You can request the footage from A CCTV under Data Protection Legislation. However, you do need to be able to tell the Operator, roughly what time and where you expect your image to be. The footage also needs to be requested in relation to some offence. For example London Borough of Richmond accepts requests for the following reasons:

1. You represent the police or other law enforcement agency, and the images are required to prevent/detect a crime and/or identify, apprehend or prosecute offenders.

2. You represent a prosecution agency and require the images to prosecute an offender.

3. You are a solicitor or barrister and require the images in connection with legal proceedings.

4. You represent the media, where disclosure of the image to the public is need in order to assist in the identification of a victim, witness or perpetrator in relation to the criminal incident.

Reason 4 is probably the most reasonable route.

The CCTV operator then asks for the following:
(A) Provide the date, location and approximate time of the images you wish to view
(B) Provide details of the incident and description or person, vehicle or property
(C) State if a copy of the image will be taken away from from the site
(D) If a copy is to be taken away, give reason.

For (A) some CCTV Operators ask the following:
Information sufficient to enable identification of the Data Subject (a full description including clothing or a photograph). This is the minimum condition needed to fulfil the request in (A).

For (B) The is usually pressure to state a specific offence. This is, really, not the business of the CCTV Operator. Even if the CCTV Operator decides that "no such offence took place" that is not their decision to make. There is no need to obtain CCTV footage only in relation to an offence.

You have the right to access images of yourself that may have been recorded by a CCTV camera system. This is because the Data Protection Act of 1998 means that public bodies like local councils need to make any personal data available to you if you request it. Personal data is information that relates to an individual and is held by the public body. If you contact a public body that holds CCTV footage of you, they must give you a copy of those images within 40 days. They may send you an edited version of the CCTV footage to protect the identities of other people shown in the footage. That is the responsibility of the CCTV Operator not the Data Subject.

The Information Commissioners Office gives examples of when images are expected to be released:

Example: A public space CCTV camera records people walking down the street and going about their ordinary business. Where nothing untoward has occurred, this can be released without editing out third party images.

Example: Images show the individual who has made the request with a group of friends, waving at a camera in the town centre. There is little expectation of privacy and the person making the request already knows their friends were there. It is likely to be fair to release the image to the requester without editing out the faces of their friends.

(C) and (D) are, largely irrelevant. The request is a Data Protection Act Request for which a Fee, up to £10 can be charged. There is no reason to suppose that a Data Subject would be able to attend at the CCTV control room. It would also be a contravention of the Data Protection Act - since it would place the information on the screens at risk of unauthorised access. That is, if you see the screens in a CCTV control room, the CCTV operator is arguably commiting an offence.

Requests under Freedom of Information legislation are more likely to be rejected: In practical terms, if individuals are capable of being identified from the relevant CCTV images, then it is personal information about the individual concerned. It is unlikely that this information can be disclosed in response to an FOI request as the requester could potentially use the images for any purpose and the individual concerned is unlikely to expect this. This may therefore be unfair processing in contravention of the Data Protection Act (DPA). Even where footage is exempt from FOIA/FOISA it may be lawful to provide it on a case-by-case basis without breaching the DPA, where the reason for the request is taken into account.

A public space surveillance (CCTV) licence is required when operatives are supplied under a contract for services. Under the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, it is a criminal offence for staff to be contracted as public space surveillance CCTV operators in England, Wales and Scotland without an SIA licence. It is not up to the CCTV Operator to decide that they are within the law - so it is not sufficient for an Operator to refuse footage on the basis that "we are within the law". The existence of the footage could place them outside the law and it would be up someone with appropriate competences to determine what is to be done about that. In other words: handing over the footage is in the Operators best interest since refusal can be seen as an attempt to prevent evidence of the breach of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 from being made available.

Staff operating CCTV also need to be aware of two further rights that individuals have under the DPA. They need to recognise a request from an individual to prevent processing likely to cause substantial and unwarranted damage or distress (s10 DPA) and one to prevent automated decision-taking in relation to the individual (s12 DPA). Operators of CCTV systems rarely receive such requests. If Staff fail to recognise either of these two things then they are not properly trained. Proper training is a requirement of the Security Industrys Association as laid down by the 2001 Act and the Operator of a CCTV needs an appropriate licence to do so. Any Unlicenced Operator is breaking the law.

The Knowledge a CCTV Operator is expected to have, according to the SIA is the following:
Know the key points of the Data Protection Act, and show how it impacts on the
role of the CCTV operator. Know the main points of the Human Rights Act in relation to CCTV operations. Know the main provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Legislation and how it impacts on CCTV operations. Know the different types of surveillance and the authorisation levels for operations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Legislation. Know the main provisions of the Freedom of Information Legislation , its impact of
CCTV operations and how it differs from the Data Protection Act. Know the legal provisions which affect the collection, processing and security of evidence by a CCTV operator. Know relevant Criminal Procedures legislation. Know requirements for an operator to produce statements and attend court as a witness. Know privacy issues and the operators responsibilities within the Standards of Behaviour for CCTV Operators. Know the need for and use of audit trails. The SIA’s process for licensing requires applicants to prove identity and competence, and to undergo a CRB Check. Where a contracting company is operating a CCTV system for a systems owner, policies,procedures and objectives should be agreed as part of the contract before taking over responsibility for the CCTV system. These are expected, by the SIA, to include a statement of all of the above points.

An important part of CCTV operation is SIA Licence Arrangements. For any Business Operating a CCTV, an SIA Licence is required.

There are two types of SIA licence: A front line licence is required if undertaking licensable activity, other than key holding activities (this also covers undertaking non-front line activity). A front line licence is in the form of a credit card-sized plastic card that must be worn, subject to the licence conditions. A non-front line licence is required for those who manage, supervise and/or employ individuals who engage in licensable activity, as long as front line activity is not carried out - this includes directors or partners. A non-front line licence is issued in the form of a letter that also covers key holding activities. For the purposes of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, "director" means executive and non-executive directors, shadow directors, parent company directors and corporate entities holding a directorship. In the absence of appropriate licences a criminal offence is being committed.

Finally, if there is a refusal, the Operator does need to explain why the refusal is made. If the footage is not of evidential quality, what is the point of the Camera and Operations? If the Operator refuses footage, it might be reasonable to suppose that it is because they lack the licences.

anyone reading CCTV operator's informative piece may be put off by the first section about the need for an offence. that's only if you're asking for footage of someone other than yourself.

the key paragraph starts "You have the right to access images of yourself that may have been recorded by a CCTV camera system. This is because the Data Protection Act of 1998 means that public bodies like local councils need to make any personal data available to you if you request it."

so for a tenner, they have to hand over your images, and may have to spend time editing out other people too. so a mass "ask for your footage" day would, if enough people could be persuaded to be involved, have enormous impact on resources and would send a powerful "little brother" message to the often unwitting oppressors - the CCTV operators and owners.

howzabout doing a week of theatrical and absurd autonomous CCTV performances, ("little brother bites back"?) and then doing a mass submission for evidence? People could even get their own actions sponsored by friends / family to cover the tenner required..... Just pick a week, pick a day for the submissions, publicise and let people get on with it ???
Sounds like a gooden to me..... Could probably also get plenty of people outside of the activist community to get involved, as it would be a good laugh and is something lots of people feel strongly about. Just a thought.....

They have some footage i want from them anyway, so yeah could be fun.

If I am reading this piece correctly, the LibertyClinic bloke seems to suggest that one has a case if "The judgment suggested that you would have to be the focus of CCTV surveillance (or the system would at least have to be capable of focusing in on you) for the resulting footage to constitute personal data." In any event, "there is a right under section 7 of the act for those featured in CCTV footage to view and be provided with a copy of the footage." (source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/27/civil-liberties-human-rights )

Well, I couldn't swear to it, but I think that most modern CCTV cameras are equipped with zooming capacity, and if that is the case, then how am I to know how many times I have been zoomed in on whilst walking in the street minding my own business? At a minimum, I am probably photographed daily, several times a day and any one of those times could have been a zoom shot. Can I claim fair access to all of those many hours of routine surveillance tape?

And what about all of the cameras in supermarkets, banks, civic buildings, etc.? Are they fair game too, on the same grounds?

The information about the "need" for an offence is the "standard interpretation of law" given by a CCTV Operator. I am not suggesting it is true, just that you really do not need to be put off by the claim.

Many CCTV installations are, themselves, completely illegal because they fail to be installed, advertised or operated within the law. Obtaining footage because you think the CCTV is illegal is just as legitimate as obtaining footage because, say, you were assaulted. It is evidence of an offence. (Although, if you do wish to get Footage to show a CCTV is illegal you need to film the area to show there are no appropriate notices).

The important point is that a CCTV Operator is not there to interpret the law. So, should some thursday after lunch be populated by requests for footage, the only thing the CCTV Operator can do is accept or reject on the basis of what they are told. The perception of what evidential role the footage plays is not up to the CCTV Operator to decide.

Do not be put off by the "need for an offence" claim.

The information about the "need" for an offence is the "standard interpretation of law" given by a CCTV Operator. I am not suggesting it is true, just that you really do not need to be put off by the claim.

Many CCTV installations are, themselves, completely illegal because they fail to be installed, advertised or operated within the law. Obtaining footage because you think the CCTV is illegal is just as legitimate as obtaining footage because, say, you were assaulted. It is evidence of an offence. (Although, if you do wish to get Footage to show a CCTV is illegal you need to film the area to show there are no appropriate notices).

The important point is that a CCTV Operator is not there to interpret the law. So, should some thursday after lunch be populated by requests for footage, the only thing the CCTV Operator can do is accept or reject on the basis of what they are told. The perception of what evidential role the footage plays is not up to the CCTV Operator to decide.

Do not be put off by the "need for an offence" claim.

The ICO says 90% of CCTV is inadmissable.

Of more interest to me is your anectdotes, your opinions about how useful and misused it is, how your job changed you. Got anything to share here?

"howzabout doing a week of theatrical and absurd autonomous CCTV performances"

i'm in on that for sure!