Jump to content

Photography and the law: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Arpitt (talk | contribs)
271 edits
Some dude said something wrong about taking photos of police - i fixed it
Line 21: Line 21:
Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, making child pornography or what looks like child pornography is restricted. For details, see [[Protection of Children Act 1978]].
Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, making child pornography or what looks like child pornography is restricted. For details, see [[Protection of Children Act 1978]].


It is an offence to publish or communicate a photograph of a police officer or a a member of the armed forces which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence. [s.58A Terrorism Act 2000].
On 16th of February 2009, the UK's counter terrorism act was modified to now make it illegal to photograph either a member of the armed forces or a police officer.<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9#pt7-pb3-l1g76 Counter Terrorism Act 2008 (c28)]</ref>

It is also an offence to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. [s.58 Terrorism Act 2000] There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only those photographs as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation.
It is impermissableto seek to demonstrate by extrinsic evidence that a document which was innocuous on its face was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. A "reasonable excuse" was simply an explanation that the document or record was possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism. It did not matter that that other purpose might infringe another provision of criminal or civil law. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act.
The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful. <ref> R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185 </ref>


====Privacy====
====Privacy====

Revision as of 00:42, 24 February 2009

Template:Globalize/Eng

Photography tends to be protected by the law through copyright and moral rights. Photography tends to be restricted by the law through miscellaneous criminal offences. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy law. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

Analysis by country

India

A permit is required for aerial photography in India, which nominally takes over a month to acquire[1]. Regulations apply to land-based photography for certain locations[1].

United Kingdom

Restrictions

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes, as do Royal Parks (as private land).

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment. [2]

It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court. [3] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence. [4] [5] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'. [6]

Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, making child pornography or what looks like child pornography is restricted. For details, see Protection of Children Act 1978.

It is an offence to publish or communicate a photograph of a police officer or a a member of the armed forces which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence. [s.58A Terrorism Act 2000].

It is also an offence to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. [s.58 Terrorism Act 2000] There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only those photographs as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. It is impermissableto seek to demonstrate by extrinsic evidence that a document which was innocuous on its face was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. A "reasonable excuse" was simply an explanation that the document or record was possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism. It did not matter that that other purpose might infringe another provision of criminal or civil law. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful. [7]

Privacy

A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography. [8][9][10][11][12][13]

Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy. [14] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality. [15]

A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner [16], irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph [17] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public [18], the work exhibited in public [19] or the work communicated to the public [20]. However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast. [21]

Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.[22]. Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit. [23]. The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer - the person who creates it [24], by default [25]. However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. [26].

Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied.

Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies. [27] A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced, has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them. [28]. As such, scanning old family photographs to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.

Sudan

Travelers who wish to take any photographs must obtain a photography permit from the Government of Sudan, Ministry of Interior, Department of Aliens. [29]

United States


Local, state, and national laws may exist pertaining to photographing or videotaping. Laws that are present may vary from one jurisdiction to the next, and may be stricter in some places and more lenient in others, so it is important to know the laws present in one's location. Typical laws in the United States are as follows:

  • It is generally legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, with some exceptions.
  • Filming of private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room. In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case there is a general expectation of privacy. Should the individual not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public if using an average lens or video camera. Although this may make the action legal, it does not make the action moral in which case it is left to the photographer to utilize moral senses.
  • Many places now have laws prohibiting filming private areas under a person's clothing without that person's permission. This also applies to any filming of another within a public restroom or locker room. Some jurisdictions have completely banned the use of a camera phone within a restroom or locker room in order to prevent this. It is expected that all 50 states will eventually have laws pertaining to surreptitiously filming a person's genitalia.
  • Taking a photograph while on an airplane is banned in many places, and many mass transit systems prohibit taking photographs or videos while on board buses or trains or inside of stations. Photography is illegal in New Jersey's PATH Train system. Photography and videography are also prohibited in the U.S. Capitol, in courthouses, and in government buildings housing classified information. Bringing a camera phone into one of these buildings is not permitted either.
  • Filming while on private property follows many restrictions. The owner of the property is permitted to film their own property. However, they must receive permission from others on the property to be allowed to film that person.
  • In order to film on someone else's property, permission must be received from the owner.
  • In certain locations, such as California state parks, commercial photography is subject to insurance requirements and usually also requires a permit[30]. In places such as the city of Hermosa Beach in California, commercial photography on both public property and private property is subject to permit regulations and possibly also insurance requirements[31].
  • Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs.
  • Photographing of privately-owned property that is generally open to the public (i.e. retail) is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs.
  • Some jurisdictions have laws regarding filming while in a hospital or health care facility. Where permitted, such filming may be useful in gathering evidence in cases of abuse, neglect, or malpractice.
  • One must not hinder the operations of law enforcement, medical, emergency, or security personnel by filming.
  • Any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself.

References

  1. ^ a b "Reel India Pictures". www.reelindiapictures.com. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
  2. ^ Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.M - The UK Photographers Rights Guide. [1]
  3. ^ Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c.86) s.41
  4. ^ Mobile court photo sentence upheld - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/3686557.stm
  5. ^ Regina v Vincent D No. 2004/01739/A7 [2004] EWCA Crim 1271
  6. ^ Rubin, G "Seddon, Dell and rock n' roll: investigating alleged breaches of the ban on publishing photographs taken within courts or their precincts, 1925-1967" Crim. L.R. 874
  7. ^ R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185
  8. ^ Human Rights Act 1998 s.2
  9. ^ HRA s.3
  10. ^ Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 8
  11. ^ Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
  12. ^ Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
  13. ^ Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446
  14. ^ J. Morgan, ‘Privacy in the House of Lords, Again’ (2004), 120 Law Quarterly Review 563, 565
  15. ^ Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
  16. ^ CDPA s 2
  17. ^ Ibid
  18. ^ CDPA s 85(1)a
  19. ^ Paragraph B
  20. ^ Para C
  21. ^ s 85(2)(a).
  22. ^ Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 1(1)(a) and s 4(2)
  23. ^ Ibid
  24. ^ Ibid s 9(1)
  25. ^ Ibid s 11(1)
  26. ^ Ibid s11(3)
  27. ^ Ibid s 12)
  28. ^ Ibid s 16(2)
  29. ^ http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1029.html
  30. ^ "Definition of Commercial Filming Projects". State of California. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
  31. ^ "Film Permit Policy and Application -- City of Hermosa Beach, CA". City of Hermosa Beach. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Photography_and_the_law&oldid=272849641"