On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:29:18 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:59:25 +0100, "Marcus Fox"
> 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 .ual 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.
The "concept" might not exist but model releases certainly do and are
used extensively for glamour and adult work . |