Videoing illegal?

[benb]

Its good to know you can always help Gaz. I do enjoy watching your videos and that was the main thing that directed me towards purchasing a camera.

She definately gave the impression that she wasnt certain about it and I thought I was going to get into trouble for it.

She probably wasn't certain. I wouldn't necessarily expect a general purpose police officer to know every single facet of privacy and copyright law. But it does seem like she used her uncertainty to fob you off.

The main thing is, that in a public place there is no expectation of privacy, so there can be no invasion of privacy.

 

[Globalti]

I really can't believe the inflated opinion some commuters have of their own importance, as demonstrated in posts like this. Police officers have to deal with life and death and everything in between, drugs, alcohol, suicide, murder, tragedy, misery and violence, all while under intense public scrutiny and criticism. To expect them to treat an "Oops! that was a bit close" commuter incident with the same seriousness as a traffic accident or a murder is not realistic at all; I can only assume that the attitude of some commuters stems from their own smug sense of moral superiority.

 

[zexel]

I really can't believe the inflated opinion some commuters have of their own importance, as demonstrated in posts like this. Police officers have to deal with life and death and everything in between, drugs, alcohol, suicide, murder, tragedy, misery and violence, all while under intense public scrutiny and criticism. To expect them to treat an "Oops! that was a bit close" commuter incident with the same seriousness as a traffic accident or a murder is not realistic at all; I can only assume that the attitude of some commuters stems from their own smug sense of moral superiority.

How to stop a thread dead in it's tracks.
You always get one.

Yes, few things are 'important' relative to murder/suicide/tragedy. This IS a cycling forum and the OP was putting across his views of an incident which could have threatened his life/wellbeing.

Cheer up chap

Perhaps you should spend your time at policemiserytragegyforum.co.uk and help out over there.

 

[GrasB]

I really can't believe the inflated opinion some commuters have of their own importance, as demonstrated in posts like this. Police officers have to deal with life and death and everything in between, drugs, alcohol, suicide, murder, tragedy, misery and violence, all while under intense public scrutiny and criticism. To expect them to treat an "Oops! that was a bit close" commuter incident with the same seriousness as a traffic accident or a murder is not realistic at all; I can only assume that the attitude of some commuters stems from their own smug sense of moral superiority.

How to shoot your self in the foot! A close pass is threatening & thus it comes under the scope of violence under the law. This is low-level violence & is illegal behaviour so should be investigated by the police at an appropriate level rather than getting fobbed off.

As an act of violence when a someone takes a swing at another person on the street, even though no contact is made & the victim runs off unharmed, the police seem to be far more interested in the event than when a cyclist is threatened with a 1.5 ton weapon. Surely being threatened with something that's effectively weapon is more serious than someone taking a swing at someone?

Within the realm of dangerous & threatening driving I don't expect to be treated like a serious crime, I do however expect it to be treated in a way that similarly serious crimes are dealt with. At the moment there seems to be a rather large disparity between what happens when you report dangerous driving with video evidence taken while riding a bike & video evidence when driving in a car! The latter gets taken far more seriously.

I don't ask for special treatment for cyclists, I ask cyclists be treated like a pedestrian put in a threatening situation or a motorist who has evidence of dangerous driving is - far more seriously with less barriers put up.

 

[benb]

I really can't believe the inflated opinion some commuters have of their own importance, as demonstrated in posts like this. Police officers have to deal with life and death and everything in between, drugs, alcohol, suicide, murder, tragedy, misery and violence, all while under intense public scrutiny and criticism. To expect them to treat an "Oops! that was a bit close" commuter incident with the same seriousness as a traffic accident or a murder is not realistic at all; I can only assume that the attitude of some commuters stems from their own smug sense of moral superiority.

What an odd post.

There are plenty of things that are less serious than "drugs, alcohol, suicide, murder, tragedy, misery and violence", but we still expect the police to deal with it appropriately.

 

[NeilEB]

I really can't believe the inflated opinion some commuters have of their own importance, as demonstrated in posts like this. Police officers have to deal with life and death and everything in between, drugs, alcohol, suicide, murder, tragedy, misery and violence, all while under intense public scrutiny and criticism. To expect them to treat an "Oops! that was a bit close" commuter incident with the same seriousness as a traffic accident or a murder is not realistic at all; I can only assume that the attitude of some commuters stems from their own smug sense of moral superiority.

Seriously?

If someone is driving this recklesly, and nothing is done about it, how long do you think it will be before the driver hurts or kills someone?

Think about it, before making ridiculous comments please.

 

[LosingFocus]

I was chatting to my B-I-L (a police officer, was Traffic) a few weeks ago. It boils down to this

1. Filming anyone in public is fine and legal - the act of being in a public space means being caught on cameras is fair and no release is needed (goes for stills too, which is how we got onto the subject)
2. Posting that film on line is fine and legal - again, no release is needed as the "they were in a public space" rule is used
3. Saying that a person in the film is breaking a law isnt fine - You can suggest that in your opinion they were being dangerous, but to suggest they were breaking the law - until it has been proven in court - means you could (a) be interfering with an investigation (b) libelling someone.

 

[benb]

I was chatting to my B-I-L (a police officer, was Traffic) a few weeks ago. It boils down to this

1. Filming anyone in public is fine and legal - the act of being in a public space means being caught on cameras is fair and no release is needed (goes for stills too, which is how we got onto the subject)
2. Posting that film on line is fine and legal - again, no release is needed as the "they were in a public space" rule is used
3. Saying that a person in the film is breaking a law isnt fine - You can suggest that in your opinion they were being dangerous, but to suggest they were breaking the law - until it has been proven in court - means you could (a) be interfering with an investigation (b) libelling someone.

So if you get video of someone running a red light, you can't say in your description "driver illegally goes through red"?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

It's also worth noting that if the police try and fob you off and say they can't use it, it's not true. The footage should be supplied to the CPS as evidence and it is up to the Judge if it can be used in court or not.

Her point about it being one sided can easily be counteracted. It can be done if you have the whole video footage of the start of your ride to the end, if you can show that there was no other interaction with the driver then it really isn't one sided. Obviously to do this succesfully you need to have front and rear cameras.

The following relates to photgraphy but may well be the same for video footage.


Legal restrictions on photography
In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-1[/sup] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-2[/sup]

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-3[/sup]

It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-4[/sup] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-5[/sup][sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-6[/sup] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-7[/sup]

Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of under-18s, or what looks like pornography of under-18s.

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-8[/sup]

Following a prolonged campaign, including a series of demonstrations by photographers abused by Police Officers and PCSOs, the Metropolitan Police was forced to issue updated legal advice which now confirms that 'Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel' and that 'The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists.'[sup][10][/sup]

It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#cite_note-10[/sup]

 

[marinyork]

3. Saying that a person in the film is breaking a law isnt fine - You can suggest that in your opinion they were being dangerous, but to suggest they were breaking the law - until it has been proven in court - means you could (a) be interfering with an investigation (b) libelling someone.

Although this may be the case it doesn't tell the whole story. Somehow I doubt that some of the more serious bits of film footage we've seen over the years here (very few in number) are going to want to libel someone as it gives the game away - these people very much wanted to remain anonymous to stop investigation dead in its tracks. A theoretical libel case could also backfire spectacularly.

As for (a) you are perfectly entitled to quote specific laws or specific bits of the highway code. Many of which don't directly refer to laws as I suspect you know.

 

[LosingFocus]

So if you get video of someone running a red light, you can't say in your description "driver illegally goes through red"?

I asked the same thing (but used the "driver illegally breaks speed limit" description") and that's OK if you are careful about the wording. "Driver of AB123 DEF illegally does xyz" would be OK "owner of AB123 DEF illegally does xyz" isnt OK, but "owner of AB123 DEF dangerously does xyz" is OK; so he said it was better to avoid using the terms like illegal, unlawfully etc at all.

 

[LosingFocus]

Although this may be the case it doesn't tell the whole story. Somehow I doubt that some of the more serious bits of film footage we've seen over the years here (very few in number) are going to want to libel someone as it gives the game away - these people very much wanted to remain anonymous to stop investigation dead in its tracks. A theoretical libel case could also backfire spectacularly.

As for (a) you are perfectly entitled to quote specific laws or specific bits of the highway code. Many of which don't directly refer to laws as I suspect you know.

See my reply to BenB, its all about semantics. If you state the owner of the car was breaking the law and publish the plates, and it transpires the driver isnt the owner, then you have defamed the owner.

 

[marinyork]

See my reply to BenB, its all about semantics. If you state the owner of the car was breaking the law and publish the plates, and it transpires the driver isnt the owner, then you have defamed the owner.

Trivially. See my post earlier about many things not covering laws (which is also trivial). Courts aren't the only arbiters of opinion either. Nor police officers the only opinions

P.S. there are very obvious reasons why people use the word illegal on this forum which your brother in law doesn't seem to have considered.

 

[Arch]

So if you get video of someone running a red light, you can't say in your description "driver illegally goes through red"?

You don't need to say illegally, that's tautology. Just state the fact, as proven by the film, that he went through a red light.

There is the very slightest chance that some one could be going through a red light legally - IE if instructed to do so by a police officer because the lights were faulty. In which case, your video would most likely show that circumstance anyway.

I like (IE hate) the way she said "if we talked to him, he'd only deny it" (despite there being evidence!). There's the way out for anyone wanting to commit a crime then. Just deny you did it, and they won't bother any further. Simples! I'm off to rob a bank...

 

[sabian92]

Essentially, if you are out in public you waive your right to privacy. The only things you cannot film in a public place are Police Officers, Government buildings and a few other things. That copper was talking through her arse and just couldn't be bothered to help you.

Report it again at a station and see what they say. They CAN do something about it, they just can't be bothered. an incident not involving a collision doesn't make it a legal thing to do.