Permissions for Candids?


johnriley

Link Posted 16/01/2016 - 16:32
JAK asked about needing permission for publishing candid pictures of people, and of course in the UK we don't need that as such, provided we don't show people in ways that demean them or misrepresent them.

The further question was
Quote:
Thanks for clarification John, but begs the question as to why Google Street view blurs faces in their UK data if they don't need to.
Also the issues as to why schools forbid cameras at sports events and nativity plays.

So here's a new thread to discuss that, without derailing the Your Photos thread.

My take is that Google blur the images of faces because it's all shot at random and they might run into trouble if, for example, someone was shown somewhere they shouldn't be, or it even seemed so. Or it might ridicule them by some mischance. The potential is there for claims perhaps, so safer to avoid the issue altogether.

As for schools, they don't all ban pictures and there's no particular reason why they should. There's been some hysteria about it all. but certainly in the schools I see plays at there's no restriction. Except on video, where there can be copyright issues with the licence to perform that the school has obtained. In any event, publishing on Facebook and the like should be taken with due care, and consideration for any parents who don't want their child's image on the internet. In most cases, a group of parents/friends may well share their images with each other, using privacy settings if they wish to.
Best regards, John

McGregNi

Link Posted 16/01/2016 - 16:54
At my kids ballet performances the teacher says to everyone at the beginning that photos and videos are ok for personal use, but not to be put on 'Facebook and social media'. I assume this is a sort of common agreement, not really legally binding, although I suppose that schools and dance classes etc could make it a condition of entry to comply with their photography rules ? This is how private properties like the National Trust apply limits I think.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

JAK

Link Posted 16/01/2016 - 16:58
Good idea having a separate thread. I get the impression that photos taken of unidentified people can be published, but add a name then it becomes personal data and the act applies. Whether that be in schools or anywhere else. It seems the Data Protection Act is often quoted by those who have no idea what is actually stated in it! Certainly personal photos taken for the family album do not come under the act, though it is often suggested that they do; an often perpetrated myth! I presume these organisations who peddle this misinformation get confused by the fact that they themselves are covered by the requirements of the DPA.
John K

JohnX

Link Posted 16/01/2016 - 17:19
As far as social media is concerned, the DPA applies to organisations, not individuals, provided the individual observes the following;.

The DPA contains an exemption for personal data that is processed by an individual for the purposes of their personal, family or household affairs. This exemption is often referred to as the ‘domestic purposes’ exemption. It will apply whenever an individual uses an online forum purely for domestic purposes. 

The domestic purposes exemption does not cover organisational use of online forums. Organisations that use social media are therefore subject to the DPA in the normal way. 

The exemption also doesn’t apply when individuals process personal data for non-domestic purposes. Individuals who use social media for purposes such as running a sole trader business are subject to the DPA in the usual way. 

When an organisation, or individual acting for non-domestic purposes, posts personal data on a social networking site, message board or blog, they will need to ensure that they have complied with the DPA. The same applies if they download personal data from a social networking site and use it for non-domestic purposes.
Last Edited by JohnX on 16/01/2016 - 17:20

QuestionableCarrot

Link Posted 16/01/2016 - 17:39
shoot street while you can guys because its not going to last forever. Not shooting someone in a demeaning way? Thats the sort of shots you want!
Learn how to live and you'll know how to die; learn how to die, and you'll know how to live.

Check out ones photographs on Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/

Aero

Link Posted 17/01/2016 - 00:23
McGregNi wrote:
At my kids ballet performances the teacher says to everyone at the beginning that photos and videos are ok for personal use, but not to be put on 'Facebook and social media'. I assume this is a sort of common agreement, not really legally binding, although I suppose that schools and dance classes etc could make it a condition of entry to comply with their photography rules ? This is how private properties like the National Trust apply limits I think.

The difference here is that the ballet photos were presumably taken on private propertty, where the owner can lay down the rules. On the steet, which is generally considered a public space, there are no restrictions. Adults or children, it makes no difference.

There is any amount of TV footage of drunken youngsters falling about the streets of Essex and suchlike, but there doesn't seem to have been any legal action from the drunks claiming they have been portrayed in a negative way. In any case, they would have been incapable of giving informed consent to use of the images.

Having said that, I would never put photos of identifiable people on "social media" without thejr permission.
Last Edited by Aero on 17/01/2016 - 00:36

Dingo

Link Posted 17/01/2016 - 06:24
Isn't it always the case.....common sense should prevail!.



.....................however if we can get a shot of QC with his privates romantically entangled in a Melon then common sense should go out the window.........Hello News of the World and The Sun...........horses for courses

JAK

Link Posted 20/01/2016 - 00:31
Anyone entering this week's France and the French photo comp should be aware that the privacy laws in France seem to be very different to those in the UK. Apparently before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the individual’s permission. If you want to publish it you have to ask their permission for each specific usage. Any object that is created by or is the copyright of an artist, or designer must have permissions to be published in specific contexts. Any owner of property can assert rights of ownership of property, again the photographer needs permissions to publish, regardless of whether the image was shot from a public or private space. Source. Mind, you'll do well to fully understand it!
There is more about this pertaining to other countries too on Wikimedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:photographs_of_identifiable_people
It seems you might need to be careful what you publish.
To sum up consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place in France:
Permission required to take the picture - Yes (with exceptions)
Permission required to publish a picture - Yes
Commercially use a published picture - Yes

I suppose pretending to take the picture in France but not really doing so gets round this!
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 20/01/2016 - 00:57

johnriley

Link Posted 20/01/2016 - 09:38
I still wouldn't worry too much about general tourist/amateur photography, which is done in huge quantities all the time without much hassle. It is a good idea though to research a destination and make sure what we can or can't reasonably do. Plane spotters have been arrested in European countries before now, so there are are dangers.
Best regards, John

BruceStrachan

Link Posted 20/01/2016 - 19:47
Here in Germany it's very differant..
I was taking pictures in the forest behind my house when a guy and his kid broke into the shot on their quad bike.
The father pulled up and asked why I was taking pictures of him!!
I politely explained that if he didn't want to be in my picture he shouldn't have noisily intruded into it.
He tried to reach for my camera and my firm handgrip on his shoulder persuaded him not to...
He then sped off saying he would be going to the police...
My parting shouts aren't printable.
Luckily no police as far as I know.
But it's true you get very queer looks here taking general Street shots never mind portraits.
I believe you are supposed to ask people's permission to take picturws. Not sure about publishing them.
Cheers,

Bruce

nass

Link Posted 20/01/2016 - 21:05
I understand the 'general' law in the UK, but doesn't it also depend on where you are? As in, both at my son's rugby club and at my daughter's singing, photography is not permitted full stop... child privacy concerns. I was able to kick up a stink and take photos of my daughter, but the rugby was never allowed full stop.
... just another middle-aged guy with a hobby. I have an extreme macro learning site at extreme-macro.co.uk - Pentax-centric, your feedback and comments would be appreciated!

Father Ted

Link Posted 20/01/2016 - 23:10
nass wrote:
I understand the 'general' law in the UK, but doesn't it also depend on where you are? As in, both at my son's rugby club and at my daughter's singing, photography is not permitted full stop... child privacy concerns. I was able to kick up a stink and take photos of my daughter, but the rugby was never allowed full stop.

This is because it was private land. If the rugby match was on a local public park then no-one could stop you (legally).
Getting there! Thanks to you guys

Pentax K10d, *istDL, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.

JAK

Link Posted 20/01/2016 - 23:29
Found another useful page about this confusing subject:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/04/14/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-g...
John K

andrewk

Link Posted 21/01/2016 - 01:01
Just had a quick Google and pretty much everything I have seen about photographer's rights refers to taking photos in a "public place".

There is a definition of the term "public place" in the Criminal Justice Act 1972. It is “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.

This seems to suggest that private land, such as a rugby club, can a "public place".

Yes, very confusing ............

Andrew
Flickr photostream

fatspider

Link Posted 21/01/2016 - 01:08
I'd like to think Google blur out faces out of respect for peoples privacy, despite the fact they're not obliged to do so by law, although as street view isn't limited to the UK it's more likely they're just been cautious.

As for not wanting to post a picture of someone doing something they shouldn't, two of my favorite lines to anyone who asks to take my picture at WGW or Steampunk events are: "Don't post it online, the wife doesn't know I'm here" or "I'm supposed to be working today" :

On a more serious note:
Candid photography is a subject that raises it's head once or twice a year in both the Goth and Steampunk communities, I suspect it also happens with other groups for events like 40s weekends and carnivals etc. There are many people who simply don't like having their picture taken and even more so without been asked, it's these people that will eventually bring a change to the laws in the UK unless photographers start been a little more polite and asking if they can take a picture. alternatively approaching the subject afterwards and explaining what they were up to and showing them the picture with the offer to delete it if requested.

Before anyone answers please consider this: how would you feel if a complete stranger was secretly taking candid pictures of your teenage daughter or your kids?
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.