Just got thrown out...

Basically im wondering what the rules and laws are for photographing celebs.

Today a film crew came to my village to film this Sundays episode of Sunday night's Project on Channel 4. There were some basic celebs including Will Young, if you are from the US then you wouldn't know who he is..

Well anyway, my mum pretty much sorts out the village since we get a lot of film crews here since its the most haunted village in england and so on. Well, since im trying to get into media she asked the production team before they came if i could take some photos for the village website. They said sure that wont be a problem.

Well they turned up today and I went along to meet them after they finished their first location. When I arrived they hadnt got there yet but I was told that I CANT take pictures of the celebs without consent from their agents. I was like, huh, im just here to take pictures for the village. Afterall you are filming here for free. She said I doubt I will be able to take anything because its the 'rules'.

I should add that they are at a place where i know very well, a local hotel where I am friends with the owners and my mother does a lot for.

The next thing one of the owners comes over and tells me to leave, I say hmm, sure ok and go to get back in the car. They he tells me 'NOW!' I say chill out, now need to be rude and leave.

The question is, what is the deal with having permission from the agents just to take some pictures, im sure the paparatzi dont have permission....

If its anything like here in the U.S., you have to abide by the owner's requests on private property (hotels, stores/malls, etc).

As far as celeb pics over here; I think as long as they are in public (or the photographer is standing in a public place using a 1200mm), they are fair game.

nw85887 wrote in post #5909547
As far as celeb pics over here; I think as long as they are in public (or the photographer is standing in a public place using a 1200mm), they are fair game.

If you're one of the ten people that own the 1200mm, you probably have bodyguards protection, wouldn't you?

hbdragon88 wrote in post #5909588
If you're one of the ten people that own the 1200mm, you probably have bodyguards protection, wouldn't you?

hehe.

Im just a little pissed off because I know them and they know me, he didnt go around the right way of asking me to leave..

If they are in public places they are fair game. You don't need their permission to take their photos and as long as the images are used for editorial use then you won't need a model release either. If you want to sell the images for stock or for private use then a model release would be needed.
If the people are on private property then you will need to seek permission.

Have a look at this:

http://www.sirimo.co.u​k/ukpr.php

michaelgreen78 wrote in post #5909813
If they are in public places they are fair game. You don't need their permission to take their photos and as long as the images are used for editorial use then you won't need a model release either. If you want to sell the images for stock or for private use then a model release would be needed.
If the people are on private property then you will need to seek permission.

Have a look at this:

http://www.sirimo.co.u​k/ukpr.php

Thanks, seek permission from who, I would think the property owner right?

nw85887 wrote in post #5909547
If its anything like here in the U.S., you have to abide by the owner's requests on private property (hotels, stores/malls, etc).

As far as celeb pics over here; I think as long as they are in public (or the photographer is standing in a public place using a 1200mm), they are fair game.

Only if they are "public figures", which being a celebrity should establish.

But you can't take a picture of just anyone on the street even if they are in a public place. Public figures are thought to have given up that right to privacy because their movements are now a matter of journalistic interest or some such.

I don't know if any of that applied in the UK, however.

Rick "noting that lots of paparazzi are indirectly in cahoots with the agent, and some of them get their noses punched" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #5910001
...But you can't take a picture of just anyone on the street even if they are in a public place...

Sure you can. A public space offers "no reasonable expectation of privacy."

To the OP, check out this current/active thread on the matter: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=534785

+1 to DN.
"no reasonable expectation of privacy." - now what you can do with the images w/o a release is another matter.

^ Exactly. You can't just take a picture of someone and use it in a billboard ad, famous or not.

polarbare wrote in post #5910110
...now what you can do with the images w/o a release is another matter.

That was the matter of concern to me, but you're right.

Rick "who has taken lots of pictures of the public without permission" Denney

yeah. photographing hot chicks in public is totally legit.

Several issues at play...
1. Photographer being on the property of someone, and being asked to leave
2. Subject(s) being in a public setting, and expecting privacy (or not)
3. Photographer's utilitization of photo for purposes which causes monetary gain or which promotes their own business

You fell victim to #1, plain and simple. If you had not been asked to leave, then the subject(s) would not have reason to expect privacy, and you would in turn have no rights for use of the photos because of no modelling release and no property release.