HMG guidance to immigrants regarding photographing people

[Elines]

There is a lot in the media about HMG’s guidance to immigrants.

It includes a section on photography, which says:

‘You must not take photographs or videos of people without their consent.’

As I under it, consent is not legally required if you are in a public space, and a google search confirms this.

If the HMG guidance was correct then (eg) the whole genera of street photography would be illegal.

 

[John2]

That has always been my understanding as well. However, keep in mind the definition of a "Public Place". It's not a place that the public have access to. It is a place in public ownership, generally via your local council etc. For instance shopping Malls may not be Public places because they are generally privately owned. The same applies to football stadia and since privatisation, even railway stations. For these you need to ask permission of the owner. The other consideration is that if the individual of interest has a ring through his nose and is wearing a pair of black leather gloves, I tend to point my camera elsewhere, public space or not.

 

[Elines]

That has always been my understanding as well. However, keep in mind the definition of a "Public Place". It's not a place that the public have access to. It is a place in public ownership, generally via your local council etc. For instance shopping Malls may not be Public places because they are generally privately owned. The same applies to football stadia and since privatisation, even railway stations. For these you need to ask permission of the owner. The other consideration is that if the individual of interest has a ring through his nose and is wearing a pair of black leather gloves, I tend to point my camera elsewhere, public space or not.

Thanks John.

I agree with what you say re meaning of a ‘public place’ as regards the legal position.

The other stuff is more a matter of judgement (or so it seems to me).

Eg, as regards a ring through the nose or black leather gloves …. seems to me that is a case of assuming that such people will be violent.

Eg, if you applied that you may unnecessarily restrict yourself at an (otherwise) friendly steam punk gathering. My experience is that steam punkers really love having their picture taken.

Plus …I sometimes wear black leather gloves in the winter and (so far) I’ve never been in a fight.

My main point stands … I think the document is wrong in this regard.

(Extracts attached - forgot to include them in the original post. The longest attachment is results if a Google search supporting my view.)

 

[John2]

...................................................... Eg, as regards a ring through the nose or black leather gloves …. seems to me that is a case of assuming that such people will be violent.

Just my inept way of saying regardless of the legalities, the views of the people you want to photograph matter as well.

 

[Elines]

Just my inept way of saying regardless of the legalities, the views of the people you want to photograph matter as well.

Agreed

EDIT by ‘agreed’ I’m agreeing that it’s the people being photographed that in practice can be more important than strict legalities

I’m not ‘agreeing’ that you are inept John.

 

[Glenn]

I wonder how many photographers have actually fallen foul of the law and been sued for taking photographs of people without their consent? I don't mean deliberately provocative images that demean others but just the kind of thing we took for granted back in the day. Few, if any at all, I would suggest.

 

[John King]

That has always been my understanding as well. However, keep in mind the definition of a "Public Place". It's not a place that the public have access to. It is a place in public ownership, generally via your local council etc. For instance shopping Malls may not be Public places because they are generally privately owned. The same applies to football stadia and since privatisation, even railway stations. For these you need to ask permission of the owner. The other consideration is that if the individual of interest has a ring through his nose and is wearing a pair of black leather gloves, I tend to point my camera elsewhere, public space or not.

That is incorrect. Railway Stations have always been private places which is confirmed by a number of laws going back to Victorian times although they are /were used by the public to get onto and leave trains at there destinations. If anything since privatisation it has actually become more liberal.
For instance pre privatisation and as far as I know it was a criminal offence to "Trespass and refuse to quit". (Section 16 of the Railway Regulation Act 1840. Offenders can be detained by staff, prosecuted in a magistrates' court, and face a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for non-payment). This is entirely separate from actually going onto the running lines which is a different Act of Parliament.

This was to deter those with no intention of travelling or using the station facilities could be asked to leave and a refusal could actually be ejected from the station or in extreme cases, arrested and appear in court. It was usual for those wishing to photograph anything on a station to approach the management and get permission. BR was very risk adverse in case anyone without actual implied permission (not having a ticket to travel or other business) being injured and a claim could result. This I believe was also aimed at vagrants making their home on the station and to deter thieves intent on stealing travellers luggage or simply drunks making a nuisance of themselves.