Image credit: Home Office
I’ve been stopped by security guards while photographing architecture in London so many times that I’ve long felt very few people understand the basics of photography law in the UK.
And if a recent pamphlet released by the government is anything to go by, I feel vindicated: it seems not even the Home Office can make it make sense.
The document in question, which can be found on Gov.uk, is aimed at asylum seekers and claims you should not photograph or film somebody in a public space without their permission—going so far as to say you “could be arrested”.
Well, unless the UK government has rushed through new legislation that I don’t know about, this directly contradicts UK law. I mean, can you imagine if Martin Parr had been prevented from capturing his legendary The Last Resort?
Image credit: Home Office
You need look no further than the Metropolitan Police’s own advice on photography to find a paragraph that directly contradicts the government brochure:
“Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.”
It’s common sense. Otherwise, taking a photo with a camera phone in a busy city center would carry the risk of arrest, right?
That said, this doesn’t mean anyone with a camera can act with impunity. Photographing someone in public may be legal, but how you photograph them still matters.
The human element is the most interesting part of street photography (Image credit: Future / Mike Harris)
If a photographer’s actions cross into unlawful behavior—such as harassment—or if authorities have reason to suspect unlawful activity, the outcome can be very different.
It also matters what you intend to do with the images. Editorial and personal use is one thing; images intended for commercial use can be subject to different rules.
And of course, UK law is rarely simple. Exceptions apply, so it’s always advisable to familiarize yourself with the latest legislation before heading out with your camera.
To be fair, the pamphlet also covers activities that clearly are unlawful. The law around private spaces is too nuanced to go into in detail here, but you can’t simply walk onto private premises and expect to take photos.
And although it should go without saying, both capturing and sharing explicit imagery without a person’s permission is absolutely unlawful.
Negative effects on street photography
A dedicated camera is obvious; a camera phone, by contrast, is far more inconspicuous (Image credit: Future)
I have two major problems with the pamphlet. First, it’s misleading. Second, it’s not uncommon for photographers to be harassed simply for being out in public with a camera.
We don’t need more people roaming around ready to pounce on anyone who so much as points a Fujifilm X100VI or Nikon D3500 in their direction.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not the sort of photographer who enjoys pushing street-photography boundaries. I won’t criticize Bruce Gilden’s work, but I’m no fan of his method. And if I ever photographed somebody and they politely asked me to delete it, I would.
If you’re up to no good, you’re not going to be using a slick retro camera or a pro mirrorless body that screams, ‘Look at me, I’m a photographer.’
But when I’m out capturing travel, street, and architecture photos, people inevitably stray into the frame. And that’s the whole point of street photography, right?
Documenting the human element: using a tiny figure against a huge building to emphasize scale; capturing a bright red coat amid a sea of suited morning commuters; or catching the exact moment somebody walks through a single band of light.
And what about personal surveillance? Dash cams and doorbell cameras capture public footage of people…
What really annoys me is that the pamphlet singles out photographers specifically. Because I can tell you now, phone photographers don’t get approached half as much as dedicated-camera users.
And let’s face it: if you’re up to no good, you’re not going to use a slick retro camera or a pro mirrorless body that screams, ‘Look at me, I’m a photographer.’ You’re going to use the most inconspicuous everyday camera available—a phone. Or a pair of camera glasses (double ick, as far as I’m concerned).
So, to Andy Burnham, the Home Office, and the UK government: please—either change this misleading pamphlet or change the law.
Mike studied photography at college, sharpening his Adobe Photoshop skills and learning to work in the studio and darkroom. After several years writing for various publications, he moved to the ‘Big Smoke’ to join Wex Photo Video’s award-winning content team, before returning to print as Technique Editor (later Deputy Editor) at N-Photo: The Nikon Magazine.
With bylines in Digital Camera, PhotoPlus: The Canon Magazine, Practical Photography, Digital Photographer, iMore, and TechRadar, he brings deep knowledge of photography and consumer tech, and is known for clear, practical guidance on cameras, lenses, tripods, filters, and more. His expertise spans portraits and landscapes, abstracts and architecture, wildlife, and—yes—fast things going around race tracks.