legal question, photo's, children n permission etc

[Tina]

Hi all,
We are doing a dispaly at MK library this Saturday, apparently last year a member had a problem with a parent, see below

This is what she says ' I was taking photos last year during the show and one woman came up to me and asked if I could delete any that had her children in the background as she didn't give permission. I showed her the pictures I'd taken and there was one with her kid (back view and unrecognisable) and I had to delete it. '.

SO is this a legal obligation ?, an overzealous parent ?, should you tell them to go away politely ?,
If its a public event and your not interacting with the child, they are just getting in the way of your shot, how do we stand ?, anyone know , no silly guesses please.

[Tony R]

Taking Photographs in a Public Place - Police Advice

Taking photos in a public place is not illegal. The only time an offence is committed is if the photographs being taken are considered to be indecent.

There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people's children.

It is an offence to take indecent photographs.

If you are taking photographs from private land, you need to have the land owner's permission.

Please note: No one has the right to ask a photographer to stop, to ask for a copy of the photos or to force them to delete the photographs, unless the images that have been taken are indecent.

Taken from https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/a ... lic-place/

[Tina]

Thanks Tony, your a star.
It did seem a bit OTT but I wanted clarification.

[Chris L]

When I am trying to take photos I will NOT take them if I cannot avoid getting other people in them where they are close enough to recognise them. If they are in the distance then yes OK I'll do it.

It is just a personal preference as I don't particularly want people in my photos, and it respects their privacy too. It also avoids the situation mentioned above. I always tend to err on the side of caution and have deleted pictures when there are adults and children in the picture by accident.

Let me give an example from the other side of the coin. We went to visit the Eric Morecambe statue in... Morecambe.... and we wanted our picture taken near the statue. There was myself, my sister and her son (11) and my parents. I was prepared to be very patient to get a clear shot of just the family in and not have anybody else lurking in the background. Whilst we were there a man appeared. He had a posh camera and started taking pictures of my sister and her son. We didn't say anything, but I found it somewhat intimidating and a bit creepy. Was he a pro? Have the photos been sold for money via a stock photo site? Who knows. What I do know is that he would have probably done a runner, or stopped me taking pictures if I'd pointed my camera at him.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/eri ... e_type=all

Most people don't mind if photos are uploaded to Facebook and Twitter, but not everyone is like that.

The question to ask is - is it necessary to have that person in the photo - are they there for a reason - or would the picture be better without.

Do you want to take a picture of the display stand of cacti - better no people.
Do you want to show the display stand is attacting lots of interest from joe public - would be silly without people...

It is just a case of balancing privacy against the right to take photos.

[Tina]

I suppose its 'can they make you', if they ask politely and you can retake it then it wouldn't normally be a problem but they have no legal right as in my friends case, back of child's head.

I don't think any of us want people in our plant shots but sometimes there isn't the time especially at busy small events to wait for a good clear shot, I crop my images in photoshop so they would be chopped off or painted over .

[Chris L]

I've noticed recently - mostly when I was out walking along the Fylde Coast - but in other places too that people's reactions to someone taking a photo have changed in recent years.

At one time if someone was taking a picture then people would more often than not stop and not walk into the frame. Partly I think this was because they knew the camera had a limited number of shots in and the photographer would be annoyed if one was "spoilt" and partly out of respect.

These days people seem so tied up in their own little world that they either don't see people taking pictures or they just don't care a) that they've spoilt the picture and b) that they are in the shot.

One good example was when I was down near the Lytham Windmill. It took me a good five minutes to get a clear shot because as one person left the frame another person walked in - even though I was holding my camera like I wanted to take a picture.

Then you get people taking pictures (usually on a mobile device) that has clearly got somebody so badly in shot, to make it useless for anything.

Again it is finding that balance between people's right to the public space and the right to take a photo.

Give and take and a bit of consideration for each other, that's all it needs.

[Chez2]

Some children are placed in foster care and the identity and location of the foster family is kept from their birth family. An accidental photograph of them can reveal their location and put the child in danger. I never considered this until someone who fostered these children mentioned it to me.

[Aiko]

Some children are placed in foster care and the identity and location of the foster family is kept from their birth family. An accidental photograph of them can reveal their location and put the child in danger. I never considered this until someone who fostered these children mentioned it to me.

And if you take current and the not-so-far-future in mind, images posted on the internet will at one point be analysed by facial recognistion software by the Twitters, Googles and Facebooks of today or whatever company in the future. People in the picture might well become recognised and labeled as being on the picture. I can easily imagine one does not want this. It could have unthinkable consequences I will not go into. Just be carefull with names and contact information on the internet, and with images of people being projected on it. There is more danger in the future on this than we even currently can oversee.

If someone asks you to delete a picture because they are on it or a child, I would not argue and do this. Assuming they would just ask it nicely. I think they have the right. You can always take another picture without them on it, as you are still in that location.

[RogerF]

My understanding is exactly as outlined by Tony R.
Whilst we may try to avoid including others in our photos it is often inevitable. Chris L mentions the change in attitude to photographers but only partially nails the reason, yes 35mm film was precious and as a consequence people took fewer but better planned pictures. With digital pics being rattled off at no cost or consequence some people seem to want to capture every last minute, spending their time viewing the world through the lens of a camera or, more usually, a smartphone. The attitude change occurred for two reasons, snaps are now disposable and people are taking so many that they can no longer expect the world to stop whilst they pose their subject and compose their shots. Years ago I used to try to accommodate tourists in London as I went about getting to various site surveys but the problem reached epidemic proportions. Try taking a picture in the middle of London Bridge and see how many people stop to allow an unencumbered view!
The clincher in all of this is CCTV. In urban areas our images are captured multiple times on CCTV - no "Would you mind?" "May we have your permission?" "Is everyone over the age of eighteen?"
It's easy to be wise after the event but I'm betting that Milton Keynes Library will have CCTV so the answer in future is to ask the objector if they have asked that all images recorded on their way to, from and at the event be deleted and provide proof before you give consideration to their request

[Chris L]

Try taking a picture in the middle of London Bridge and see how many people stop to allow an unencumbered view!

This reminds me of a thread I read on the old defunt Panoramio forum. That photo site was for sharing geo-located images - they used to show up as little blue squares on Google Earth - and one of the requirements for acceptance was NO people.

Anyway this particular photographers method for taking busy street scenes without people was to use a tripod, a tiny aperture (and probably filters too) and a very long exposure. The result was an empty street because all the passers-by had blurred themselves out of existence.

I've never been able to try it as my camera aperture only goes to f8 and I think he was using something like f22.