Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
The Police & The Film-maker - Me!
- Thread starter Darren Pollard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- police
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
It's great that every random person with a digital camera thinks they have the right to call themselves a "filmmaker". You're not.
Regarding the right to video someone... standard laws apply not to the actual act of videoing, but to the financial exploitation of said video. If you video someone without their permission and then attempt to financially exploit said video, the person appearing in the video can sue you and force the video to be destroyed. The same goes for recording any and all intellectual property.
This, for example would apply to the crests that appear on the police helmets. Assuming it's the same in the UK as in New Zealand (which it's most likely it is) the copyright to the crest on the helmets belongs to the UK government, and as such videoing and broadcasting that crest without permission from the copyright holder constitutes copyright infringement.
The laws regarding documentary film are a little vaguer as it can fall into the news gathering area where copyright is exempt, however any actual filmmaker is aware that they need to get personal releases signed for any individual who appears in their film.
This can be avoided by blurring or concealing the face of the person being recorded, which is a common tactic used when the subject matter is likely to refuse to sign a release.
Incidentally, if UK law is anything like NZ law, crossing a police barrier constitutes a very serious offense, and the videographer in question is lucky they are not facing charges.
Regarding the right to video someone... standard laws apply not to the actual act of videoing, but to the financial exploitation of said video. If you video someone without their permission and then attempt to financially exploit said video, the person appearing in the video can sue you and force the video to be destroyed. The same goes for recording any and all intellectual property.
This, for example would apply to the crests that appear on the police helmets. Assuming it's the same in the UK as in New Zealand (which it's most likely it is) the copyright to the crest on the helmets belongs to the UK government, and as such videoing and broadcasting that crest without permission from the copyright holder constitutes copyright infringement.
The laws regarding documentary film are a little vaguer as it can fall into the news gathering area where copyright is exempt, however any actual filmmaker is aware that they need to get personal releases signed for any individual who appears in their film.
This can be avoided by blurring or concealing the face of the person being recorded, which is a common tactic used when the subject matter is likely to refuse to sign a release.
Incidentally, if UK law is anything like NZ law, crossing a police barrier constitutes a very serious offense, and the videographer in question is lucky they are not facing charges.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
This is a clear cut case of you violating a police cordon; you're lucky they didn't arrest you.
This appears to be two police officers investigating something they find to be suspicious, and after ascertaining nothing suspicious was occurring, moved on. This is precisely what I'd expect police officers to do.
This looks like two (very young) police who got something wrong and didn't have the decency to apologise (I'm guessing they were too embarassed to apologise). The mere fact that these police officers checked with their duty sergeant and then left you alone completely undermines you "police state" claim.
This is you wilfully obstructing a police investigation by withholding evidence (you are incorrect on the "they entitled to a copy" claim, as the tape would need chain of custody to be entered as evidence in a trial. What you will find is that the police can seize a tape, make a copy themselves (on a certified and documented machine) and return the original - this does not allow the videographer to make a copy at home for the police to come collect some time later). Again you're lucky they did not arrest you.
As far as I can tell the last two are nothing more than you being paranoid.
Last edited: