not work and might or might not be ill-advised. My thoughts are to address the laws to the problems, not the tools. Address criminals, not the tools they use.

KAC

I agree with you there. "Happy Slappin'" has become something of a craze over here and last week a boy was tied to a tree and assaulted whilst the incident was recorded on a mobile. The newspapers made out that his attack was because of mobiles - when in fact his assault was by bullies and that has been going on for years.

[Matatazela]

Just an apology from me to Condyk - the thread did get rather hijacked. I also went a bit to the extreme of where things may end up rather than focussing on the actual situation.

If it was my thread, I'd also be a bit disappointed. So, sorry Condyk! It was a very informative thread and thanks for that.

[Jonny]

The piece on the UK Law and the 'Model Release' was interesting....it seems you don't at present need one!

[WepWaWep]

Even though I am a US citizen, this has broad implications here also. We too are experiencing such ludicrous solutions that erode traditions and result in loss of expression. It is easy to be side tracked by spending too much time on minutia concerning described rights and privileges. But there is a deeper concern regarding the loss and/or regulation these rights I feel is more at the core of what is the crux of the matter.

Why do we photograph children and youth? Here we can capture the fleeting moments of innocence that will fade all to soon. Those days when the bloom is on the flower, when all is fresh and the world is new, still filled with wonders. All too soon those experiences end and all fades; through the lens, we remember and share this time and help preserve those days.

Yet with in ourselves remains the beast, the part that festers and retains the lessor parts of the being. For the vast majority, we understand and control the tendencies to unleash the demon. We see the child with in and the poet comes alive to celebrate this time of blossom. The young man as he learns to stand tall, to reach beyond his grasp, the young lady, learning confidence and taking those first steps of independence and the toddler, exploring a world that is still the great unknown. Our desire is to participate and cherish these moments while we reminisce on the fading days of glory that have passed. The act and the outcome are unique as they create the art of photography, not its base technique.

The child and the school play, the mad dash to the play ground, the dream at watching clouds and moments of sheer abandon that makes childhood so precious are under attack.

To not defend these rights against the ignorance of those who prefer not to fully grasp what is at stake can only result in the destruction of all that is noble with in us. Surely, we must bring into the light of day those who fear the clarity to judge the matter by finding proper means to control those who wish to degrade humanity to nothing more than the animal, the lower self.

[chris.bailey]

Our kids primary school bans any form of photography at school events unless all parents have signed and returned a disclaimer form. On the basis some parents at that school struggle to read and write, that just isn't going to happen. I find it hard to imagine that anyone 'gets off' on kids dressed in tea towels pretending to be Jesus and find it a great shame that I as a parent am unable to record these precious moments of childhood. That school also bans any form of competetive sport (everyone needs to think they are winners) and yet encourages private sports tuition where competition is a part of it. Madness!