Wed, June 23rd, 2004 by andre
A great little one-pager that lists your rights as a photographer. Initially reported by BoingBoing.net. Grab the 148k PDF here before their server explodes destroying all within a two mile radius.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004 at 7:12 pm
and is filed under Photography Tips.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
June 23rd, 2004 at 10:55 pm
Interesting text, for the US that is.
German residents might consult http://www.fotorecht.de/ for similar informations. Not in a nutshell, though, but still important to know.
June 23rd, 2004 at 11:31 pm
Wow thats really interesting. Has anyone ever found information about this for Aussies?
June 24th, 2004 at 3:37 am
Thank you for posting this! Terrific information. I wonder if public schools counts as public property? Hmm... probably not. I used to work as a tutor and several of us got in trouble for trying to take pictures of the kids we were working with.
June 24th, 2004 at 5:51 am
I'd also be interested to hear if anyone knows of an equally comprehensive summary of UK law.
June 24th, 2004 at 8:40 am
I've done web searches for photographers, rights, photography and the law etc. for Australia but haven't come up with anything concrete yet Jinky. I'd be interested to see where we stand here too!
June 24th, 2004 at 9:04 am
Yesterday I was walking down Yonge St in Toronto, and I came across a nice storefront filled with gorgeous white dresses. Normally that wouldn't really be photo-worthy, but written on the glass in front of this display was "Menswear Summer Collection". I thought this was funny, so I started to take a picture. A guy came running out of the store a said "excuse me, you can't take pictures of our dresses".
I asked why, and he said because they were "one of a kind".
I told him if he didn't want people to know what his dresses looked like, he probably shouldn't have them on display on Yonge St.
I'd love to know if (in Canada) he had a right to tell me what I could photograph while I was standing on the sidewalk.
June 24th, 2004 at 9:14 am
If you were outside his store he technically can't stop you.
June 24th, 2004 at 10:02 am
That's what I though Rannie, thanks. But, do you by any chance have a source for legal info about this stuff in Canada (or in Toronto, if it's a by-law thing)?
June 24th, 2004 at 10:46 am
Hey Matto, did the dress shot turn out to be blogworthy?
June 24th, 2004 at 10:55 am
I never got the shot! I was setting exposure when he pounced.
I think I'll go back and take it though, just out of spite.
June 24th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
~if that server blows up let me know, I work for a managed services/data center IT company, we also sell connectivity...lol~
June 25th, 2004 at 11:21 am
Looks like the server exploded. Any chance of posting it here?
June 25th, 2004 at 11:21 am
Well...once, a few years back, my brother and I were out in the country taking photos of some old factory. (We were not on private property, but shooting from the road.) A couple of large, thug-like guys drove up and told us, in a not-so-polite way, to get lost. I have no idea what they were so worried about, but they were clearly uncomfortable with us wandering around the perimeters of the property with cameras. Of course, we were within our rights...but we weren't in the mood to press the issue.
I am pretty wary of shooting pictures of people I don't know, especially kids. A photojournalist in our city was taking photos of kids playing in a park a few years back, and was beaten very badly by a mob of people. My brother works for the same paper and says you need to be careful. He's been hassled at malls and schools when out on assignment, and he's got a press pass with a reputable and rather large newspaper.
I think the general feeling I get from those guidelines is that it is important to be aware of your rights and not let anyone push you around (especially annoying Rent-A-Cops or other officious idiots); however, if your personal safety is in jeopardy, you need to evaluate how important it is to get the photo. It usually is not worth a fight.
June 25th, 2004 at 4:17 pm
I was yelled at by a very angry mother recently for taking pictures of her kids in a public ark. She was admamant that because her children were under 16, I had to have her permission. Though I was pretty unnerved at the time ("No ma'am," I wanted to explain, "I am not the pervert you obviously think I am."), I managed to say that I thought she was wrong about that. And then I immediately deleted the pictures I'd taken. I have no interest in using pictures that a parent didn't want me to take.
I'd also be interested in more info on photographers' rights under Canadian law.
June 25th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
"park," not ark.
June 26th, 2004 at 10:28 am
USA: "The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1581152256/104-6505008-7031168?v=glance
UK: The Photographer & The Law, by Don Cassell. Found occasionally on eBay.
June 26th, 2004 at 10:46 am
My understanding of the current situation in England & Wales is this...
non-commercial photography of people (inc. children) in a public place / openly public event is perfectly legal. As is publication of those images - ever seen a newspaper photographer wait for a month or two while he gets the "permissions signature forms" back for street photography? No - the pics are published in the paper within hours.
There are a few places in a public place / street where someone might claim they had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" - eg a courting couple in some very dense bushes in a secluded area of a park, or children playing in a "den" in thick bushes, where human rights laws relating to privacy might (but only might) be judged to be in force.
Even taking (still less publishing) images which might be judged indecent or obscene is an obvious no-no, and to do so in a public place could also be interpreted by an over-zealous policeman as 'inciting a breach of the peace' etc if there were people around who might "take offence" - an example might be taking "glamour shots" in a park in what is locally seen as a "Muslim area".
Photographing military and sensitive goverment buildings at a time of war, with all the obvious concerns about terrorism, is foolhardy.
Your photos must also not be defamitory. Imagine taking a street shot of a massage parlour frontage, and then publishing it in an article about prostitution - only to find that that seedy bloke in the image is actually a reputable local councillor who just happened to be passing by. You're up for a libel action if you publish, and for defamation even if you show it around at a local camera club.
Windows through which one can see into private residences - ie "through the curtains" shots, are a no-no, even if taken from public roads etc. Those taken inside private family residencies should have written permission. 'Architectural shots' of family homes shouldn't identify the street name or number if published.
Many 'public' buildings run by local authorities also have draconian restrictions/bans on taking photos. Quite how 'legal' these are is open to debate.
Photos should not contitute or be part of a campaign of "harrassment" of a person. The act of taking photos can, in some circumstances, be judged to be an incitement to a 'breach of the peace' - eg, if you take photos of bunch of drunken rowdies or an aggressive neighbour, then in the eyes of a police officer you could be 'inciting' them to run after you and beat you up!
June 29th, 2004 at 6:50 am
I am working at a lawyers office this summer, and discussed this problem with one of the lawyers, who is expert in this area. He said that the same copyright laws goes for almost every country in the world. Except from maybe 20 lawless countries.
And the law is that the moment you take the photo, it is yours and no-one can use it. If you display it on your website, you do not have to write a copyright notice, but the copyright notice will make it easier to "punish" the one who has stolen your work.
And if discover someone that has stolen your work, and using it on his/her website, you can contact the administrator of the website, or the one who is responsible for the server, and send a shutdown message, which tells him to remove the site at once.
And these laws goes for almost every country in the world. But the USA has had a slightly different system beside from the others, but by this day, most laws are equal.
June 29th, 2004 at 11:02 am
My girlfriend worked for the local city department of urban planning. One of their projects is to photograph pretty much all of the city to put in a database for future reference. People who are taking photographs are told that legally they CAN take photos of anything they want to as the person taking the photograph is on public property. That includes photographs that look into people's houses. That is pretty unsettling to me.
July 2nd, 2004 at 8:02 pm
Yesterday was Canada Day. I was on the city bus heading into town when the bus was stopped by police. They were checking all bags of all people on all buses for alcohol. Anyone found with booze had to proove they were 19, or have it dumped out. This was well before the alcohol free venue, and I don't think the police were allowd to search us, but thats beside the point.
I pulled out my camera to take a couple of shots, when one of the cops turned and started to scream at me. He told me that if I didn't put that camere down immediatly he would smash it then and there. I'm almost certain he doesn't have than kind of authority, but I didn't doubt he would do it. I didn't want the hassle or to risk loosing my camera so I let the issue drop.
Does anyone know if that cop had the right to threten me or carry through with that threat?
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:51 pm
That's bizarre, fascist behaviour. No they do not have the right to make such threats.
Honestly, that's completely unbelievable. What police force? How many were on the bus? What venue were you heading to? And, did you get any pics?
July 3rd, 2004 at 7:20 am
Heh... yeah... did you get any pics? That was one of my first thoughts.
It does kind of get my blood-pressure up when I hear about this type of stuff. Makes me think it is everyone's own responsibility to know their rights. There will always be ignorant law-enforcement types... so knowing your rights and being able to verbalize those rights might protect you from situations like this in the future.
July 3rd, 2004 at 5:52 pm
I got a couple of pretty bad shots on the bus, but none of the cop that was thretening me. It was Saanich Police Department, in Victoria BC (Canada), on the way to our Canada Day celebration in the inner harbour. I'll post the picts that I did get tonight.
July 3rd, 2004 at 11:10 pm
In Victoria? Nice calm Victoria?
Crazy.
July 6th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
So recently I worked for a summer Music Festival, I got a photo pass to get shots of most of the bands. However recently I have been getting e-mails from an anonymous person who is assuring me that I will be sued if I do not take the pictures down. A snipped from her e-mail is below.
A photo pass allows you to shoot for a the event it's self or for a real media publication. The pass does not allow you to shoot and post on your website for others to see and download. By doing so you are opening yourself and SC up to legal action.
My name matters little, I will tell you that I am on the Board of Summer Celebration and I will be passing this onto Joe Austin for further action."
Now I'm pretty sure that I am fine with posting these pictures since it is an online publication which could be constituted as a daily photography publication. Any other thoughts from others? I'm located in the United States.
September 6th, 2004 at 8:25 am
I encountered a similar, over-zealous policeperson in Leeds, UK, a while back. I was just out and about with my camera at night when i came across what might have been a nice shot of a few policepeople who had just busted a couple of asian guys for smoking weed. The scene with the lights and silhouettes all looked rather nice, but as i bagen to frame it in my viewfinder, one of said rozzers approached me. After calling me shaggy and trying to intimidate me, he said that in taking a picture containing him I was breaching his 'uman rights and if i proceeded he would confiscate the camera. As i was alone and not up on the law surrounding this area, i chose not to defy his request. He also mentioned that i needed a special order allowing me to take photographs in public spaces. Is anyone able to give me an idea of my rights of photography in public spaces in the UK, or give me a link to a site that is useful for this? It would be much appreciated.
October 12th, 2004 at 12:25 pm
Is there an actual law prohibiting me from snapping photos at a rock concert. I know the tickets always say "no cameras etc." . . . but as a beginner, I would like to know if I can. I know the bands/promoter can put a security clause in their contract saying they don't want cameras in the stadium; but is there an actual law or is it just a "suggestion". If I'm paying $130.00 to go and see a concert, I want a few photos for my album. I do not sell them, they are just for my scrapbook. Can the security guards take away my camera? I phoned the stadium the concert is to take place and he filled me in on the mumbojumbo; but again, any law to back it up?
July 27th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
What is the photo credit application on a paid photograph? A photograher was paid to take a picture for a print ad, it was delievered and paid for. Now the that the photograhper sees the ad in print, he wants a photo credit. There are three other photos in the ad that were taken by others. Any comments?
September 22nd, 2005 at 7:57 pm
On the subject of a public place... In Canada, the Criminal Code defines a public place as "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied." So that would include areas which are defined as public property, such as parks, streets, stadiums, etc, and commercial venues such as bars, restaurants, malls, and so forth.
(Side note: In fact, in laws pertaining to prostitution, the definition of a public place is extended to include a privately owned motor vehicle situated in a public place!)
If the general rule applies, then a photographer is within his or her rights to take a photo just about anywhere. It's worth noting, however, that in Canada, in order to (commerically, at least) publish a photograph of a person where that person is clearly the true subject of the photograph, you must obtain that person's consent. However, if that person is part of a crowd or, beyond the ability of the photographer, ends up in a shot taken in a public place, consent is not required.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I am having trouble with a local photographer who, I feel, keeps targeting my children in his photos that he advertizes on the web for sale. I am horribly disturbed by this behaviour. I have asked him once already to remove their pictures from his website, which he did asap. Now, once again, I have asked him to remove their pictures and he is now being very rude and may or may not comply. In a town of 2,500 people you would think he can now recognize who my children are? Any suggestions?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Suggestion: Stop being a hen. He's allowed to do this.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Excuse me? He most certainly is not.
If he's using images of your children for commercial purposes then he needs your permission. It's not a criminal matter it's civil but if he's constantly photographing your children even after you have told him not to then you could probably complain to the police about harrassment.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:31 am
I live in Leeds UK and this is for the person who aksed about law in the uk.
your quick judgement on not snapping the obviously law clueless police officer was a good one as many a police officer are bored of there job and just want some one to direct there bordome at.
on the law side of it you were in your right to snap this scene the police officer probably would of tried to talk you round to being in the wrong (which he did anyway) and if you kept going im sure they would of taken you to the station but fear not as this is all they could of done, they do this to scare you.
pretty much 80/90% of people who join the police force do so because they were bullied in school or past work and want some control and power over people.
i ride bmx and alot of the time i get stick from police with stuff like "get a bigger bike" or "grow up and get a car" ok so there has been a handfull of them who are actually nice and polite and understand your not a criminal or drug taker and are just enjoying yourself.
the situation you had really comes down to personal want for that shot sure you might have had some stick from the bobbies but you have your rights you were in public space which means there fair game!
July 30th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I was recently stopped by a security guard and told I was not allowed to take photographs at a train station in Southern California. When asked why, the security guard claimed it was not legal since 9/11.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:04 am
To Mute. Who is harressing who?
Even if the photographer was told not to take the pictures the woman has no right to force this on the photographer unless the photographer signs a written form of what she asks. If he wasn't that stupid to sign anything like this than in this case he is being harrassed by that woman since the photographer took the shots in a public place and for that he has unrestricted right to do so.
December 16th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
i wanted to take photos of policemen, paramedics etc... for a uni project and i have found out that it is illegal to do so if you take a photo that includes their number!!! if you take a photo that does not include their number then it is legal to do so.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Back to the Canadian cases:
1) Photography of a public place is totally fine.
2) Photography of an incident with police in a public place is fine, as long as you are not obstructing justice.
3) Photography inside OR into a private place (a store) is not allowed... however, the "into" I do not have any cases, but they seem more for paparazzi rather than a store display.
4) Photography of a subject (a person) is okay; however, if the image is used for commercial purposes, permission is required by competent person - the adult person him/herself, or the parent/guaradian of a minor (under 18 in Canada). On top of that, if the image is used in a "hard news" story, or the image of that of a celebrity, permission is not required.
5) Back to #3, so if you are in a rock concert, did you have to enter through doors or security gate? Then you are in a private place. Is there signs at the entrance and on your tickets that says no photography? I believe you are now in breach of both the Criminal Code and every province and territory's contract laws. No they are not suggestions, but luckily contract law is based on lawsuits, criminal law... well that's another matter.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
New photo laws proposed for canada...
Photography Issues
The bill will propose changes to harmonize the treatment of photographers with other creators in terms of authorship and copyright ownership. This would remove impediments on the ability of photographers to commercialize stock photography commissioned by commercial entities such as news services and advertising agencies. At the same time, the interests of consumers in the use of photographs commissioned for domestic purposes (e.g., wedding photos) would be protected.
Proposed Amendments:
In all cases, the photographer would be considered the author of his or her photograph.
In all cases, the term of protection for photographic works would be the life of the author plus fifty years.
First ownership of copyright in commissioned photographs would now rest with the photographer, but an individual that commissions a photograph for personal or domestic purposes would, subject to an agreement to the contrary, be able to make personal and non-commercial uses of that photograph.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 am
Raymond, still with Canada, do you have sources for your information please and also perhaps, information pertaining publishing (posting on a website) photos of individuals taken while both they and the photographer were in public places..ie: street photography..festival...sports etc..
thanks
February 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I was with a company that pretty much went up in smoke. A disgruntled client of mine looked up my address and waited for me to walk out my door. I live in a townhouse and was on the companies driveway and the client pulled up in a van and snapped a picture of me (I later found out) and posted it on a website attached to a fraud website about the company that previously worked for...plus they recently took a picture from my own website and posted links from the fraid website to my own personal business websites...any thoughts???...by the way GREAT BLOG!!!!
February 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I am in Ontario also...by the way...
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Some guy in Toronto did some research into the area of Photography Law in Canada (specifically in Toronto) but as far as I can tell it pertains to all of Canada (excluding Quebec because they use French Civil Law instead of British Civil Law like the rest of Canada)
Good reading
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml
May 14th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Today I had to delete picture with the nice car I took on the schoolyard - because woman showed up and told me that "Here in canada" I was not allowed to take picture if license plate is visible. Now I feel that my evening is ruined. I should print my rights of photographer and give a copy to such people.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
First off let me start by letting you know I am an RCMP officer in Canada and an avid amateur photographer so I have both personal and professional experience in this subject matter.
That website (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml) is the perfect reference for this exact discussion as it pertains to Canada. From what I read on it and what I know, it is completely correct.
Police officers for the most part are just trying to do their job. Even though sometimes they may act a little overt in the enforcement of such they ultimately are just trying to do the right thing. Please bear this in mind when one approaches you.
From what I understand as a police officer in uniform my picture can be taken whether I like it or not. Even though I understand I'm news worthy when I'm working, I personally do not like it for the following reasons:
- Criminal organizations collect photos of police officers in uniform in an attempt to create a database to identified future or potential undercover officers (Yes, search warrants conducted on clubhouses or "hide outs" have proven this time and time again)
- Police officers work through the ranks normally starting off their careers as street uniformed cops but they may eventually do undercover work. Having your face published or photographed can prove to be fatal if the right person sees the picture.
- Police officers are very suspicious people by nature of the job and it seems odd to us why someone would want a photograph of our face other then to do us harm.
- The media in this day and age has a knack for twisting stories WAY out of context. Given this, we all look to them with a little bit of caution because we have seen it far too often where an officer while acting within the law does something which is put to a negative light in the media. The end result causes a lot of turmoil to the officer and likely his family (if his name is published) even though he was simply just doing his/her job.
(NOTE: I'm not referring to incidents where officers went "above and beyond" the law or acted unlawfully)
Just keep that in mind when snapping a photo of a police officer. I usually always give permission for someone to snap a photograph of me if they ask me first. Hell, I've even posed for pictures in uniform before. It's just the polite thing to do.
As far as the above post goes about the police officer on the bus telling the photographer that he would "smash his camera." I can tell you the police have no legal right to "smash" your camera, they may seize it if authorized by law (only example I can think of is it contained evidence of a crime) but they most certainly cannot smash it or damage it pursuant to any law. That being said, there are good cops and there are bad cops (just like any profession). It is best not to push the issue...
Best advice I can say is obtain the officer's name and regimental (most Police Acts across Canada require officers to provide this when asked) and complain to the specific department.