No - I wont stop filming

Mark W · #1 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008, 10:54 PM

ON the 'latest purchase' thread an intersting question was raised aboout being asked to stop filming.

Happens to me loads so i tht it deserved a thread to discuss more.

Some of my recent expiriences...

The good - Asked the police about guns and filming and they were very helpful about giving me advice and said stuff in public likely to be cool so long as agreed with them.

The bad - told by a security person to stop filming an office block cos of 'government computers' - I kid you not.

And The ugly - Turned up on a paid job to film this semi pro foot baller ( age 16) at a match for his own use. Coach accused me of being a pedo ! ! !

Mark W · #2 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008, 10:59 PM

I use a range of cams from tiny to huge and pro and size does matter. The bigger the cam the more hassle, but, oddly, if you have a pro shoulder held cam and a person with a clip board you are far more likely to get left alone.

Snaak · #3 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008, 11:41 PM

Maybe the coach reads videoforums

Originally Posted by Mark W

Quite disturbing and, er, almost erotic... oh dear, maybe I shouldnt have said that - honest i dont fantasise about killing teenage boys - just kidnapping them.

lol!

but seriously that coach must be retarded

I also got asked to stop filming once, as a matter of fact when I was in London, a police officer approached me and asked me what I was doing. Apparently I was out of sight of all security cameras and this made me look suspicious.

Mark W · #4 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008, 11:48 PM

Ha - that is funny.

LOL - for the quote - I will get you back for that.

The Guru · #5 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 07:48 AM

Okay, a quick summary about the law on filming with regard to locations...

Basically it is an offence to film (a) within the precincts of a court or (b) on any premises covered by the Official Secrets Acts (military bases, Government research establishments and so on.) There is a new offence of filming on or into private property in order to record specific people's private actions but that's aimed at papparazzi and hasn't really been tested in the courts.

The ONLY person who can confiscate your recording a police officer, and then only when it's been used in a criminal offence.

Now the murky bits.

Shopping malls, railway stations, airports etc. are places "to which the public have access" but are actually private property. This means the owner can impose restrictions on what happens there. So they can say "you can come here to shop but no photography", for example. If you break these conditions you become a trespasser and the owner or his representative can ask you to desist and/or leave. If you refuse, he can remove you from the property using "the minimum amount of force necessary." Notice the use of the word "minimum". This means that he has to ask you and if you say "yes" and start to comply, he cannot touch you in any way.
As a trespasser, which you become if you break the terms for being on his property, you are liable to a private prosecution from the owner, through the civil court. You cannot be arrested or detained for "common trespass" only asked to desist and/or leave the premises. In the same way you are not obliged to give your name, address or identify yourself to anyone other than a police officer.

The security guard, park warden, store detective etc. CANNOT confiscate your film, tape or camera. If he wants to get hold of your footage he has to get a court order.

In the same way some parks and recreation areas are also "private property" even if owned by the council and, as such, you can become a trespasser and be asked to desist or leave.

The police have the power to stop you, search you or detain you for the purpose of a search. There is all sorts of legislation which covers this. The ONLY time a private person can detain you is if you have commited a serious offence. His suspicion that you've committed a serious offence is not enough. This means a security man can detain you for shoplifting, if he has evidence to prove it but cannot detain you if he only suspects that you're a paedophile, a terrorist or planning a heist.
This doesn't mean that you can simply deck any stroppy security man who tries to stop you filming. It's far better to protest but comply and sue the b*stard in the civil court afterwards.

There are other offences such as highway obstruction (a tripod can obstruct a footpath, which is classed as a highway) and it is an offence to stage a mock crime in a public place, so contact the local police before shooting your armed robbery for your short film. There are also offences involving abusive behavour or causing alarm and distress, so persuing someone down the street with a camcorder can be an offence if the subject objects.

The bottom line is... If in doubt call the police and let them sort it out.

Mark W · #6 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 07:54 AM

Thanks for that - saved me a job I was going to do.

I might add that in this country people have no rights over thier image so long as you shoot them in a publically accessible place. ( stating it simply ).

I was filming a promo thing in a club once and this geezer in the crowd got jiggy with me and insisted I had to contact his agent to use his pic - bless...

Mark W · #7 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 09:01 AM

In the above by rights i mean rights to use.

BUT if you distort the 'truth' of that person you can get your arse sued still.

TimStannard · #8 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 09:05 AM

That's fascinating stuff, Guru. Many thanks for posting.

Seems to me then that if I wanted some general background shots inside shopping mall which was privately owned and had a sign up saying no photography I could simply shoot it

I might be spotted and asked to leave.
I would comply.
I could not be detained whilst a police officer is called (assuming one is not present).
I would leave the premisis without giving my name, address or any other details.

So, unless an employee follows me home, the owner has no details of me and cannot attempt to prosecute me for trespass.

Or have I missed something?

Mark W · #9 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 09:09 AM

Dont think so - it's not the filming that is the civil offence - it's the trespass.

The Guru · #10 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 12:51 PM

100% correct Tim.

The security guard, store detective or whatever has no more rights than any member of the public. They are a representative of the owner, nothing more. If they try to detain you it can be a "common assault", sometimes called a "section 42 assault" whereby little, or no visible injury is caused or "unlawful imprisonment" although to prove the latter a considerable period of time has to elapse, not just a few minutes!

The police, on the other hand, have all sorts of legislation to draw on. A bit of lateral thinking sometimes comes into play. There is no specific offence of filming without permission in the street but a policeman can consider it a "highway obstruction" or "insulting or abusive behaviour" or might even consíder that people are getting so upset that a breach of the peace might occur.

As for the jobsworth or security guard who is a frustrated, failed policeman. They can't sieze anything from you, nor demand your details, nor detain you for filming on private property. They can only ask you to leave and, only if you refuse, push you off the property.