You can "snap away" until said patrons complain to the proprietor who may
tell the photographer to stop.  It is also possible the proprietor could
even offer the complainer the option to leave the premises if they do not
like the chance of ending up in a photo.  Best thing is to approach the
proprietor and ask permission.  They may give permission with strings (i.e.
no people photos) of they may just let you get on with whatever you want.
Best to ask all the same.

Depending on the circumstances but news is generally "fair game".  However,
recently J K Rowling won a court battle to stop a photo of her child being
published when a "pap" photographed her pushing said child in a pushchair.

I would imagine Fred West would be considered "fair game", however.

MC

I can only speak of the USA, who's laws are based mostly on English
Common Law. What you are talking about is the right to privacy and the
right to control your identity. Also the difference between commercial
and editorial photography.

Commercial photography is pretty self-evident -- its only purpose is to
sell something. Editorial photography is more tricky -- think of
Weegee's crime photos which get bundled into books and sold without
releases (luckily most of his subjects were dead).

If you appear in public _in the USA_ you effectively relinquish your
right to privacy. That means anyone can take your picture without
penalty. If that image is sold or licensed for commercial purposes --
for use in anything except newspapers, news magazines, or news
television -- it requires a signed model release.

Use of the same image in news media for editorial use -- that is, _not_
in an ad meant to sell the newspaper -- no model release is required.
The one grey area is film or video documentary. Everyone interviewed or
depicted in a documentary must have a (usually videotaped) model
release. Several of Frederick Weissman's films are still banned in the
states they were filmed because the powers that be didn't like them and
retaliated by suing to prevent their public display, claiming the people
depicted were not capable of giving permission to be filmed.

As to semi-public places, much depends on what kind of venue it is.
Although photography is usually expressly forbidden at a Rolling Stones
concert, many people bring cameras anyway and sell the resulting photos
of the Stones (public figures) and members of the audience (not public
figures). Corporate policy dictates that no photography at all is
permitted in any Starbucks (this I know firsthand)

Museums generally forbid flash and tripods for the protection of their
collection and the other museum-goers. Photos of people in this setting
require releases for commercial use, not for editorial use.

Weddings are private events and those attending have the reasonable
expectation that they will be photographed, and that the images will be
used for limited commercial purposes (selling them to the bride and
groom) but not to be published. The exception again is if a public
figure is in attendance they have no expectation of privacy. As with all
private and semi-private (restaurant, theatre) venues if a photographer
is told not to take a certain person's picture he/she must abide by that
request.

The final category is private use. You can take pictures of whomever you
choose for purely private use, that is, you will incur no financial gain
from the images and the images will not be disseminated without
permission -- like on Flickr and Myspace.

I have no idea how this maps to British law. Many countries have much
more restrictive laws on personal privacy than the USA. To sum up:

Commercial: photograph is used solely for the purpose of selling
something -- requires model release

Editorial: photograph illustrates a news story or _is_ the news story --
no model release needed

Law Enforcement: Obviously traffic cameras, security cameras, and
surveillance photography by authorized law enforcement personnel do not
require any kind of releases

Public figure: has no expectation of privacy at all no matter the
setting -- Former NY Governor Spitzer, Mick Jagger, Brittny Speares

Public setting: no one has an expectation of privacy but if an image is
to be used for commercial purposes must have a signed model release

Semi-public setting: Museums, galleries, theatres, the venue can
regulate any and all aspects of photography. Images of people require
model releases for commercial use.

Private setting: Any rules may be laid down; people attending a wedding
usually implicitly agree to be photographed for the limited commercial
use of providing images to the bride and groom.

There are more Byzantine restrictions, on what can be photographed. In
New York City it is illegal to photograph a bridge, or any aspect of the
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner [personal experience]. In Greece
(to my knowledge) it is illegal to photograph any airplane, civilian or
military. In the old Soviet Union it was illegal to photograph members
of the military or the militia (the police)

A polite photographer will always honor a request not to be
photographed. People have many reasons not to want to be photographed
and unless one is a budding papparazzo it is best to comply. Some
reasons are: religious (Muslim, Orthodox Jews, Amish and Mennonite,
Native American), personal, job-related (especially in NYC you may be
photographing an undercover police officer [again, personal experience])

Hope this helps,

--krishnananda

Correct. It may well be a bloody good idea, and many customers won't purchase
images without one, but it's not compulsory.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

The problem is you cited "common sense"  which is not  defined in law

As you say it gets tricky.  However in a public place you can not be
stopped for taking photos for private, non commercial use.

The other problem definition is "public place"   Most if not all places
other than the street  are owned.  Churches, town halls, "public" parks
etc.

As has been said it is usually better to ask forgiveness than
permission. However often those who challenge you on taking photos don't
know the law and think that it is illegal to photograph children, people
and places.

Caution should be advised along with polite non-confrontational
discourse. Telling people to "sod off" will only get you in more trouble
and things like breach of the peace.

Learh how to snip posts retard

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@localhost.localdomain> posted

Where the photos are taken in an arranged session, obviously that is
true. The advertiser has made a contract with the celebrity - she agrees
to take part in the session and in return he undertakes only to use
photos that she approves.

Where the photography is done without the celeb's permission in public
places there is no such contract. Although in that case the celebrity
may sue to prevent the photographs being used to imply that she is
endorsing the product.

The church my friend is open.

I don't see that; unless it's an area not covered by right-to-roam, or unless
he's causing damage to crops etc. - in which case it's trespass, not BoP AFAIK.

Yes, of course it's private property. So again, the only thing they could
prosecute for would be trespass if he doesn't leave when requested, AFAIK.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

What is worse it will colour other peoples perception of a photographer
so whoever turns up next will loose before they have even tried to
politely explain what they are doing

Trouble is if buggers it up for the next photographer along.

However The minus One is long on unhelpful criticism, has yet to say
anything positive about anything and yet to show that he/she has even
held, let alone used a camera.