Forensic Landscapes - The impact of people and industry on the Lake District National Park

Forensic Landscapes - The impact of people and industry on the Lake District National Park

The cover photo in my assignment sets the scene, and to a degree the theme of the project. 

Entering the national park we see the imposing Skiddaw massive and leading towards it a man made road. But perhaps even more telling is the sign itself, a manufactured attempt at duplicating the natural from this we begin to see one aspect of how man has had an impact on nature. 

If the three images of deforestation appear to be in the wrong order this is purposeful. The logging is the end result but also the instigation to another cycle the second image shows deforestation but also the new and intermediate forest  the third is the stark result of an area  complete deforestation. In retrospect I am not certain whether this order of images works well or is too subtle to perhaps the point of confusion?

In image _DSC9079 The deforestation shows the wall...a product of stability and endurance contrasting with the  expendable replaceable more a industrial resource than a part of nature. 

In the image to the left, there is something rather disturbing about the sheep on the fell in front of the nuclear plant. I liked the red stain on the sheep ... almost a pointer toward industries injury of nature.

The image of the wind turbines on the one side of the rail and the fells on the other, attempts to show how industry and nature may oppose each other and also begs the question of the economy of cumbria which is to a large degree based around the national park and tourism. However industry is also a  

necessity and provides constant jobs as opposed to seasonal.  here again the fells are enduring and constant but the turbines have a short lifespan and are dependent on the weather.

 Moving on to mining and its effects on the landscape, I have included both closed and working mines and thier effects on the National Park. This is a very subjective viewpoint but never the less I found while photographing the subject that even the scars on the landscape had a certain beauty and I was drawn to the shapes, color and texture of the subject. Certainly in the image of slag heaps I was drawn by the texture and colour and also how the shape of the slag heaps was so similar to the surrounding fells. However, despite my best efforts, I disappointed that I could not find a viewpoint which accentuated this aspect. In the images of Force crag mine and Honister, I attempt to shows how obvious and intense the scars on the lanscape are .  Force Crag covers a large area and despite no longer being a working mine there has been no attempt to 'landscape' the area. In the image looking down on Honister mine I wanted to capture the oppressive feeling created by the low cloud. The last image in the set gives a wider view, showing the  of the mines place among the fells, and I hope reiterates how the natural beauty of the fells is disturbed by the mining industry. 

With the contentious subject of Access and landowners rights I have tried to put forward both sides of the story.  There are many arguments for and against access and whatever my own personal views, have tried to be objective. The first three images point out the restrictions on access and how in some cases there are mixed messages.  I saw this in the public footpath sign. 'Were there really bulls in the area around the footpath or was the landowner just using the statement as a deterrent? I certainly couldn't see cattle or bulls but perhaps the landowners was simply being cautious?  

The signs alongside the public foot path to Haystacks are warnings that verge on threatening. However, the law does state that dogs can be shot. I took two photographs which included this sing, one which shows where the path leads and the obvious beauty of the area which attracts tourists and walkers, and a closer shot which accentuates the importance of the photograph but also shows sheep and serves as a link to the following image.
The image of the dead sheep may explain some of the reasoning behind the warning

signs and the argument for restricted access. Farmers loose sheep to dogs, not always because the dog attacks or kills the sheep but more often from small injuries which result in the sheep being unable to feed or get to water. If you have ever seen sheep running from an uncontrolled dog on the fells and crags, you may be able to understand how easily it would be for a sheep to break a leg or worse fall from a height. This is not an uncommon occurrence and even from a purely economic view the loss of only a few sheep a year can have an impact. The

photograph shows the reality of death in a beautiful and pristine setting. 

The image of the Lakeside litter and pollution is connected to the previous image by it's elements ...the lake, and the sheep food, but the thinking behind this and the following photograph is to depict that farmers are not exempt from their detrimental effect on the land. I like the way the bucket was placed upside down in the dirty water and how the colour, red for danger added significance to the image.
I saw the plastic bales as unnatural and out of place amongst the innate beauty of the surrounding fells, though in themselves the bales have much aesthetic value.

In the final section of the assignment I have looked at the erosion of the fells themselves stemming mostly from the influx of tourists visiting the area and walking the fells. I have looked at the problems and the solutions and tried to instigate the questions surrounding the solutions.
The footsteps leading up the hill are caused by repeated use. On that particular terrain people have taken the path of least resistance and those who came after have literally followed in their footsteps causing deep indentations, eventually water flow, frost and thaw will cause the footsteps to run together and cut a single trail into the fell side. In the image of the landslide this is the result of multiple paths, which may have started out as footsteps. This is not uncommon and I could have chosen to photograph other fells but I feel that the red

rock in the particular image makes the erosion stand out. In the two photographs of the solutions to erosion I have again attempted to induce questions from the viewer. Are the solutions any more palatable that the problems, both from a aesthetic and a practical point of view.  


Overall I feel quite positive about this assignment, however in retrospect the industry section is a little fragmented and perhaps I should just have confined my images the subject of forestry or expanded the general industry section. I have tried to raise questions with my imagery and be as unbiased and objective as possible, though the entire them is essentially a contentious issue. I will be very interested to hear feedback on this project and how the viewer has interpreted it.

Assignment 6 and the meaning of ‘Forensic landscapes’

The brief was….

‘For this assignment you need to take ‘forensic landscapes’ of Cumbria which comply with the detached, almost dispassionate, and very formal style that characterizes the genre.’


For those with no prior knowledge, the term ‘forensic landscapes’ is a very confusing one, everyone knows what a landscape is and many know what forensic means at least as a general term, if you look it up in a dictionary you would an answer similar to the below.

“ forensic - Of, relating to, or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime: "forensic evidence".”

“forensic - used or applied in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law; "forensic photograph"”

So what does this have to do with landscapes or indeed with ‘landscape photography’. Are we looking at two totally different concepts or is there a link?
If you take away the ‘courts of law’ from quote number 2, then you have;

“used or applied in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence”

So photography that applies or is applied to what is factual or evidential. The brief for this assignment was to produce images that are; 

“detached, almost dispassionate, and very formal style” 

Factual, evidential, detached, dispassionate and formal. So the photographs need to fulfill these qualities, but where does the ‘landscape’ come in and how flexible is the term? Below are some examples of the work of Emma Wilcox and an explanation of her work. 

Forensic Landscapes | Eminent Domain  Emma Wilcox

 “In forensics, the absence of something can signify its presence. As reported in the Times, the chemical stain left by a body’s amino acids will suppress plant growth for up to two years, allowing a kind of shadow to remain after the thing casting it is gone.On maps, the edge of a place vanishes and reappears. So do tracks, roads and the original names of things. There are no indications as to actual habitation, climate, degree of violence or calm, or even whether the area is land or water.But the land is marked heavy. It is dense chemically, visually, textually. This density of markings includes human bodies, geological timekeeping, stories told in bars, news archives, and EPA documents.I make photographs at or near night, on foot, and within a 5-mile radius of Newark. I make photographs of things that can always be found, and are always about to vanish. But not easily. And not just yet.”

Emma Wilcox is a photographer concerned with environmental justice, land usage, eminent domain, and the role of individual memory in the creation of local history.
http://www.wipnyc.org/blog/emma-wilcox




From this I learn that ‘forensic landscapes’ is a very loose term and can be interpreted in many ways.  I can see the thinking behind the photographs I understand the concept but the images make no impact on me. Perhaps I simply don’t relate well to the subject but I think it is more that her individual style is very fractured and I’m really not sure what she is trying to put across.

Moving on….
My reading list suggests that I look at the work of Fay Godwin, Simon Norfolk, Mark Power, Richard Misrach, Jonathan Olly, Jem Southam, John Davis, Clive Landen, Edward Burtynsky, Thomas Struth and Simon Roberts.

Some of these I had already researched and felt that I knew their work, others were interesting but not to the extent that I felt I wanted to delve deeply into the depth of there photographic psyche. However one photographer that stood out and drew my interest was Fay Godwin. I had come across her before and it probably helps that I have similar views on some of the topics of her photography. I am also a keen walker and spend a lot of time watching the land around me change and decline with the onslaught on agriculture and tourism. 
Fay Godwin was a very prolific photographer and much was written about her both during here career and after her death. I think that many of the below comments reflect how I feel about her work and her life as a photographer. 


Fay Godwin
A critic's assessment, by Philip Stokes

“It is only in the context of the 1990 book, Our forbidden land that everything becomes absolutely clear and incontrovertible.  Godwin's work there is an unequivocal, impassioned account of the effects of the closure of vast tracts of countryside for commercial, venal reasons, such as the rearing of animals and birds merely to shoot them.  We see the final logic of the Highland Clearances, in concert with the destruction of the land by those who occupy it without regard for their longer-term responsibilities for its stewardship, on behalf of the wider population now, and in the future.

‘Our forbidden land’ makes it impossible that we will ever be able to look at any of her photographs again without being aware of the passion which informs her output…... Godwin has completed the picture, and responds with sensitivity to the education in the politics of land use which she so powerfully offers through her photographic vision.

Philip Stokes, essay in St James Modern Masterpieces, 1998 


The obituary in the Guardian probably sums up the mindset of Fay Godwin and the passion that was behind some of the seemingly ‘dispassionate’ photographs.

Fay Godwin
February 17, 1931 - May 27, 2005

“There is one odd picture in Remains Of Elmet of a spent cartridge case lying in long grass next to a pile of grouse droppings. It is an emblematic picture, and a pointer to the kind of imagery that would increasingly preoccupy Fay during the later, more radical, phase of her photography.This culminated in Our Forbidden Land (Jonathan Cape, 1990). The Britain she had investigated for her 1970s guidebooks had alerted her to the destruction wrought, in particular, by road building, military training, forestation and development. She liked ramshackle smallholdings, which were the work of individuals making do and getting by; she hated distant authority. Look at her essay, Who Owns the Land? (1994), 17th in Charter 88's Violations Of Rights In Britain series. In the short-term, she deplored how English Heritage and the National Trust "have copyrighted our heritage", and, in the long term, imagined "an Orwellian future".

The Guardian, Tuesday May 31, 2005 by Ian Jeffrey

One thing that stands out and answers some of the questions I asked in earlier post is the importance of ‘Why’ a photograph is taken. Godwin’s photographs all had meaning; they were taken for a distinct reason. Individually this may not always be obvious but certainly as a set or in the case of ‘Our forbidden land’ a book, then the objective and passion behind the photographs becomes clear.     

In her own words…..

“I’ve been called a Romantic photographer and I hate it. It sounds slushy and my work is not slushy. I’m a documentary photographer, my work is about reality, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t be creative.” 

The Times, Tuesday May 31st, 2005

Godwins photographs use classical composition and capture light and texture beautifully. They are creative but the reality of the image is obvious. However picturesque the stone wall and the green fields are, the sign is what the photograph is about. The sunlight wood is beautiful but made inaccessible by the fence. The way the Lurcher has been captured in mid flight is artful and clever but the question is raised, why must the dog be leaping the fence at all? Godwins photographs make us think. They make us question what is happening with our countryside, the inequality of ownership and the rights of landowners and public bodies to restrict the individual’s access.


I am hoping that my own photographs will raise similar questions, not only relating to access and what is forbidden but what impact we are having on our countryside and specifically the Lake District. The national Parks Authorities, how much say do they really have and are they really interested in preserving the countryside or simply utilizing it as another business option. Are the ‘National Trust’ selling out ? 

My aim is to produce linked ‘sets’ of photographs covering aspects of the human impact on the Lake District, covering areas such as Tourism, Erosion and Access and Industry and Agriculture.

Footsteps
© Anna Studholme

The answer to erosion?
© Anna Studholme

.

Stones flown in by helicopter to make a path
© Anna Studholme

Landslide caused by erosion of multiple pathways
© Anna Studholme

Slate mine
© Anna Studholme

Public Access?
© Anna Studholme

Honnister Slate mine
© Anna Studholme

© Anna Studholme

Pareidolia and expectations in Photography

Pareidolia:

"the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist"

American Diana Duyser took a bite out of a cheese toastie in 1994 only to find herself face-to-face with what looked to her like the Virgin Mary. She noticed the Madonna's burnt image on the bread after the first bite and saved the rest of the sandwich for over a decade. Duyser put it up for auction on eBay where it drew 1.7 million hits and eventually sold for about $28,000 (£18,500).
Diana Duyser and her holy toastie






Pareidolia can be a product of people's expectations, says neuroscientist Sophie Scott, of University College London.

"Being able to see Jesus's face in toast is telling you more about what's happening with your expectations, and how you're interpreting the world based on your expectations, rather than anything that's necessarily in the toast," she says.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with photography.....I'll attempt to explain where I personally make the connection. The quote above is really the answer, it's all about interpretation and expectations. What you choose to photograph is your personal interpretation but how is it influenced by your expectations of the subject and equally as  important, how much of what the viewer sees is interpreted by their expectations? I have found this is particularly relevant when considering 'sense of place'.

When we attempt to produce photographs that convey a sense of place, are we catering to the 'expectations' of others, how much of what we produce is actually our own interpretation. Our own sense of place may be very different to what is expected. i.e. Diana saw the virgin mary in the toast. But in actuality it is a half eaten piece of toast. My close up photograph of a child and a dirty wellington, is evocative and very relevant to my own personal sense of place but meaningless to the expectations of images of the sense of place relating to the lake district. If the viewer has pre-concieved ideas or expectations then a certain image or photograph may be irrelevant to sense of place. So who's sense of place are we catering to, the photographers or the viewers?

What’s Important in Photography: Style, Technique, Or Something Else?

What’s Important in Street Photography: Style, Technique, Or Something Else?

This post reflects my current thoughts on many genre of photography but perhaps most obviously street photography.These are my arguments and questions and there will no doubt be many flaws and rambling thoughts. I consider this more of a personal essay that will help me define my own ideas. However I will try to draw from photography books as well as my own personal experience and pseudo-philosophy.

My personal observance is that there is no “right” or “wrong” way to shoot any photography. and we should argue less about the aesthetics, styles, technique, and approach and concentrate on the question: “Why do we photograph?” It doesn’t really matter if you use a wide-angle lens, a fisheye or a normal lens, whether you shoot full frame or take snaps with your iPhone. In the end the most important question remains: “Am I creating images that make a statement? Whether this is street photography or landscape all images have the potential to make a statement”

Henri Cartier Bressons style of Street photography focuses on classic composition, balance, and beauty in the image and aesthetics, whereas  in my eye Garry Winogrand produces Street photography that aims to have a social critique or message. So should street photography be less about the aesthetics and more about the overall message, emotion, and mood. Composition is important to make an image appear interesting, but without context, it has no depth and has very little ability to convey a larger message. 

I recently bought a book by Garry Winogrand titled: “Winogrand: Figments from the real world.” The book was written by John Szarkowski, a photographer, curator, historian, and critic. From 1962 to 1991 Szarkowski was the Director of Photography at New York’s Museum of Modern Art.
The book started off by a very thoughtful essay from Szarkowski about the life of Winogrand and describing how Winogrand thought about images and photo-taking.
Winogrand worked with a 28mm for most of his life, and dabbled a bit with a 21mm. He was frustrated with the 21mm because of the strange distorting effects of the ultra-wide focal length. In his career, he has also stated:

“There is no special way a photograph should look.”

In an account a student wrote of his class at the University of Texas (in a document titled “Classtime with Winogrand” O.C. he stated:

“If students were taking Garry’s class to learn photographic techniques and methods, they were sorely disappointed. Garry didn’t teach much technique. That was left to the PJ side of the photography world or to his “TAs”. You have a lifetime to learn technique, he seemed to be saying, but I can teach you what is more important than technique, how to see; learn that and all you have to do afterwards is press the shutter.”

The fascinating thing about Winogrand is how prolific he was. Legend has it that he would shoot around 10 rolls every single day, which sounds about right as he left behind nearly 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film and 6,500 rolls of developed but not proofed exposures. If you take a look at the contact sheets of his later years, you can see that he shot almost aimlessly, without much consideration. Szarkowski elegantly ends this essay by stating that he believed that: 

“Winogrand didn’t shoot to make a photograph, but to capture life.” 

This seems to make a lot of sense, as Winogrand himself said,

“I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs.” 

So what I learned from Winogrand was that there is no single way a photograph 'should look'. Therefore we should focus less on the aesthetics of the street photographs we take, and focus more on the emotion and content. We should put less emphasis on lens choice, focal length, aperture, camera, flash or no flash, or angle. As much as the things forementioned are important, a photograph should be less about the technical things. And perhaps the most radical thought, The final image isn’t the most important thing ! Of course as photographers we ultimately want an image that is both compositionally and emotionally appealing to us. However what I am starting to realize is that we should focus less on the final image, and more on the process. That means having the role of documenting life and enjoying the things associated with it. For example, when you are out shooting, the joy of talking to the strangers you take photographs of or simply walking amongst the subject of your photography whether that is people or green fields. 

Back to the subject of style; is it something that we learn ourselves or something that we copy? When it comes to street photography, I think I am influenced by two types of photographers. Aesthetically in terms of shooting street photography, I have been highly influenced by the street photography of Henri Cartier Bresson but also by the photography of Bruce Gilden. In terms of the message of photography, I have been influenced by Martin Parr, Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander. As you can see there is a wide variation in styles and I have struggled to define my own style.
However, a photographer friend told me. 

“People need to realize that style isn’t something aesthetic.”

This caused me to rethink my own photography and photography in general. We often get so caught up into thinking that style is something aesthetic (composition, framing, technique) that we forget it is something deeper. Rather, style is a reflection of who you are as a person and how you see the world. For example, as I am a returning expat who has been away from my home county for 20 yrs I see  myself as both a local and a visitor which is reflected in my 'Aspects of Cumbria Project'. In a sense my photographic views and styles are conflicting.
Bruce Gilden said:

“Shoot who you are!”

For example, I love the romantic imagery of James Ravilious and the aesthetics and hidden humour of Henri Cartier Bresson, but I also like the harsh observance of Martin Parr. My style then is affected by all of the above and my project 'Aspects of Cumbria' reflects this confusion. Does this make it a bad thing, does this mean I have no real style of my own? or is my personal style especially in this project a culmination of many aspects and styles. Or if style is dictated by the above quote "shoot who you are" Will my next project reflect the same style or lack of style or will I have changed as a person, taken a different direction and therefore a different style?

Using photos on social media

While in the process of writing my blog, I wished to use a photograph to put across a point, I didn't have a suitable photograph myself and rather than delay writing the blog to try to get a photograph that expressed what I needed, I decided to google the subject and grab a photo. As I searched I pondered on what I was doing and the ethics and legalities behind my use of a photograph for a blog and for use in social media in general 

Many people at some point have innocently uploaded a photo on their social media page that they didn’t own, and shouldn’t have used, to the extent that it’s almost been seen as an online cultural norm.

But this is changing. As technology gets more sophisticated, and people become more aware of the issues around copyright (and have the technical means to enforce their rights), it’s becoming more and more important to understand how to stay on the right side of the law.

I found the below on the emoderation site.  (http://www.emoderation.com/using-photos-on-social-media-uk-legal-pitfalls) and found it most informative.

Using photos on social media in the UK: the legal pitfalls

"In this post, I’ll answer some of the most commonly asked questions about when and how you can use photos on social media sites. It’s important to note that this applies to use in the UK only. In a sense, the law gives photos ‘special treatment’ over other forms of copyright, recognising the high value and impact of a picture compared to words. (This high value is why we all want to use compelling photos on our social media pages and blogs.)

 The starting point of the law is that photos – like any other content – are protected by copyright. Copyright means, literally, that you have the right to stop someone else copying your work. So, if you’ve taken an original photo (or created a design, or drawn a picture), you own it, and no-one can copy it without your permission. This is an automatic right, and you don’t need a contract, a registration or legal advice to ‘copyright’ something.  Generally, if you made it, you own the copyright

 There are three circumstances in which you can use a picture:

• If you own it. In other words, if you took the photo (other than as part of your job) or bought the copyright (technically, an assignment).
• If you have a licence to use it. This might be a private licence from an individual photographer or a collective licence. (Creative commons is a form of licence, and I’ll address that as a separate point.) The licence terms depend entirely on the owner of the copyright, so check before you use it that the particular licence you have bought, or been given, covers what you want it for. For example, some stock photo licences only allow use for non-commercial activity or news reporting. So this would be unlikely to cover a company website or blog with paid advertising.
• If your use of the photo is considered ‘fair dealing’ (or ‘fair use’ in the USA). This is a limited exemption and won’t apply to any commercial use. So, if the photo is for a company website or blog with paid advertising, ‘fair dealing’ won’t apply. In the UK there are two types of non-commercial use of photos that could be ‘fair dealing’: (i) research and private study; and (ii) criticism and review.  Both require you to acknowledge the owner. For example, if you’re writing a non-commercial blog post reviewing a film, and you use a photo (that you don’t own) to go with it, that could be ‘fair dealing’ if you also give an acknowledgement to the copyright owner and their rights. Note: the ‘fair dealing’ exemption does not apply to photos used in reporting current events. This is the law’s recognition of the high value of photos in current events.

In all circumstances, you must consider the content as well as the copyright. Do you have the right to display the content? If not, you can’t use it (for example, if the photo is of a famous person, a brand or another copyright work such as a painting).
No, not unless you fall into one of the three categories of permitted use described above. And if you don’t, you can get caught. Blogger and writer Roni Loren discovered the hard way that grabbing an image from Google Images can lead to a costly and emotionally draining legal battle. Ignorance isn’t a legal defence when it comes to copyright.
No, it doesn’t. Under UK law, the photographer retains copyright even if you paid them to take the pictures, unless you have a specific agreement to the contrary. You should always have at least a written licence from your photographer or, if you want ownership, then an assignment of the copyright so you become the owner.
Yes. If you employ someone full- or part-time, and part of their job is to take pictures for you, then you own the rights to those pictures. But if it’s a contractor or a freelancer, you don’t.
How the technology works is key here.  Linking to an original picture is fine as that’s not technically copying. Some technology will show a ‘preview’ of the picture (for example, if you share a picture on Facebook, you’re always pointing people back to the original, rather than reproducing it onto your news feed) which can be copyright infringement.
But still take care with links.  As technology advances this is a developing area legally (i.e. there are some cases because companies are feeling aggrieved at the loss of revenue).
If there is any more than a pure link (such as a thumbnail preview or copy of the title in the link) it may well be copyright infringement.  And you still need to take care with the content of what you link to, as the UK Court has recently suggested website and blog owners have liability for any unlawful content they link to.
It might do. It really depends on your intent and the context. If you’ve taken a photo of, for example, the McDonald’s logo, and plastered it all over your blog promoting an alternative to McDonald’s, you are effectively reproducing the logo, and that could be breaching copyright (and trademark) laws.
If you’ve taken a photo of a high street scene, and there happens to be a McDonald’s in view, that shows a different intent and context – you’re not infringing the rights in the logo, but showing a picture of a typical high street.
The risk involved depends on the value of the image.  This can depend on factors such as: how much the legitimate use of the picture would have cost; commercial damage from publication of the photo; and hurt feelings or upset if it discloses private information.
There are some uses that that have lower risk than others. For example, you might go to a festival and use a photo (owned by someone else) of a band performing on stage to illustrate your blog. That would be copyright infringement. But if the photographer sued you, and it turned out this photo was  just one of thousands of pictures shared by non-professional photographers on a social networking site the damage from that copyright breach might be relatively low. If it was an exclusive gig with only accredited photographers in attendance and you copied one of these exclusive photos, the damages could be considerable.
The sophistication of web crawler technology means that it’s getting easier to find who’s copying photos online and to prove the copying. If you reproduce a high-value picture, you could be up against teams of lawyers dedicated to finding copyright breaches and extracting money from infringers.
If you don’t own the photo, copyright applies in the normal way. But assuming you have copyright, there are other issues to consider.  Whether you can use the photo depends on the content, context and the information revealed in each picture. There are three main questions to answer:
1. Does the picture reveal private, confidential information which might cause offence to that person and has not previously been known or seen? If so, use with caution.
In 2004, the Daily Mirror published a picture of Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. She claimed this was a breach of confidence, revealing previously ‘secret’ information about her. The courts will balance this against any public interest in disclosing the information. In the Campbell case, The Daily Mirror claimed this was the public interest in proving she had made misleading statements about not having a drug problem previously.
2. Should they reasonably expect privacy? There have been a host of cases looking at the different contexts in which celebrities may expect privacy. These involve the UK Courts looking at breach of confidence as well as the European Court of Human Rights where they grapple with the balance between the right to a family life and freedom of expression:

• Salacious nature does not justify publication: Max Mosley was found to have had a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in his case against the News of the World.

• If the pictures are already published, each new publication is a new instance of copyright and damage. In the case of Imogen Thomas, the information was widely known on Twitter and other online sources. But the courts took the view that publication of pictures in hard copy media would add more information and more damage.

• Measures to prevent access and stop people taking  photographs creates an expectation of privacy.Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas were found to have an expectation of privacy which was a commercial right over the publication of their wedding photos, the result of stringent measures they put in place to prevent guests taking pictures, and the fact that OK! Magazine had paid more than £1 million for the exclusive rights to the photographs.

• Anodyne activities in public places can sometimes create an expectation of privacy: JK Rowlingsucceeded in preventing pictures of her and her partner with their son on a trip to the shops.

The right to privacy is lost if the picture and the context of their use make a ‘contribution to a debate of general interest.’ A judge said it was acceptable to publish a picture of Princess Caroline of Monaco taken during a holiday on a secluded beach, as the picture was used to illustrate an article about her father’s health and so made a contribution to this debate of legitimate public interest.
This is a difficult area to navigate or predict legally. It is important to remember that in this category, each publication of a photograph is seen as a fresh intrusion. So if you cut-and-paste from a news article you are likely to have personal liability.
This is another area where the courts recognise the impact of pictures over words.  In several cases, judges have acknowledged that the fact a photo reveals every ‘gory detail’ means the rules applying to use of photos of private situations must be very strict and the ‘public interest’ defence is applied with caution.
3. Does the use of the picture imply some kind of commercial relationship or endorsement?  Context matters. If you use a photo to imply endorsement of a celebrity, then there are reasonable damages associated with that. The public are savvy enough to assume the celebrity will have been paid for that picture, and if they haven’t, then the damages would probably be in line with their usual fee for a comparable photo (if not considerably more).
The same rules for celebrities apply to the man, woman and child on the street. Technically, if you’re revealing private data about that person you could be liable. The difference with celebrities is that there is less likely to be damage.  As a result it is not something that the courts have had to consider often.
There are some cases, though. A picture of a witness in a court case and (in a separate instance) a picture of a defendant were both held to have infringed.
A judge also said that publication of a picture of a baby in a private hospital ward was infringing. The parents’ consent was not sought. Key factors here were that access to the ward was limited, and the baby was the sole subject of the picture.
The level of risk here really depends on the potential damage to that person. If you take a holiday snap, and there happen to be other people in it, the overwhelming likelihood is there will be no risk of damage to those people.
There are different types of creative commons licences, and which type you have dictates how you can use the picture. Uses might be:

• Non-commercial only

• No modification (or only modifications if you share them)

• Limited country use

• Certain formats only

The only way to find out for each licence is to check the licence terms for the particular picture you want to use.
All creative commons licences require attribution.  Each author can specify how they want to be attributed, so again, check the terms of the licence. Attributions include:

• Title for the photo;

• Name of the photographer or owner

• Source and/or attribution URLs

Under a licence, it totally depends on the terms of the licence.  If, however, the licence specifies just ‘attribution’ or ‘acknowledgement’ required, then I would suggest following the fair dealing rules below.
For the fair dealing exemption, a ‘sufficient acknowledgement’ is required.  This means you should:
(i)                  identify the photo by its title or description
(ii)                name the photographer
You can use the picture if the person submitting it owns the rights to it, and your terms and conditions state that by uploading it they are granting you a licence to use it. In your Ts & Cs, be clear that users shouldn’t upload pictures they don’t have the copyright to."

http://www.emoderation.com/using-photos-on-social-media-uk-legal-pitfalls