This week I participated in the Salon titled 'Policing the Public Gaze: The Assault on Citizen Photography' run by Pauline Hadaway who wrote a report of the same name for the Manifesto Club (see previous post). The attendees seemed to be mainly lawyers, academics and people like head teachers who have to deal with child photography related situations...street photographers were thin on the ground and the following discussion centered mainly around the issue of photographing children and less around restrictions arising from the Terrorism Act 2000 that affect photographers shooting in public places. There was a general agreement that the law was fuzzy, contradictory and open to interpretation and that this had resulted in ignorance and confusion in the ranks of law enforcers, private security guards and even the public, many of whom now believe that it is illegal to take pictures in a public place or that permission is required before you photograph a stranger.
The biggest surprise, for me at least, came from a lawyer who told us that Pauline was wrong in her assertion that photographing people in a public place was perfectly legal! this illegality came from an unexpected quarter, not from any French style privacy law and not from recent ill conceived anti terror legislation but from the long standing Data Protection Act of 1998. The Lawyer explained that it was illegal to store personal data about someone without their permission and that a photographic image made in a public place such as a street photograph that showed a persons hair color, eye color or a disability would constitute a form of data storage of personal information for which the photographer would need permission.
Now In my opinion this is more a curious quirk of the law, for which it was not intended, than a genuine piece of anti public photography legislation and as another Salon participant pointed out, it is in direct opposition to the photographers right to free expression. No one was aware of a prosecution of a photographer under this Data Protection Act but the Lawyers point did serve to show that it was technically possible and that there is a need for clear legislation that secures and confirms the freedom of photographers to make pictures freely in public places. I would like to applaud both the Manifesto Club and Pauline Hadaway for their work in producing the 'Policing The Public Gaze' report. Note: The Data Protection Act applies only within EU countries.
Street Photography is illegal?
October 3rd, 2009
6 Responses to “Street Photography is illegal?”
Leave a Reply
Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.
Proudly powered by WordPress. Theme developed with WordPress Theme Generator.
Copyright © sevensevennine.com | nick turpin on street photography. All rights reserved.
Copyright © sevensevennine.com | nick turpin on street photography. All rights reserved.
October 3rd, 2009 - 11:26 pm
How can you store personal information about someone if you don’t know their name? What am I going to file it under? John Doe?
October 4th, 2009 - 8:17 pm
That’s a very surprising conclusion about the data protection act, but I would be very surprised if anyone could argue that in a court of law. I guess it would put all those CCTV cameras on dodgy grounds if someone ever one a case using the data protection act
October 5th, 2009 - 1:45 pm
I checked the Data Protection Act and while there is no reference anywhere to photography, it lists ‘personal data’ as data which relates to a living individual who can be identified. So that could include photography. However, from the Information Commissioner’s Office website, ‘Determining what is personal data’ in http://bit.ly/UJMYf example 5.2 explains:
‘At New Year celebrations in Trafalgar Square two almost identical photographs of the revellers are taken by two separate photographers and stored in electronic form on computer. The first photographer, a photo journalist, takes a picture of the crowd scene to add to his photo library. The second photographer is a police officer taking photos of the crowd scene to identify potential troublemakers. The data in the electronic image taken by the journalist is unlikely to contain personal data about individuals in the crowd as it is not being processed to learn anything about an identifiable individual. However, the photo taken by the police officer may well contain personal data about individuals as the photo is taken for the purpose of recording the actions of individuals who the police would seek to identify’.
So as long as names aren’t collected then photographers should be fine. This story shows what happens when too much data is collected:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=41852
October 5th, 2009 - 10:02 pm
Consent’s an interesting issue- I’ve never given my consent to my data being collected however many times a day on CCTV, yet there’s no suggestion that this is anything other than legal, so long as the principles of the DPA are complied with.
I do reckon that that street photography would generate what would be defined as personal data by the Data Protection Act. However, as it would most likely be considered a ’special purpose’, quite bizarrely putting it on a par with national security, unlike with cctv there would be no right of subject access.
October 8th, 2009 - 8:40 pm
v2 of Linda Macpherson’s UK Photographers Rights PDF contains a paragraph about this and indicates, vaguely, that artistic/journalistic use is exempt provided that “certain criteria are met”.
January 30th, 2010 - 2:03 pm
thought you might be interested in this if you are around next week
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/02/in-the-picture-with-david-hoffman-war-on-photography.html