Re: Photography and the Law

"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
message news:NYmdnVm_IM_8vr7VnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm referring to English Law.
>
> I'm aware that the current laws on photography permit anyone to
photograph
> anything as long as it's in a public place (subject to the exclusions on
> photos of children at the beach and security installations.

No law saying you cannot photograph children (or anyone else for that 
matter) on a public beach.   Society tends to feel uncomfortable about 
children being photographed in that situation so most photographers tend
to 
steer clear.

> What is the case as regards photography in places where the public are
> generally permitted, but may or may not have to pay entry, or have the
> owners refuse to admit them for any reason. Assume that photography is
not
> expressly prohibited, what is the situation should someone end up being
in
> your photo but object to having their picture taken? Places like
> supermarkets, hotels, swimming pools, museums, down at your local pub,
etc
>

These places are "private property" and not public places.  You may be 
invited inside but you abide by their rules.  If they say no photos then
you 
should abide by that ruling.

> What is the situation regarding "model releases"? I understand that they

> are
> required for commercial photography, but aren't newspaper photos 
> considered
> as such? I'm sure Fred West (and other infamous individuals) didn't have

> to
> sign permission before the Sun could publish his "perp. walk".

You can photograph anyone in a public place as long as their photo is not 
used for commercial purposes.  If you wish to use that persons image for 
commercial purposes (i.e. to promote or advertise) then a model release
form 
is required.

MC