January 2006


Identifying the risks:
A matter of sense and sensibility

ASK ANY professional photographer, especially an editorial journalist photographer about the potential pitfalls of their work and they could well refer you to Beyond the Lens, 190 pages of close type from the Association of Photographers dealing with the 'rights, ethics and business practice' of professional photography, or the National Union of Journalists.

For anyone thinking of taking pictures or video with a mobile phone, or any other camera for that matter, there are some serious risks to consider.

Law lecturer Linda McPherson deals with many of these in a wide-ranging pdf article on Photographers' Rights in the UK, that is freely available and downloadable.

Health and safety must be taken seriously, so too must taste and decency.

It is important to remember that the UK has become a 'compensation culture'. With so many 'no-win no-fee' lawyers advertising their services everywhere, it's not unreasonable (just depressing) to expect that if someone thinks you may make a lot of money from your picture, they'll use every possible means to try to deprive you of it.

So, cause someone else to hurt themselves and you could, unwittingly, find yourself on the receiving end of legal action.

To emphasise this point, photographers going into places such as football grounds and schools have to have insurance cover of several million pounds in case someone else is hurt while they're doing their work.

Such insurance isn't cheap and a special policy negotiated by the National Union of Journalists for its members will still cost a few hundred pounds a year. Others could pay several times that amount.

Breathe smoke near a fire and there will be no one, other than the UK National Health Service, to care for you. You can't expect publishers to whom you have given pictures or other material to pick up the bills for anything extra you may need. You won't be able to sue them for damages.

Taste, decency, privacy and trespass
Taste and decency are important, especially for the mainstream media. Of course, there are some ghoulish websites which will publish pictures of dead and maimed bodies, but conventional outlets won’t.

Obtaining pictures and material can be as distasteful as the results. Intruding at times of grief and distress can add unnecessarily to someone’s trauma. Judging the fine line between getting a story and respecting their need for privacy is not always easy.

It is also important to know when someone is in public and a legitimate subject for a photograph and trespassing on private property. The concepts of public and private vary, legally and culturally, around the world, as do knowledge levels and understanding.

The legal consequences of taking insensitive pictures in the wrong place and at the wrong time could be very expensive indeed.

Many working in the media and intermediaries such as Scoopt are becoming increasingly aware that the craze for witness contributors to submit material could see the growth of a culture where privacy is increasingly invaded for profit.

Unfortunately, some tabloid newspapers set poor examples and, indirectly, encourage bad practice.

Kyle McRae from Scoopt has said publicly that one of his jobs is to "protect people against themselves".

Most fundamentally, the basic advice to any potential contributor is don't take risks. Professional experienced journalists know those risks. Others may not.

Are risks you don't know or understand worth taking for pictures you're intending to give away?