The information commissioner’s office has confirmed that background shots of passers by in street scenes would not normally constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act. But with possible implications for enthusiasts photographing buses, the commissioner’s office does state there *might* be circumstances where a *published* photograph of clearly identified individuals might be an infringement of their liberty.
This potentially adds to already mounting problems bus photographers might face, such as spurious, unfounded & unjustified claims of terrorism or worse.
Still lawful to take street scenes but will there be a time when published shots need blurred faces?
The information commissioner’s office has confirmed that “there is no law against uploading pictures for personal use or sharing the images taken in a public place on amateur photography websites” and this appears to include Fotopic & Flickr. The commissioner’s office stressed that the Data Protection Act does not stop someone from taking pictures in a public place.But for a minority of bus drivers who maintain a less than sympathetic view of bus photography and who do not fully understand the detail in the ICO’s statement, there might be some confusion. This may even end up as aggravation towards or and even threatening of bona fide hobbyists.
The implications of the ICO’s statement appear to place a greater emphasis on newspapers and magazines. Meanwhile, expect a code of conduct for online use from the commissioner, next month.
For more on bus photography, see our guide to safer bus photography that includes a strategy for dealing with drivers, or pick from the list on the right hand side.
i Amateur Photography news
5 comments:
Given the thousands of CCTV cameras monitoring our daily lives when out in public,who thinks we all need protecting from innocent transport photgraphers?
Will this policy see the end television footage where reporters walk towards the camera in a busy High Street scene ?
What reason and evidence is there behind this Big Brother policy,and how many of the population fear their own identity so much ?
This is utterly barmy!! If it has anything at all to do with protecting privacy, why is it permissible for such photos to be uploaded to websites such as FlickR and Fotopic, where virtually the whole world can see them, yet potentially not OK for them to be published in a minority interest magazine?
Am I being too cynical, or might it perhaps relate to the fact that a photographer might be paid for a photo included in a magazine? In terms of the privacy of any individuals included in the photo, that is entirely irrelevant.
Thanks again for your ever-informative posts, Messrs Omnibuses.
However, I would be most grateful if you could provide us with a reference (i.e. link to where you found this decision), enabling those of us who wish to read the fine detail of this important matter to do so.
While I ackowledge that the people reading this excellent blog will primarily be those with an interest in buses, the ICO's decision also has implications for rail, air, HGV enthusiasts, not forgetting landscapes, architecture and so on.
Thanks in anticipatipn & please keep up the good work!
Anon @ 1254, my apologies, here is the link to the original:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Online_photos_Privacy_code_set_for_rewrite_update_news_290980.html
I don't take photos of buses, I am interested in architecture so more likely to take a photo of a bus station, but think it is terrible how much fuss is made about photography. I am an assistant Beaver Scout leader so regularly take photographs of children and have had to justify myself to others on occasion, the worst time was actually another leader who seemed to object to me keeping the images on my computer as a central collection. As is often the case it was put across as 'what if a parent had an issue?' but it was obviously her issue.
Post a Comment