It's really a question of disrespect and insensitivity rather than law. She may have law on her side in theory (perhaps defamation or Human Rights Act right to privacy) but it'd take a lot of money spent on lawyers to find out.

Colleges are usually very sensitive about stufent welfare, and in these circumstances I think she should write a strong but not legal-ish letter of complaint setting out what happened, that she declined to be photographed and refused to sign the release (which will frighten the college as they'll think that matters, though it almost certainly does not). And that she's stressed and upset by the way her wishes were disregarded, and demand that use of the image be withdrawn, and ask what they propose to do about all this. The college may well have acted in good faith, believing the photographer had obtained permission.  Also  say that unless there is a prompt and satisfactory response she will report the event to OFSTED (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/).

OFSTED are the Government organisation with statutory power to enforce standards in education including policies and procedures that include photography of students, and the mere mention of them will get the college's immediate attention. Ask any teacher.

As a photographer  myself, there was no public interest justification for acting covertly, and what he did here was unprofessional, unethical and just plain rude. I suspect the college will be horrified, as they have a duty of care toward students. I am unsure whether the extent to which it is statutory with adult students, but with minors and vulnerable adults they would be in deep trouble with OFSTED

Photorights admin

As the creator of the photos, the photographer automatically owns copyright. Copyright is - not unsurprisingly - control of the right to make copies, or allow others to do so. Nothing more.

Whether or not he should have taken them in the first place is another question. My guess is that he was probably within his rights, since a church is no more private than a shop or other building open to the public. We all get routinely photographed by CCTV in such locations, and have no say in the matter.

The vicar (landowner's representative) might not allow photography, but that's his choice, and he'd have to either tell the photographer beforehand, or display a notice to say that there should be no photography, for that to be an issue.

There are hundreds of thousands of images of people in churches around the world. What bothers you about these photos? That they are embarassing? That he may publish them somewhere? That they may somehow put you or your son at risk, and of what?  

It seems likely there's just a misunderstanding here, not a legal problem, and that would best be sorted out by discussing the photos with him and if you are uncomfortable, telling him so. Ultimately you probably have no power to compel him to respect your wishes, however, because they are his photos. That would only change if he is using them to harass, threaten or damage your reputation.

Photorights admin

To Photorights admin

Thanks so much for explaining (and modifying the message). I can see how frustrating it must be, and also given the nature of a site like this, the balance of security and accessibility is a tricky one to get right. Sorry you have to deal with lots of spam - exasperating is a good word. I really wonder why spammers do what they do, because it's just a pointless waste of everyone's time. Maybe they don't have the imagination to do anything useful with their time!

Anyway, thanks very much for your considered reply and I hope the site continues to flourish.

My wife and I work in Children's settings both as musicians and recording video for academic and PR purposes (we are both from a corporate video background) and we both have background checks to ensure we don't have a criminal record.

Permissions are essential for recording images of children. The problem with images is that you cannot easily control where they are going to end up, and if a child is identified it could allow someone to gain access to that child. It's not the children who appear in an image with their parents' consent, but the ones who you don't have permisson to show, who appear in the background of an image.

We get written permissions from all of the children's parents/carers. This is not just about child protection issues - it protects our interests too. It's very expensive and frustrating to have an important shoot disrupted or rendered useless by someone claiming they were videoed without permission. We ensure that any children who don't have permission to appear are elsewhere that day, out of camera shot - which keeps everyone happy.

It can be hugely valuable to get people on-side. While video gathered for research purposes is not that interesting to watch, we sometimes do a rough-cut of the video to show parents so they can see what goes on in a playschool. That always goes down well - it's a way of thanking people for the permissions, and in any case, people love to see their own children!

In the spirit of that - if you are building up a portfolio for your own purposes, why not offer the images free of charge? It seems a bit mean to benefit from the parents / children and then expect them to pay for images in return! I would agree with the admin, though, that it could be seen as very dodgy, for the reasons I've outlined above - I mean, if you were photographing your own child, and then explained what you were doing and offered to take some of others (and yes, get it in writing), that might be seen as OK, but I wouldn't personally go near doing anything like that. I mean, that has to look dodgy regardless of whether it is or not. Do you have children? What would your reaction be?

And one final point for the moderators of this site: I know you work for free, but I took care to write this whole thing carefully and contribute it (as a non-member) and do the Captcha correctly, only to have my efforts rewarded with an extremely offensive page. Nice.

I only joined this site and persisted with this posting because I feel it's important - and there are positives to working with these issues, provided you understand them. Still, it didn't stop me posting your "Now f*** off" warning link to Facebook for everyone else's amusement.

Possibly legal, possibly not, but the answer depends on where you are when photographed, and why she is doing it.

If she is doing it to harass and intimidate you, which is how it sounds, that is illegal and you could ask the police to intervene. Harassment requires 2 or more occasions, so they won't come and cart her off, but will probably warn her that if she continues she may be arrested. Hopefully that would be enough to persuade her to stop.

Photorights admin