Law regarding photographing kids

[Louloubelle]

You can take photos of people, including children, in public places.
In places that are not public, e.g. schools, museums, etc, you should get anyone significantly featuring and identifiable (I think crowd shots are excluded) to sign a model release form before publishing the photos (including on-line).

Personally I think it's good practice, whether in a public place or not, to always ask the parent's permission before taking photos of a child. I will always show both the parent/s and the child the photo on the preview screen and send them free small jpegs byemail. I've had a couple of instances where the parents have gotten back to me and asked for larger photos, which I have been happy to do for them, so it can work out well for all concerned.

 

[Louloubelle]

Well this is obviously not a public space, so you're certainly infringing on someone's rights or bylaws. The child is not identifiable so I would doubt very much if you would ever have a problem from either the child or it's parents/relatives.

In addition, this looks like some art installation so I would imagine you're also infringing the rights of the artist!

if the image is not intended for public display or sale, then I don't think you should be worried. If it is, then expect trouble when some officious sod from the location, or the artist whose work is shown, sees what you do with it...

But like I said, I'm not a lawyer....

good post
I'm not a lawyer either

 

[tobyjug]

do you know of any specific examples?

I think Brighton is one place that has such bye laws on the beach areas. There are numerous other places with similar byelaws.

 

[cybertect]

I can't find anything on Brighton & Hove Council's web site, or any news reports apart from an attempt by a local council to ban beach photogrpahy in Australia that was overturned by their courts.

Sorry, I'm just trying to establish a concrete reference rather than it being 'man down the pub told me'-type hearsay, particularly granted that there was opinion around at the time Ken was proposing similar ideas for London that he might have difficulty doing it on legal grounds.

 

[scarecrow]

someone was taking a picture of the white boxes in Tate Modern

I didn't think you were allowed to take any photos in tate modern

 

[laptop]

Summarising:

There is no legal restriction on taking pictures in public places in the UK.

But these are not the same as places accessible to the public.

The Tate Modern, like every museum and gallery I've ever come across, forbids photography as a condition of your entry - in order to maintain its postcard sales. (Not mentioning any particular link from this thread...) That is not the law, it is a term in a contract between you and the gallery.

Some schools, ditto, due to paeoparanoia (and above-mentioned problem with identification when there may be court involvement).

As more places accessible to the public are privatised, there'll be more problems with legitimate news photography. Shopping centre security jobsworths are already a problem. Does a station run by National Rail Ltd count as a public place any more? Does anything, other than a highway within the meaning of the Highways Act?

This applies to photos for news, purely personal or artistic use. Before a photographer can licence someone's image for advertising use, they indeed need a model release.

Perhaps we should argue that CCTV is advertising for the concept of "security" and bombard the Met with model release forms?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Perhaps we should argue that CCTV is advertising for the concept of "security" and bombard the Met with model release forms?

That'd be really funny.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

What about paintings?

If a photorealist style painting created in a dot colour per pixel fashion but, by hand???

Is it still real? Is it as good as a photograph?

Ban the artists from all public places? It's happend before (sort of). I remember the days when the painters word was gospel. I do. (sort of).

What a crazy place we live in.

 

[tobyjug]

Sorry, I'm just trying to establish a concrete reference rather than it being 'man down the pub told me'-type hearsay, particularly granted that there was opinion around at the time Ken was proposing similar ideas for London that he might have difficulty doing it on legal grounds.

It isn't hearsay, it was a national news story with others about parents being banned from filming school plays ect.in some schools. They are bylaws not national ones. (I would also point out when it comes to council owned swimming pools and similar they can put whatever bylaw they like).

 

[Paul Russell]

Laptop is 110% correct (of course)!

Summarising:

There is no legal restriction on taking pictures in public places in the UK.

But these are not the same as places accessible to the public.

The Tate Modern, like every museum and gallery I've ever come across, forbids photography as a condition of your entry - in order to maintain its postcard sales. (Not mentioning any particular link from this thread...) That is not the law, it is a term in a contract between you and the gallery.

I think some museums and galleries allow photography -- possibly the British Museum is one. Russell Coates gallery in Bournemouth is definitely one, I remember asking at the door.

Not sure if that's just for personal rather than commercial use.

I guess the more modern the artwork, the more likely it is that photography is not allowed due to the artists' copyright (???).