Photography tends to be protected by the law through copyright and moral rights. Photography tends to be restricted by the law through miscellaneous criminal offences. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy law. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

Legal restrictions on photography

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalqar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes, and permission is needed to photograph or film in the Royal Parks. Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.

It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court.Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence. The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'.Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making child pornography or what looks like child pornography.

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2006. A PCSO cited Section44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.

Copyright

Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film. Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit.The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer - the person who creates it, by default. However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied.Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies.A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced, has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them. As such, scanning old family photographs to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright. Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171(3) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest.

Immoral works

Many cases in which this has been the case in respect of sexual immorality can be found. For example, in Stockdale v Onwhyn, the memoirs of a courtesan were denied protection. However, it is notable that these cases tend to be quite old, and were decided in the context of a relatively homogeneous, religious and conservative society. Stockdale v Onwhyn was, for example, decided in 1826. Similarly, in Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co (1915), the plaintiff's sexually explicit novel was adapted into a film. The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, but the court refused to award an injunction or an account of profits. The court took the view that the book lacked literary merit. The court found that the work in question was "grossly immoral in its essence, in its treatment, and in its tendency. Stripped of its trappings, which are mere accident, it is nothing more nor less than a sensual adulterous intrigue." As such, the court refused to enforce a copyright in the work.

As such, it is open to a court to find that a photograph is immoral, and, as such not enforce copyright which subsists in it. However, in a modern, heterogeneous and largely secular society which values diversity in creative works, a judge, in full awareness of his limited capacity to assess the public interest, may be reluctant to find that a work is sufficiently immoral as to warrant the denial of copyright protection. Nonetheless, it is possible to think of works which may nonetheless activate the court's discretion in such a manner, such as child pornography or posed images of nonconsensual torture.

The somewhat ironic practical effect of the court refusing to enforce copyright is not to ban the work in question. Instead, it prevents the copyright holder from preventing others from dealing with the work in a manner which is normally restricted to the copyright holder. As such, in Glyn, the court did not stop the film maker from profiting from the film.

Public interest generally

The restriction of the ability to deal with a work in certain ways to the copyright holder can have the effect of providing a legally sanctioned cloak to information. Hypothetically, a cult could use the law of copyright to prevent distribution of their texts, thus protecting the cult from mockery. The court recognises that there is a right to freedom of expression. This has been interpreted to involve the ability to express oneself, and also the ability to receive information. As such, Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland (2000), the Court of Appeal accepted that the public interest could require that copyright not be enforced, where it was in the public interest that the information be distributed. In that case, a security company had sued a newspaper for copyright infringement, when the newspaper published still images of a meeting between Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al-Fayed, shortly before the former's death. On the facts, however, the public interest defence failed. It was found that the public interest did not, in that particular case, necessitate the publication of the photographs themselves. Publication of the information contained within them would have satisfied the demands of the public interest.

Infringement

Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed though copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph. For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph. A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting, architectural work (building) or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works.