What are the ACTUAL laws on using a video camera?

[jimbothe]

Just a curious question. Started watching some links on Youtube and got side tracked into watching some on camera's, the police and people being threatened.

Just made me wonder as I have a bullet cam for the bike. If I'm involved in a rta or a police stop am I going to get done for having it on?

Is it or is it not legal to record in a public place?

One video the policeman was saying it's illegal as he didn't give his permission to be filmed.


What about crime stoppers or road wars etc. When the 'perp' says get the camera away the police jump down their throats and say they have a right to film in a public place.

Is it one rule for one etc?

Genuinely confused and even the mighty Google can't seem to come up with a wholly conclusive answer.
____________________
Check out our tackle shop on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/#!/JklTackle

[...]

[shereen]

[Bezzer]

[tatters]

[shereen]

[jimbothe]

[Raffles]

[Bezzer]

[swampy]

[Jynister]

I fairly sure you can video in public so long as you aren't explicitly filming a private location/building from a public place. Other than that you should be ok.

I guess if your just filming a bike ride or whatever your only concern would be if you travelled on a private road.

EDIT: Just found this snippet out the Data Protection Act

Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.

So basically yes, you can have a camera on your bike/helmet. If anyone complains about invasion of privacy or whatever is wrong because the footage is not intended for the public.

[Jim Mc]

[Wafer_Thin_Ham]

There's no right of privacy in a public place, thus it's assumed consent pretty much. Otherwise CCTV cameras would be illegal.
____________________
My Flickr

[Rogerborg]

[multijoy]

[shereen]

[Wafer_Thin_Ham]

[multijoy]

[shereen]

[Wafer_Thin_Ham]

[multijoy]

First, you quoted from a US definition. We're not in the US.

When the law talks about a public place, it does so, mostly, in the context of the exercise of policing powers - this is useful, because it basically says that a public place is anywhere the public are admitted, either by implication (your shopping centre, for example) or on payment (your public swimming pool), but where there is no other restriction. So a private members' club is not a public place, because the entry is restricted to a certain group.

However, these are not absolute rights of entry - they are qualified, and can be withdrawn and you are subject to whatever reasonable terms and conditions the landowner wishes to impose. If you do not agree with these, you leave.

Broadly, if copper tells you 'no filming' and you're in the open air, on truly public ground (such as a road or common land), then he's wrong. If a lifeguard tells you to stop filming, and it is a regulation the pool imposes, then you either do what he says, or leave.

You could continue to film, but it'd be a civil matter - you'd be trespassing, essentially.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on.

[Raffles]

This copper didn't like being filmed whilst attempting to pervert the course of justice:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC7b9zLlK_4
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.

[parkmoy]

You can film anything and anyone in a public place. The Police cannot seize your camera or indeed make you show any of the footage to them, though in the interests of harmony and being a good citizen it might be better to do so. Bear in mind that they are acting in what they think is the public interest and it's usually better to be co-operative where possible.

This is a copy of a letter sent by the Association of Chief Police Officers to Chief Constables and Commissioners across England and Wales:

4 December 2009


To: all Chief Constables and Commissioners

Dear Colleague

Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of 'Stop and Account' and the actual police powers of 'Stop and Search'. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.

Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.

On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.

These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.

The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.

Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.

Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that 'stop and account' need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.


Yours sincerely


Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group

Craig Mackey QPM
Stop and Search
Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Business Area

[Rogerborg]

[parkmoy]

Rogerburg, you're right in what you say and I should have made it clearer regarding seizure of the camera powers. The Police however do need a well grounded suspicion that an offence has been committed, not just 'think it might have been'.

The following link gives a very detailed explanation about photographers rights, https://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

You can of course offer the bare minimum of co-operation if you fancy perhaps languishing in a cell until you have been cleared of suspicion. There's no guarantee of a payout either - false arrest isn't necessarily easy to prove.

So my answer to you is that it's probably better for yourself to co-operate as fully as possible without allowing your rights to be trampled on. After all you are an innocent person and an upright citizen, why would you want to act like a guilty one?