ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

9 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Does this issue really need further clarification? No it really doesn't. The proposed EU law had no chance in hell of being enforced, even if perversely enacted. The gormless stupidity of some legislators underlines how voters are led by the nose, like cattle to the slaughter by onerous idiots. The fact too many of us suck it up defines the general condition of our evolution towards enlightenment, which remains painfully slow.

Just for the record; legislators, no matter how grand they may be, cannot create law, they make statutes in the form of Acts and Bill. Law is entirely constitutional and beyond the tinkering of elites, even though they constantly try to assert otherwise. Any statute that's unconstitutional is ultra vires (null and void). Public Domain is a Common Law definition. European Civil Code can never overturn Common Law. It's one of the major Achilles Heels affecting our relationship with the EU.

9 years, 9 months ago - Shoaib Vali

this is a topic thats been beaten to death ampongst street photographers, point being, you can film with or without a tripod ANYWHERE in public, period - if someone questions you why?, you can be polite about it and say why, but you have no reason to answer them if they get aggressicve, and if anything you can get them done for harrasment if they take the piss. People like security and members of the public are simply not aware of this law and hence why they get mad, but having shot a lot in public, i've realised it's best to explain the law to them in a calmed manner or just call the police if you REALLLLLLY need that shot at the time. the video below should shed some light...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GF6NlkeTvM

9 years, 10 months ago - inka stafrace

hello.
this is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately Karel, I do not know if anyone had ever been sued for taking images of public buildings... (sorry) but I have often wondered it myself. There is another level to this debate touched upon by Paddy. What appears to be public land may not be public land and if you are on private property another set of rules applies. On such land private security guards,'wardens', or representative of the company can ask police to enforce your removal as you are deemed a trespasser. These issues are most prevalent in public actions, shooting a scene + the time lapse videographer who needs time. For example most of the Thames sidewalk is owned by Shell. Do some street protest about oil and you will soon find out. Patarnosca square is owned by the Mistibushi company but that is not as unusal as most other spots in London because there use to be a building where there is now an open square. Canary Wharf is all private (ever tried to set up a tripod there to take a shot of a bank building - No chance - You have to have permission - its bored security guard heavy). The Occupy London movement burst this issue into the public eye for a short time and the Guardian attempted to make a map of all the private land (that appears to be public land) . It was supposed to be interactive and based on contributions by readers but it did not get far because it is really not that easy to find out - http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/11/privately-owned-public-space-map

9 years, 9 months ago - Karel Bata

We have an update from a friend:

"Warwick Woodhouse has been lobbying the Government on behalf of photographers. You will remember the disturbing news we brought you that there were moves afoot in the EU to remove the so called 'Freedom of Panorama' which allows photographers to take pictures of buildings and sculptures in public spaces without seeking any consents. Warwick wrote to his MP to put the photographers' case and seek an update, and was delighted to get a reply back from the Secretary of State for Culture, no less, John Whittingdale. The S of S was able to report that the proposal to remove Freedom of Panorama across Europe had been voted out by the EU. This is important stuff, so it's worth quoting a portion of his reply in full:

" 'In the UK Section 62 of the Copyright Design and Patents Act allows photographers, film-makers and broadcasters to photograph or film buildings, sculptures and similar works on public display without infringing the copyright in them. The resulting photographs and films are granted full copyright protection. This means the right[s] holder - eg the photographer - is able to commercially support their work. The Government supports this right in the UK, and we have been clear that we would not support any proposals or changes to this right that would undermine the UK's current position.' "

---

I'm not sure that really clarifies matters sufficiently and I'm trying to get a full copy of the letter.

9 years, 9 months ago - Karel Bata

I'm sure any security guard would agree. ;-)

9 years, 10 months ago - Karel Bata

LOL. That's more or less what I said, adding (just to wind him up)
1) they have to know it's going on - are they going to monitor every tv station in the world? Good luck.
2) they have to prove it happened
3) they have to know my name and address (not giving that to you mate)
4) they have to prove a tangible loss of income
5) So go away and stop bothering me.

On the other hand I spoke to several policemen who were very friendly and wished me a good day.

The law is like sex - every idiot thinks they know it all.

But seriously, has anyone ever heard of nonsense like this going to court?

9 years, 10 months ago - Robert McGowan Camera-operator-london.co.uk

This is what happened to Alistair Chapman filming in Windsor-

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2014/07/hassled-by-police-for-shooting-in-the-street/

9 years, 10 months ago - John Lubran

Here's one I posted before.

This issue has been extensively discussed on these lists. Significant essays ought to be available here. I tried to find a short cut to some of them in the side bar index; could not find anything under legal. Since it is a repeating question perhaps there ought to be a new item on the side bar called 'Fair use and public domain'.

The central issue will be 'what sort of film are you making?' If it's a factual film (news, reportage and documentary) then just about anything might be fair use if its appearance in the film is incidental, sync media, parallel action and occurring at a moment being recorded pertinent to the subject. Lots of people will try to insist differently but they will be wrong, no matter how grand they may seem. This is the Law in pretty much most of the free liberal democracies and all those with a Common Law constitution, which is the Queens realms plus the USA. The caveat to this is that your film must be truthful, and any otherwise copyright entity must not be exploited by over use, such as unreasonable multiple cues, libellous associations and such common law torts and damages. If this were not so, news and reportage would be nearly impossible.

However if your film is a fictional construction or purely an art form then the use of copyright material is much more constrained. But for example, if a Hollywood movie had a chase scene down a public street would the producer need to clear copyright with every building owner or other incidental entity that appears in the back ground? Whilst the general answer to that is no, the producer would need to be careful of a great many things appearing that might infringe copyrights and other rights or cause damage by association or misrepresentation. So a lot more to care about if you're making a dramatic short.

Public domain is anything that is within a public place, and with some clear exceptions, not owned or leased to a private entity, such as a public street. Anything, including the Queen, the President, the police, children and even the secret services of the nation state can be filmed FROM a public domain, EVEN IF that entity is on a private place. The caveat to that is that any device used to unreasonably defeat a reasonable effort to protect privacy might be unlawful unless such is carried out in the public interest (in pursuit of crimes and offences for example)

Another public domain is an entity that has run out of copyright protection or has, despite having copyright protection, become public domain consequential to an act of release, whether intended or not, carried out by the copyright holder or if the entity had entered the public domain by default prior to the creation of a copyright, such as Soviet era film and music recordings. Case Law has clarified the issue beyond any further argument

These are the general frameworks of the issues. The devil is always in the detail. Common sense within the above contexts is the first tool; without which one had better hire those absurdly expensive lawyers!

9 years, 10 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Tell them to sue you for it - the courts won't be impressed. It's usually security guard overreach, because they like to be seen doing their job...

The tripod might be what they are actually twitchy about, but don't realise they are. A bunch of what seems 'public' land isn't.

9 years, 10 months ago - John Lubran

Here's another one I posted before

In Law there's no doubt about what is private or public domain although as Mat observes there are arguments that sometimes have to be made before a judicial definition can be asserted, such as;

Any place, property, premises or domain that is common land or owned by the state on behalf of the public is public domain, which brings up such issues as high security places like military, national intelligence, nuclear facilities etc., etc; where the common law defence of 'duress of circumstance' can be invoked (which although ultimately the only lawful basis that allows government to restrict public access to a public domain by means of restrictive statutes is, ironically, also equally an argument available to anyone for breaking or temporarily suspending, by an action, those very same statutes; no doubt we'll be hearing more and more about this in the future). Any private place that the public are given free access to without specific condition is also public domain. However the legal private owner of such a place, such as a shop, shopping mall or any other private institution, may ask you to stop filming either by clear signage at the entrance to that property or by asking you to stop. Their power to actually enforce that request is not so simple though. Nevertheless hassle is usually best avoided. Rather more potentially sinister situations arise when for example the state claims that publicly owned facilities such as public transport facilities are not public domain. Currently filming on the tube for example is declared restricted. This would seem to be a perverse assertion according to fundamental Law (Law is always superior to mere statute, even if, for now, perverse courts suggest otherwise) but for now it's not easy to challenge. Put a camera up on a tripod on any Crown property or park and it won't take long before some officious functionary orders you to stop. Whether or not Crown property is publically owned is a more complex debate than it might seem.

So apart from these grey areas of contention most other places owned by and freely accessible to the public are unrestricted public domain where there are no lawfully restrictive powers that can prevent filming absolutely anything or anyone in or from that public place even if the subject itself is not actually on that public place but observable from it, other than that often spurious assertion of ‘obstruction’, which ought to be challenged according to common law definitions rather than those asserted by the lowest form of law we have in the UK, which is the legally dubious and certainly unlawful ‘by-law' erroneously asserted by local council corporations to have statutory authority.

This whole issue has massive ramifications, far beyond the issues of filming, regarding a much greater arena of contention regarding freedom, abuse of power and unlawful governance. It's the second biggest issue for us all after, 'Is the creator of our universe a sentient God?'

9 years, 10 months ago - inka stafrace

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1lrNKscwda7NNc9rrq_Si9dhBqZAbv1Cv2Bx-o7s#rows:id=1

a list of private land that appears public. :)

9 years, 10 months ago - Rehan Wasti

Great legal info, John. Thanks.

9 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Here in America, you don't need to get permission unless the owner or corporation of that building is represented in the script. In other words, if you're doing a film about evil bankers and you shoot the exterior of "Bank of America" to represent their workplace, then yes, you need permission. Otherwise, shoot away.

Here in Hollywood, the "church" of Scientology will send a group of guards over to you if you have a camera pointed at any of their buildings. They will try to intimidate you, block your shot, and just be complete assholes.

9 years, 10 months ago - Karel Bata

Ah, Windsor...

There is certainly a little too much of this. Like with my security guard, Alister got grief from a warden, no doubt emboldened by the presence of a policeman. I've seen the video, and I think Alistair could have kept his cool a little better.

The Police in London - if 'sensitive' buildings aren't involved - are usually pretty good. Dunno about elsewhere. There used to be a lot more of this nonsense: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest (of note a community support officer is involved here, though the policeman that later turns up appears to be an officious git). I'm not sure if the change, if indeed there has been one, is due to the Police being told to relax (see below) or if camera-folk are being more careful.

In 2009 Chief Constable Andrew Trotter sent out this entertaining memo http://www.scenethat.co.uk/assets/pdf/ACPOguideanceDec09.pdf which states "Officers should be reminded that it is not an offense for a member of the public or journalist to take
photographs of a public building..."

It might be worth printing that out and carrying it around. I wonder how Alistair's encounter would have gone if he'd produced that...

More light reading:
http://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/FoI%20publication/Disclosure%20Logs/Presidential%20FOI/2014/008%2014%20ACPO%20CAG%20Interim%20Guidance%20for%20relationships%20with%20the%20media.pdf
and
https://www.nuj.org.uk/documents/acpo-police-and-media-guidance/