No filming outside Heuston train station?

califano

Waiting at the luas platform outside Heuston yesterday morning when an announcement over the tannoy came on that went something like...... "It has come to our attention there are people filming outside Heuston station. I must ask you to stop filming immediately as all filming is strictly prohibited on the grounds of Heuston".
I looked around during this and there was no professional crew or anyone visibly filming. Unless someone was useing their mobile phone but i didnt even see that.
Seemed surprising to hear filming is prohibited outside the station as ive never heard that sort of announcement before. Anyone hear of this or know why this is the case or why it could be a problem?.

ted1

Irish rail, charge people for filming, my father is in tourism and they used to charge all travel programs if they wanted to shoot an dart or other services, its a complete joke. Pissed off production companies big time

foggy_lad

rounders123 wrote: »

Waiting at the luas platform outside Heuston yesterday morning when an announcement over the tannoy came on that went something like...... "It has come to our attention there are people filming outside Heuston station. I must ask you to stop filming immediately as all filming is strictly prohibited on the grounds of Heuston".
I looked around during this and there was no professional crew or anyone visibly filming. Unless someone was useing their mobile phone but i didnt even see that.
Seemed surprising to hear filming is prohibited outside the station as ive never heard that sort of announcement before. Anyone hear of this or know why this is the case or why it could be a problem?.

Probably afraid their useless stt security will be filmed dossing, chatting to women at the Luas stop when they should be working, or are Irish rail afraid of some kind of terrorist attack?

AngryLips

World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, Heuston station ...these are all Al Qaeda targets so filming is prohibited for that reason.

califano

ted1 wrote: »

Irish rail, charge people for filming, my father is in tourism and they used to charge all travel programs if they wanted to shoot an dart or other services, its a complete joke. Pissed off production companies big time

Ah this answers it then. It sounds a bit silly alright. Like something you would hear in North Korea or China.

monument

If it was the Luas platform than it was a Luas announcement and nothing to do with Irish Rail.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

If it was the Luas platform than it was a Luas announcement and nothing to do with Irish Rail.

Luas are very strict about photography and filming of their properties, services and infrastructure and they require permits for any such work ahead of the day along with a full brief of who what and why. While it makes sense if you wanted to do a professional shoot and are taking up space or making money off if it, it also affects something as minor as people taking family or tourist snaps as they do. Irish Rail are far more relaxed about private spanners though obviously professional cews and on board marketing/merchandising needs prior permission.

All in all, common sense goes a long way here.

califano

monument wrote: »

If it was the Luas platform than it was a Luas announcement and nothing to do with Irish Rail.

But they were making mention of Heuston station not luas. Have luas even got a speaker system at their stops anyway. Luas platform juat happens to be right outside the heuston entrance but you could hear the announcement from anywhere within 100yds id say.

monument

rounders123 wrote: »

But they were making mention of Heuston station not luas. Have luas even got a speaker system at their stops anyway. Luas platform juat happens to be right outside the heuston entrance but you could hear the announcement from anywhere within 100yds id say.

Yes, Luas has a speaker system at the stop -- I don't think Irish Rail have any out door system outside Heuston, so it sounds like Luas. While the official name of the Luas stop is not Heuston Station, it is commonly referred to such.

Given the lack of any sign of a pro film crew, it also fits in with Luas policy and not Irish Rail policy.

Losty Dublin

rounders123 wrote: »

But they were making mention of Heuston station not luas. Have luas even got a speaker system at their stops anyway. Luas platform juat happens to be right outside the heuston entrance but you could hear the announcement from anywhere within 100yds id say.

Luas has it's own PA, yeah. Their stop is called Heuston so worrying about wether he said Station or not is semantics. I don't think Irish Rail's PA has coverage outside of the building but as I said, they take a more relaxed position towards personal photography.

califano

Oh right maybe it was a luas announcement so.

Run_to_da_hills

It is getting more like the UK, it wouldn't surprise me if they were using smart CCTV systems could pick out individuals taking photos and then broadcast a recorded message.

The technology certainly exists.

gobnaitolunacy

I'd go around with a camera made of a cereal packet and a mike made of a toilet brush just to p*ss them off.

Run_to_da_hills

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I'd go around with a camera made of a cereal packet and a mike made of a toilet brush just to p*ss them off.

Even better, blog it on Facebook for a mass turn out of photographers.

Mr Simpson

Film Crew Flash Mob, that'll learn em!!

Lapin

It is actually illegal to film on private property without permisson. Luas are well within their rights to ask people to stop, although it does sound a tad heavy handed if it was just some tourist with a phone.

If you want to film a tram, simply step off the platform and on to the public footpath, and press record to your hearts content.

monument

Lapin wrote: »

It is actually illegal to film on private property without permisson. Luas are well within their rights to ask people to stop, although it does sound a tad heavy handed if it was just some tourist with a phone.

If you want to film a tram, simply step off the platform and on to the public footpath, and press record to your hearts content.

It's not illegal to film on the Luas with out permission -- the operators are going far beyond what the by-laws allow.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

It's not illegal to film on the Luas with out permission -- the operators are going far beyond what the by-laws allow.

It actually is illegal under their byelaws; it's listed under "Restricted Behaviour".

Lapin

monument wrote: »

It's not illegal to film on the Luas with out permission -- the operators are going far beyond what the by-laws allow.

Yes it is.

In the same way its illegal for someone to film on your property.

However, there is no law against filming your property from a public area or neighbouring property.

Our man in Havana

That would be a civil matter, Sir!

Lapin

Our man in Havana wrote: »

That would be a civil matter, Sir!

It would indeed Sir.

But its there nonetheless.

I'm surprised that Luas told sold someone to stop filming. As I said it does seem very heavy handed if it was just someone with a phone. And I doubt they would bring a case against such an individual.

The byelaw is there to protect their own asses to prevent others from making a profit at their expense or filming with an aim to generate negative publicity for Luas.

Its highly unlikely that Luas would bring a case to court unless either of these situations occured.

Victor

I've taken perhaps thousands of photos of Luas (admittedly, many were during the construction phases) and have never had a problem. They generally don't seem to have a problem unless someone is making a nuisance of themselves and/or using a tripod.

It may have been that someone was using a camera relatively discretely, but in an inappropriate way, e.g. taking pictures of people at ticket machines.

It might be possible the controller used the wrong stop name.

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

It's not illegal to film on the Luas with out permission -- the operators are going far beyond what the by-laws allow.

It actually is illegal under their byelaws; it's listed under "Restricted Behaviour".

No, it's only illegal under bylaws in very limited set of conditions (when you film and interfer with somebody).

Lapin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

It's not illegal to film on the Luas with out permission -- the operators are going far beyond what the by-laws allow.

Yes it is.

In the same way its illegal for someone to film on your property.

However, there is no law against filming your property from a public area or neighbouring property.

No, it's not illegal, as the bylaws shows.

monument

Lapin wrote: »

The byelaw is there to protect their own asses to prevent others from making a profit at their expense or filming with an aim to generate negative publicity for Luas.

No, the bylaw on use of cameras is strictly written only to stop people from going over board and interfering with passengers or staff:

(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person,

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

No, it's only illegal under bylaws in very limited set of conditions (when you film and interfer with somebody).




No, it's not illegal, as the bylaws shows.

Your definition of interfere is perhaps more literal than the bye-laws.

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Your definition of interfere is perhaps more literal than the bye-laws.

This is the way the bylaw is written:

Restricted behaviour
6. (1) A person shall not on a light rail vehicle or a light railway without permission given by or on behalf of an operator— ...

(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person

This is the way the RPA and Veolia Transdev pretend that the bylaw is written:

Restricted behaviour
6. (1) A person shall not on a light rail vehicle or a light railway without permission given by or on behalf of an operator— ...

(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images

The end bit of the actual bylaw (ie "so as to interfere with any other person") is key here. It means that using a camera in it self is not a restricted behaviour, and it only becomes a "restricted behaviour" when and only when such use interferes with any other person. It would be a Grand Canyon-like stretch to deem all camera use as interfering with people.

I've previously gotten a second opinion on this from a solicitor and he confirmed my view.

Interferes means:

a. The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
b. Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes.

For it to mean something more it needs to be defined by law or case law. Otherwise the normal simple meaning applies.

If you're trying to imply that using a camera interferes with people just because they don't like it or something along those lines -- that's not supported by law. Camera use is not illegal, nor is it genially seen as interfering with people.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

I don't know what you mean.

You do know what I mean; you are reading it and looking for a loop hole through a rather narrow meaning .


This is what I saw on the SI site here And the Luas one here

(e) use any radio or television or any form of equipment for replaying recorded sound so as to be audible by any other person,

(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person,

If Luas don't want you to be taking photos on board or at a station or in a depot then then that's interfering and you can't do it; this Bye Law backs them up nicely. I don't like their take on it but when in Rome....

jack presley

I wonder how much they got paid to have that scene from the Commitments filmed on a Dart

monument

My last post is edited to make my point clearer.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

You do know what I mean; you are reading it and looking for a loop hole through a rather narrow meaning

You're getting confused with the law and what the RPA and Veolia Transdev want or don't want.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If Luas don't want you to be taking photos on board or at a station or in a depot then then that's interfering and you can't do it; this Bye Law backs them up nicely. I don't like their take on it but when in Rome....

That's not how the law works. If they want to impose a ban on camera use they'll need to change the bylaws.

When messing with the legal system of Ireland you have to play by the legal system's rules, not something that the RPA and Veolia Transdev decided and is not supported by the bylaws. When in Rome....

LXFlyer

Well that presupposes someone challenges the bylaws.

If no one does challenge them then things will continue as is.

But maybe you are planning a challenge?

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

My last post is edited to make my point clearer.

You're getting confused with the law and what the RPA and Veolia Transdev want or don't want.

That's not how the law works. If they want to impose a ban on camera use they'll need to change the bylaws.

When messing with the legal system of Ireland you have to play by the legal system's rules, not something that the RPA and Veolia Transdev decided and is not supported by the bylaws. When in Rome....

With respect, you are the one who is getting confused. The Bye Law is there to be applied. It's up to Veolia as Luas operator, the RPA or the Gardaí to apply the SI so it is they who decide what "so as to interfere" means. If that means no use of cameras at all then that's what it means.

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

My last post is edited to make my point clearer.

You're getting confused with the law and what the RPA and Veolia Transdev want or don't want.

That's not how the law works. If they want to impose a ban on camera use they'll need to change the bylaws.

When messing with the legal system of Ireland you have to play by the legal system's rules, not something that the RPA and Veolia Transdev decided and is not supported by the bylaws. When in Rome....

With respect, you are the one who is getting confused. The Bye Law is there to be applied. It's up to Veolia as Luas operator, the RPA or the Gardaí to apply the SI so it is they who decide what "so as to interfere" means. If that means no use of cameras at all then that's what it means.

Now you're trying to make out the operator, the RPA or the Gardai are above the law?!

You've been reading or watching too much Judge Dredd.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

Now you're trying to make out the operator, the RPA or the Gardai are above the law?!

You've been reading or watching too much Judge Dredd.

Thanks for your, ahem, input :rolleyes:

foggy_lad

monument wrote: »

Now you're trying to make out the operator, the RPA or the Gardai are above the law?!

You've been reading or watching too much Judge Dredd.

Don't you know that those involved in transport right from CIE, Luas etc down to Taxi drivers are a law onto themselves.

Victor

Losty Dublin wrote: »

With respect, you are the one who is getting confused. The Bye Law is there to be applied. It's up to Veolia as Luas operator, the RPA or the Gardaí to apply the SI so it is they who decide what "so as to interfere" means. If that means no use of cameras at all then that's what it means.

No, it is for the courts to decide.

Hilly Bill

rounders123 wrote: »

Waiting at the luas platform outside Heuston yesterday morning when an announcement over the tannoy came on that went something like...... "It has come to our attention there are people filming outside Heuston station. I must ask you to stop filming immediately as all filming is strictly prohibited on the grounds of Heuston".
I looked around during this and there was no professional crew or anyone visibly filming. Unless someone was useing their mobile phone but i didnt even see that.
Seemed surprising to hear filming is prohibited outside the station as ive never heard that sort of announcement before. Anyone hear of this or know why this is the case or why it could be a problem?.

If the tannoy was outside on the luas platform then the announcement was made by someone from Luas watching the cctv and done because there wasnt a luas inspector there at the time. (Just my take on it ). I cant see it being an Irish Rail announcement as surely they would have just sent a member of staff out to have a word.
Strange either way if its someone with a phone as nobody apart from that person would know if they were filming or not.

Hilly Bill

ted1 wrote: »

Irish rail, charge people for filming, my father is in tourism and they used to charge all travel programs if they wanted to shoot an dart or other services, its a complete joke. Pissed off production companies big time

They are right to charge companies especially if they required a lookout or 2.
You wouldnt expect to start filming in the middle of Dunnes without something being said.

Losty Dublin

Victor wrote: »

No, it is for the courts to decide.

The courts only decide how the bye-law applies if it arrives in a case. Veolia apply it on the ground, so to speak.

foggy_lad

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The courts only decide how the bye-law applies if it arrives in a case. Veolia apply it on the ground, so to speak.

So when they approach someone who is filming and tell them to leave or stop filming and they don't what can they do? Do they then call the Gardai who can't do anything as no laws are being broken. Or do they just perforn a citizens arrest as they are supposedly able to do with fare evaders?

Hilly Bill

I would say they would keep asking them until they stop or move away.

KD345

It would be nice if they were as quick and enthusiastic about moving beggars, junkies and drunks away from stops.

Out of interest, how many scumbags have been prosecuted for breaking laws/bye laws on the Luas?

Personally, I'd be very happy if every junkie was replaced by a photographer.

foggy_lad

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I would say they would keep asking them until they stop or move away.

I must bring a camera next time I'm going to Dublin and have some time to take pictures/film at Heuston luas stop.

Hilly Bill

foggy_lad wrote: »

I must bring a camera next time I'm going to Dublin and have some time to take pictures/film at Heuston luas stop.

Great, just make sure they are better than the last one you posted .

foggy_lad

KD345 wrote: »

It would be nice if they were as quick and enthusiastic about moving beggars, junkies and drunks away from stops.

Out of interest, how many scumbags have been prosecuted for breaking laws/bye laws on the Luas?

Personally, I'd be very happy if every junkie was replaced by a photographer.

I saw recently they have a notice scrolling on the bottom of the Displays at Heuston telling people not to give money to people begging at the luas stop as it only encourages anti-social behaviour, it seems they only have this on weekdays though and not on friday evenings or weekends. Do the junkies and beggars not work weekends?

They have announcements about harmless tourists with cameras but they wont warn the same tourists and other passengers about the many pickpockets working the luas line who are only too delighted that Veolia are too concerned about their image to be concerned for passenger safety or security!

Corkbah

Lapin wrote: »

It is actually illegal to film on private property without permisson. Luas are well within their rights to ask people to stop, although it does sound a tad heavy handed if it was just some tourist with a phone.

If you want to film a tram, simply step off the platform and on to the public footpath, and press record to your hearts content.

This part is what interests me ....did the LUAS people purchase the land where all their stations are and the land where their tracks are placed ? .... if so, then its private land, if not...then its not private land.

if they did purchase the land - and a vehicle crashes with a luas or two vehicles crash... can the owner of the property be sued ? (similar to if an accident happened on farm land)

Draupnir

I was driving by early yesterday morning, approx 10:30, and a bunch of student types were shooting what appeared to be a valentines ad or romance scene for a movie including flowers, balloons and people in formal wear not unlike trinity ball type gear.

So if you are talking about the same timeframe I'd say there's more to this than someone just taking a few photos.

monument

Victor wrote: »

No, it is for the courts to decide.

No, Victor...

Franticfrank

Its absolutely ridiculous. In this day and age, this can't be enforced. Everybody's filming/photographing all the time with their phones/iPods/even iPads. You can try to prohibit this on private property, of course. But in a station with thousands of people, every single one of them having a camera phone, its a waste of time and effort. As others correctly pointed out, stop acting like North Korea trying to ban photography. Start acting like a proper state and get rid of the junkies. Especially at the Luas stop...I can't buy a ticket without being hassled.

parsi

foggy_lad wrote: »

Don't you know that those involved in transport right from CIE, Luas etc down to Taxi drivers are a law onto themselves.

Don't forget to include the Golden ticket holders who refuse to provide even the most basic of information (as required by law) or who get upset when their issued ticket mentions that it's free.

parsi

Franticfrank wrote: »

Its absolutely ridiculous. In this day and age, this can't be enforced. Everybody's filming/photographing all the time with their phones/iPods/even iPads. You can try to prohibit this on private property, of course. But in a station with thousands of people, every single one of them having a camera phone, its a waste of time and effort. As others correctly pointed out, stop acting like North Korea trying to ban photography. Start acting like a proper state and get rid of the junkies. Especially at the Luas stop...I can't buy a ticket without being hassled.

The French and the Spanish go through phases of blocking photography.

This is often reported via the UK rail enthusiast magazines and I've a sneaking suspicion that the folk who were spoken to were acting the maggot.

Mr Simpson

Corkbah wrote: »

This part is what interests me ....did the LUAS people purchase the land where all their stations are

Yes, the RPA own the land that the stations sit on.