What can you just not film

Zambia

The other day I heard about a Woman having a heart attack. The shocking thing was at least a few people started to Mobile phone film the events in the restaurant as it happened.

This soon stopped when one or two people chased of the young people filming it out of pure disgust. This leads me to two questions.

1: Is there anything you can be criminally charges or sued for filming in a public place place?

2: If you stop someone filming by blocking them or the scene from them could you be charged or sued. Granted if threats of or violence are used to do so, well we all know that's an offence.

Our man in Havana

No and no would be my opinion.

There is nothing they can do if you were to simply stand in the way of their camera.

source

In Ireland anything in a public place is fair game for filming or photographing. The reason being that there is no presumption of privacy in a public place.

Good link here.

As for your second question, unless the person blocking made a threat or physically assaulted the photographer in an effort to stop them filming then I don't see any laws being broken.

Did this happen in Oz or Irl?

Personally I think it's disgusting, for a person to whip out a camera when another person is fighting for their life.

Paulw

Just a point though - a restaurant is not a public place. It's private property. If the owners/management ask people to stop filming (or taking photos) and they refuse, they can be charged with trespass.

source

Paulw wrote: »

Just a point though - a restaurant is not a public place. It's private property. If the owners/management ask people to stop filming (or taking photos) and they refuse, they can be charged with trespass.

Restaurant is a public place under public order act, where the offences would come from.

(d) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

Resend

foinse wrote: »

Restaurant is a public place under public order act, where the offences would come from.

is the park of a shopping centre public. if one takes a pic ther can they sell it. pic of an animal - has the owner any claim?

source

Resend wrote: »

is the park of a shopping centre public. if one takes a pic ther can they sell it. pic of an animal - has the owner any claim?

Here's the full section (linked above) that explains what a public place is under the Public Order Act.

3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—


“dwelling” includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;


“private place” means a place that is not a public place;


“public place” includes—


(a) any highway,


(b) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,


(c) any cemetery or churchyard,


(d) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and


(e) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

If a member of the public can access it then it is a public place. Subsection (b) is relevant to your example. The photographers rights link i put up, gives examples of ownership of pictures taken in public.

Taken from the link in my first post.

Ownership of Photographs?

If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright. This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph – as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in writing – or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the copyright.

The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by an employee in the course of their employment – if X Ltd. employs Z as a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission. This can trip up the unwary – for example, Z may be in difficulties if he wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work.

Resend

isn't there a law that says the peson who takes the pic cannot proft from it without the permision of the subject. if the animal shot were sold would the animal owner have a claim?

blackbird98

there are exceptions to every rule. eg You cannot photograph children in a swimming pool. if you photograph people in a public place, it must be in context with the surroundings. If you take a close-up of a person (a portrait), in a public place, you must have permission. even photographing children on the beach or public playground could land you in trouble.

source

Resend wrote: »

isn't there a law that says the peson who takes the pic cannot proft from it without the permision of the subject. if the animal shot were sold would the animal owner have a claim?

Honestly, I don't know, I can only go off the information I have. Which is the criminal aspect of the situation. On the civil side I don't have enough experience or knowledge to answer your question.

Apart from to say that reading the photographers rights article. It would appear that the photographer owns the copyright to any and all photographs they take and as such once it is taken in a public place they can do what they want with those pictures.

blackbird98 wrote: »

there are exceptions to every rule. eg You cannot photograph children in a swimming pool. if you photograph people in a public place, it must be in context with the surroundings. If you take a close-up of a person (a portrait), in a public place, you must have permission. even photographing children on the beach or public playground could land you in trouble.

Exactly once there is a reasonable expectation of privacy then you should not be taking video or photographs. However where there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy then you can photograph what you want and do what you want with the pictures. Resend if you read the article I linked fully, it pretty much answers all of the questions you've asked.

Paulw

blackbird98 wrote: »

there are exceptions to every rule. eg You cannot photograph children in a swimming pool. if you photograph people in a public place, it must be in context with the surroundings. If you take a close-up of a person (a portrait), in a public place, you must have permission. even photographing children on the beach or public playground could land you in trouble.

The reason you can't photograph in a pool is due to local council by-laws.

I have seen no distinction between children and adults when it comes to being a subject of photography in public. There is no specific offence of photographing a minor in public. You cannot get in to any trouble for it.

There is no legal requirement to get permission of a person to take their photograph in public, no matter how much of a close-up it is, nor if they are adult or child.

If you have any legal documents or references to law which state otherwise, please link them here, as I would be curious to read them.

Paulw

Resend wrote: »

isn't there a law that says the peson who takes the pic cannot proft from it without the permision of the subject.

Only if the image is used for advertising - to endorse a product. Otherwise you can take a photo of anyone in the street and print/sell it without any legal issues.

The only possible claim they might have would be under the data protection law. But, if the photo was shot on film, this would not apply either, due to the fact that the image wouldn't be digital. I know, I know ... it's a weird one.

Resend

Paulw wrote: »

Only if the image is used for advertising - to endorse a product. Otherwise you can take a photo of anyone in the street and print/sell it without any legal issues.

not sure about that

The only possible claim they might have would be under the data protection law. But, if the photo was shot on film, this would not apply either, due to the fact that the image wouldn't be digital. I know, I know ... it's a weird one.

data protection law would not apply to an animal would it?

Paulw

Resend wrote: »

data protection law would not apply to an animal would it?

Nope, it wouldn't.

Zambia

Thanks everyone

BrianD

Resend wrote: »

is the park of a shopping centre public. if one takes a pic ther can they sell it. pic of an animal - has the owner any claim?

Generally, shopping centres will not allow you to film on their premises without permission or a permit. This would probably covered by their terms of entry. Would probably apply to the car parks too.

mdebets

foinse wrote: »

Here's the full section (linked above) that explains what a public place is under the Public Order Act.



If a member of the public can access it then it is a public place. Subsection (b) is relevant to your example. The photographers rights link i put up, gives examples of ownership of pictures taken in public.

Taken from the link in my first post.

I don't think this applies when deciding where you are allowed to take pictures or not. As far as I know, it has more to do with ownership of the site you are taking pictures from, rather than if it is a public place.
The IFSC (including outdoor spaces) for example, is a private owned piece of land, yet it is a public place by subsection (b) you quoted. People are regularly denied access or expelled for taking pictures there. Similar restrictions are for example in St. Stephen's Green again, where professional photography is not allowed, because it's owned by OPW.

mdebets

Paulw wrote: »

Only if the image is used for advertising - to endorse a product. Otherwise you can take a photo of anyone in the street and print/sell it without any legal issues.

Unless you libel the object of your picture with it or the way you publish it.

Victor

Zambia wrote: »

The other day I heard about a Woman having a heart attack. The shocking thing was at least a few people started to Mobile phone film the events in the restaurant as it happened.

This soon stopped when one or two people chased of the young people filming it out of pure disgust. This leads me to two questions.

1: Is there anything you can be criminally charges or sued for filming in a public place place?

2: If you stop someone filming by blocking them or the scene from them could you be charged or sued. Granted if threats of or violence are used to do so, well we all know that's an offence.

Such behaviour may be a breach of the peace.

Zambia

Could be but here you cant be arrested for breaching the peace. Maybe in Ireland you could be as the acting of filming may offend causing a affray. You guys would know that better than me.