We’re pleased to announce that podcast No. 1 is now available to listen to within this post, or to download for loading onto your mp3 player of choice (right click and choose to save). If you want to get them as they are released subscribe over here –>
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
It was certainly a technical challenge recording for the first time, which is why it has taken so long to edit for your delectation. However, ready it is and we really hope you enjoy listening as much as we enjoyed making it.
Thanks for listening – next time (released sometime around 10 May), we’ll be talking to Olivier Laurent from the British Journal of Photography about G20, Police stop and search, photography in public places and related issues.
SHOW NOTES
1. Disclaimer
As I mentioned at the start, this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. We do not accept liability, either personally or on behalf of anyone else, for any loss which may arise from relying on the information given in this podcast. You must seek legal and professional advice in relation to any area covered by this podcast so that your individual circumstances can be considered by your advisor and so that you can be advised appropriately. Two other things to note are that we are based in the UK and so we are talking about the situation here and that the views and opinions are ours and those of our guests and not necessarily those of any other organisation.
2. Street View
Phill Price was smart enough to note his exact location when the Google Street View camera car went by. If you want to see the picture that, he says, makes him look like an alien, you can click here
3. PhotowalkLondon
PhotowalkLondon is a group who meet up once a month (usually on the first Saturday – May is an exception) to take photographs, have a walk and a chat, and usually end up somewhere for a drink (or in the case of last month when we walked Brick Lane, a curry!).
It doesn’t cost anything to attend, and anyone is welcome to come along, regardless of equipment or ability. On Saturday 9 May at 4pm, we’re PhotoWalking in South Kensington – if you want to join us please find the invite here.
If you use twitter, you can follow updates about PhotowalkLondon on twitter name @PhotowalkLondon.
4. Contacting us
You can contact us via. the website using the contact form, or if you have a question you want answered on the show, please submit it here. Our twitter name is @photolegal. Please use the contact form rather than Direct Messaging as we don’t monitor these.
Everys’ website (the firm James works for) can be reached at www.everys.co.uk – you can also follow their twitter name @i_legal. James’ own twitter name is @jamesmb.
Phill’s website is at www.phillprice.com and his twitter name is @phillprice – as he mentions, you can find him on most social networking and photo sharing sites using the same name.
My blog is at www.wildlifephotographer.blogspot.com and my website at www.canid.co.uk – at some point I’ll bring them together. My twitter name is @wildlifephotog.
Tweet This Post 
Digg This Post 
Ping This Post 
Stumble This Post
Had no idea about the Facebook terms and conditions. Thank you! Hope future podcasts are just as informative. Keep up the good works guys. This is a great site.
I know you have an itunes feed but not everyone wants to use iTunes (for a variety of reasons). Would it be possible to have a regular RSS podcast feed (like the BBC podcast website) as well?
Hey Paul;
I’ve changed the subscribe button to give both options too.
Sorry for the confusion!
Awesome. Thanks, Phill!
+1 subscriber.
Hi there. I’ve just downloaded the podcast & will listen to it on my way home. Really looking forward to it. I help host an informal photo-based podcast over at http://filmwasters.com/podcast and will give you a plug next week as we’re due to record one with photo journalist, Colin Summers. I’m sure the issue of photographers’ rights will crop up at some point.
Hi Ed – thanks. We’ve also created a 30 second promo for the guys over at http://www.PhotoNetCast.com (another good photography podcast) – I’ll paste the file on the site so you can download if you want it.
Thanks for taking the trouble to put this (and future) podcasts up. I found it most informative. I’m involved on a day-to-day basis with audio and audio-visual rights issues and have directed colleagues to your podcasts.
Thanks for this podcast. I have a point/question to raise re: photography in public places.
Immediately before the 24 minute mark James (I think) says: “as a general rule if you’re in a public place taking photos of a famous building [...] there shouldn’t really be a problem with that. Obviously, you’re gonna have to take care that you’re not taking photos of people, because they have rights in the same way that you might not want to be photographed.”
Not sure what James means here. I have no legal training but as far as I am aware there is no right to not be photographed in a public place, even if one does not want to be photographed. The exception being if such photography is conducted in a way that constitutes harassment. The general phrase I seem to have seen bandied about is that “one can not reasonably have an expectation of privacy when in a public place”, meaning that when you put yourself in the field of others vision in a public place, you can not expect privacy from being seen (by eyes or lenses).
Certainly, someone walking into a shot when you’re photographing a building could not reasonably be described as harassment. Indeed, deliberately taking a photograph of that person is not harassment either, unless you do it repeatedly and it presumably somehow causes them distress.
To my understanding, there’s more likelihood that you would be breaking the law taking a photo of a building than of a person, since there are a few proscribed sites (e.g. some power stations) for photography but no proscribed people (section 76 notwithstanding).
Could we get some clarification on this? If James didn’t mean to infer this it might be useful to explain that. It could certainly be inferred as discouragement of taking photos of people in public, which according to the many articles I’ve read on this subject recently is entirely legal, and it would be a shame for the gradual “criminalisation” (in practice if not in law) of public photography, and paranoia towards photographers, to be enhanced by a discussion which was clearly meant to do the opposite.
cheers.
Thanks Cerpintor. We didn’t continue that discussion on #1 as it would have opened up a whole new subject which we already had plans to cover on #2. We’re recording that this week and privacy/model releases is covered, but please feel free to submit your question on the questions section (link on the right) and we’ll do our best to answer.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
[...] their site here. Of course, if you intend to be a regular subscriber, you can also subscribe via iTunes or [...]