Re: Photography and the Law

On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:59:25 +0100, "Marcus Fox"
<please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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.

There is no prohibition on taking photographs of children on a beach
or any other public place, providing that the photograph is not
considered to be indecent.  Beware, because "indecent" can in practise
have an extremely flexible definition if a court believes that you
have taken the photograph for sexual purposes.

>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

If there is nothing that expressly prohibits photography, then the
situation is almost the same as if it were a public place.  The only
difference is that the owner or the agent of the owner of the property
has the right to tell you to stop.  They do *not* have the right to
take your camera or destroy photographs you have already taken or
photographs you take after you have been asked to stop.  Their only
recourse is to eject you from their property (and they may use
reasonable force to do so if you do not comply).  Even if there *is* a
sign prohibiting photography they only have that recourse available to
them.  It is not a criminal offence to disobey a "no photography" sign
on private property except when the *government* has mandated that
photography is illegal - e.g. at military bases and in certain areas
of airports and other security sensitive places.

>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".

AFAIAA the concept of model releases does not exist in the UK, BICBW.

-- 
Cynic