Ireland Photography Rights
Jun.28, 2009 in
Photography LAW
Photographing on Public Place
- You can freely take pictures of anything you wish, when in a public place. This includes pictures of private property and people.
- You are not allowed to harass people in the course of your photography – stalking someone, or repeatedly blocking their way to take a photograph of them could be construed as harassment.
- Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed – however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- You,re perfectly entitled to take a photograph of someone walking down the street – but hiding in a tree to take a photo of them in their home may get you into trouble.
- You are not allowed to obstruct movement on the highway (roads, footpaths, cycle paths etc), or the work of a police officer, while taking photographs.
Photographing on Private Property
- On private property, you are allowed to take photographs, if you have permission by the property owner. However, the owner can impose conditions on your entry to the property, which may include a ban on photography of certain things, or a ban on certain types of photography (e.g., flash photography, etc).
- If you enter a private property the owner is entitled to demand that you cease taking photographs, and that you leave the property. If you do not have permission to be on the property you are a trespasser so the owner has the right to use reasonable force to remove you if necessary, however the property owner should not threaten or attacked. The property owner does not have the right to confiscate or damage any of your equipment.
- The occupier of a private property, where he is not the owner, has the same rights as the owner.
- Security guards may also act for the owner or occupier in exercising these rights.
- Violating the conditions under which you were admitted to a property voids your permission to be there, and you may be guilty of trespass. Trespass is a crime in some unusual cases but damages are more commonly sought in a civil case.
- If you are taking photographs on private property with the aim of selling the images you should get written permission in the form or a “Property Release Agreement” document signed by the owner.
Legal Restrictions
- You may be found in contempt of court if you photograph and publish a photo of a defendant, where the identity is in question.
- You may also be found in contempt of court if you publish a photograph that might prejudice the defendant by insinuating his guilt or a photograph that might reveal prior convictions.
Your Subject’s Rights
- When taking photos you should take into account the “right to privacy”, but in general at a public place or public event it is generally safe to presume that you can publish your photographs.
- Your subject has the right to object to the publication of any photos they are in if, the photographs are untrue or violating the subject?s privacy.
- As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright of all photos they take have been commissioned and paid for the photograph or if they are working for a company and its part of their job to take photos.
- As a general rule if you are taking a photo of a subject, and you intend to sell that photo it is recommended that you get the subject to sign a ?model release agreement?. A signed model release agreement means that a person is acknowledging that you have the right to use the photos you took of them on a given date.
This information is provided for information purposes only, local country laws and regulations constantly change so we always recommend that you keep up-to-date with change in you local laws.
August 7th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I took a few snaps in a public park recently to compare with pictures taken in my childhood in the same park. I took pictures of trees, pathways, a children’s play area was part of two of the seven pictures I took. I also took two of a public building just outside the park. I was stooped by police, my camera taken and closely examined in full view of a crowd of people and accused of ‘taking pictures of children’, the clear implication of this accusation was to label me a child abuser or a paedohphile. I was shocked, humiliated and very disturbed by this outrage, which has more to say about police stupidity and arrogance than the harmless and boring quality of the photographs which I took. I intend to sue those who made the bogus calls to the police and the police for defamation of my character. Has anyone else had a similar experience? If so maybe you could post it here. This madness has got to stop.
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
As a parent my self I can understand why other parents would be worried. I would not like to see anyone taking pictures of my kids with out my permission. As a photographer standing behind a camra you know what type of picture you are taking, but the the parent they have no idea of what your intentions are ,any parent that cares about their children will take all measures to protect their children from any danger. When takine photo in a play area for young kids you are in a very gray area as far as the law is concerned and the parent have the wright to confirm if you are there for ligument reasons or not. No photographer wants to be mistaken as a peadohphile, and no parent wants a peadohphile near their kids.
My recomendation to help a photographer in this situation is to approach some of the parent let them know what you are doing and ask them if its ok to take a few photos.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Parents would need to exercise some common sense here. In this particular case no children were photographed.
The law states that anyone can take photographs of anyone or anything without their consent once the photos are taken in PUBIC. There is nothing ‘gray’ about that! Once you are in a public place like a street, a park or similar then you forfeit all rights to privacy as far as photography is concernded.If this wasn’t the case it would be impossible to photograph public events like football mathes, golf tournaments etc. If permission was necessary from everyone in such photographs then …
Furthermore, photographs of people to include children have been taken since the camera was invented. The current hysteria about child abuse is fair enough and parents have always had to be vigalent in looking after their children.But, there is such a thing as paranoia and this is a psychiatric condition where people suffer from delusions of one kind or another. The accidental inclusion of passers by in photogaphs some of whom happen to be children does not justify a parent calling the cops and making outrageous accusations based on their mental illness or something approaching such an illness.Ask yourself how could children be placed in danger by photography? We are not talking about child porn here but photos taken outdoors while kids are running about a park for God’s sake!!! Its total madness.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Hi,
Could you give citation of where these points stand in relation to the written law (acts, sections) etc. if possible? (It is well and good to say ‘I have to right to take photos of -’ , but to answer with ‘The X act, section y gives me this right’ is altogether more useful and give a lot more force to the argument of the photographer.
Also if you could expand this article is would be very beneficial, for example, are gardai performing their job in a ‘private’ state despite being on public property etc. (assuming the photographer is not obstructing the work of the garda). Is it necessary to get a model release in order to publish photos of people or is the fact that a photo was taken legally on public property, sufficient? Is the release extra or necessary?
Thanks