<P> Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy . The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention . In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression . As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality . </P> <P> A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding . The commissioner, irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph, of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public, the work exhibited in public or the work communicated to the public . However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission . It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast . </P> <P> Local, state, and national laws govern still and motion photography . Laws vary between jurisdictions, and what is not illegal in one place may be illegal in another . Typical laws in the United States are as follows: </P> <Ul> <Li> It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, within reasonable community standards . </Li> <Li> Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by a specific law or statute . </Li> </Ul>

Where might it be prohibited or illegal (in the u.s.) to take photographs