Filming on trains - legal aspects

[thenorthern]

With filming the general rule is you can film on a public pavement anywhere and there isn't a need to blur out peoples faces like there is in the United States as there are no privacy laws in the United Kingdom.

Stations are not classed as public places as there is no legal right to enter a station.

 

[jon0844]

Not strictly true. A shopping centre or a museum could reasonably be called a public place, but many explicitly ban photography and have a right to do so as they are privately owned. This technically is also true on trains and stations, as most are effectively rented by private companies (TOCS) or owned by private companies (ROSCOS)

I was jumped on by security at my local shopping mall, after taking photos from a car park roof (of the surrounding roads, in a panoramic photo). [Edit, not literally the roof, rather the top level!]

They asked to see my photos and I politely refused, but complied with the request not to take more photos. They stated the policy was to protect against photos of children, which was a bit odd as I was taking photos in the multi-storey car park, not in the building itself.

I'd have understood if they were concerned about me jumping, something I didn't initially consider, but they were really big on the child protection angle - given they have an indoor play area.

Then, when I stated that point (i.e. how does that policy cover the car park), it became about security. It fell on deaf ears that these days, after any terrorist incident the police want photos taken by members of the public.

After a while, I got the details for the site manager and went to eat. I came back to be stopped by PCSOs that demanded my details and to see what photos I had taken. I gave my details but refused access to the phone. I then sat through a long talk about the terrorism threat level (lower than now) and once again pointed out that the police welcome photos, and now HD video, of incidents. Plus I wasn't taking photos of CCTV positions or anything.

What I didn't say at the time was 'why are you even asking me this on behalf of a private company which at best would have a civil claim against me?'. As is clear, it wasn't a police matter. I hadn't taken a single photo once I was stopped and agreed not to take more without getting permission in advance.

Showing my NUJ press card did however make them back off quite quickly.

Back to the railway, I was quite pleased to see signs at King's Cross after the Manchester bombing to say that photography was still allowed, but asking for people not to take photos of sensitive items (e.g. cameras, private/out of bounds areas). Sensible advice, as if anything else was to happen, photos and video taken could prove invaluable for future investigations.

 

[island]

Not strictly true. A shopping centre or a museum could reasonably be called a public place, but many explicitly ban photography and have a right to do so as they are privately owned. This technically is also true on trains and stations, as most are effectively rented by private companies (TOCS) or owned by private companies (ROSCOS)

Whilst the owner/occupier of a premises has the right to set whatever conditions he or she may like on those wishing to access or remain on the premises (a current example being submitting to a bag search to enter many entertainment venues), the sole remedy for the owner/occupier as respects a member of the public who fails or refuse to comply with the conditions is to withdraw that person's permission to be on the premises and require them to depart forthwith.

Stations are not classed as public places as there is no legal right to enter a station.

Wrong. A public place is any place to which members of the public have access, explicitly or implicitly; with or without payment. A station fits within this definition. It is (probably) private property, but it is still a public place.

You can also have public property that is a public place (e.g. most streets), public property that is a private place (e.g. the Houses of Parliament), and private property that is a private place (e.g. my house).

 

[AM9]

From someone who works in the media industry I can answer this.

For filming at stations it depends on who manages them, generally its much easier to film at TOC managed stations rather than Network Rail managed stations. With most TOCs its a case that as long as you don't have a tripod you can film at stations without station staff for free, at Network Rail stations you need a staff member with you and the location fee is quite a bit, can't remember how much.

Filming on trains you need tickets but its easy to get permission. Generally I try and film in First Class if possible but sometimes its better to film in Standard Class as otherwise there are viewers complaints about having to pay for people to film in First Class.

But you are talking about commercial filming or filming for profit. The rules are different for casual filming as would be member of the public. Railway stations are there for purposes of travel, and not as a convenient location for the film industry. Bona fide travellers have a legal right to enter a station.

With filming the general rule is you can film on a public pavement anywhere and there isn't a need to blur out peoples faces like there is in the United States as there are no privacy laws in the United Kingdom.

That was my point up thread that filming on the street is permitted, but you can be asked to move if causing an obstruction or a distraction to others. The issue of recognisable faces can still be a problem if harassment is cited, but general banning of filming just because somebody expects their privacy to be extended into everybody's public space is not practiced in the UK. If they walk into the shot, that's not harassment provided the camera isn't 'in their face' so to speak.

Stations are not classed as public places as there is no legal right to enter a station.

Yes they are for the purposes of travel, see the link given by shredder in post #24. Unless they are closed for operational or security purposes, anybody wishing to travel has a legal* right to enter a station provided they obey safety and security rules and ultimately have an authority to travel (ticket) or are making an enquiry.
*provided that they haven't been banned for previous misbehaviour or by a court action etc.

 

[infobleep]

For personal use, you "own" the images/material and therefore the Copyright. It is advisable to ask permission first, especially at stations.
For Commercial use you MUST ask permission first and permission can be denied.
If you post on Facebook then it is being published, but generally not for commercial gain.

The Ordnance Survey would not allow their map data to be used on Google as Google make money from advertising. OS Open data can now be used but other data where they charge, mostly cannot it cannot.

Facebook too make money from advertising so just because you might not gain personally, doesn't mean it's automatically allowed, as someone else might gain indirectly.

 

[kentuckytony]

Just be careful if you venture afield and attempt to film or photograph Area 51. You drone is liable to be seized or shot down.

 

[FenMan]

Just be careful if you venture afield and attempt to film or photograph Area 51. You drone is liable to be seized or shot down.

Airfields in Turkey can also be problematic.

 

[All Line Rover]

That is generally true however taking pictures from a public place, (a restricted or an unrestricted public place) does not become illegal just because people anywhere in the view of the camera don't like it.

The filming cannot breach the subject's privacy (harassment might be a possibility, as cuccir mentions, though highly unlikely from a single instance). However, subsequent dissemination could well breach the subject's privacy. Which might seem an odd approach, but it is a consequence of a legal system which has come to focus on prohibiting the misuse* of private information - and there cannot be misuse of private information unless and until private information has been created.

*often taking an overly wide interpretation of this concept, in my view.

EDIT: It's worth mentioning that the test of reasonable expectation of privacy is objective. A privacy obsessed 40 year old man isn't going to receive better protection from the law than 'the' reasonable 40 year old man.

 

[All Line Rover]

...if you uploaded [the video] stating that the driver was asleep and they weren't, then I'd have thought that the driver/TOC would have a good case for libel.

Then state that one believes the driver to be asleep or is concerned that the driver could be asleep. Simple.

 

[philthetube]

I was jumped on by security at my local shopping mall, after taking photos from a car park roof (of the surrounding roads, in a panoramic photo). [Edit, not literally the roof, rather the top level!]

To be Honest my gut feeling in the circumstances you describe would make me feel you were up to something.

I would feel that a policeman was not doing his job properly if he/she did not investigate further when someone acted suspiciously, I have been taking panoramic photos from the roof but your not seeing them is either the actions of someone with something to hide or the actions of someone going out to antagonise the police.

 

[GodAtum]

I wonder if the guys filming All the Stations got permission?

 

[Ed Jacks]

Unsure about just filming the *area* (and I suspect the answer is no), but you definitely can't film *people* in a private area if you're standing in a public area. So you can't sit on the road with a zoom lens and film the signaller working in the box 250 yards away. The signaller has reasonable expectation of privacy. A dispatcher doesn't.

Well as far as I have always understood it. If I am in a public place I can photograph anything I can see except a military establishment. When you enter onto private property (like a railway station or train} you have to obey the rules of the owners. I, like many of you have taken photos in railway stations and not been challenged, except once in St. Pancras last year. I have indeed been taking photographs for about 50 years.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

To be Honest my gut feeling in the circumstances you describe would make me feel you were up to something.

I would feel that a policeman was not doing his job properly if he/she did not investigate further when someone acted suspiciously, I have been taking panoramic photos from the roof but your not seeing them is either the actions of someone with something to hide or the actions of someone going out to antagonise the police.

But the respondent wasn't requested by the police.

 

[Jonny]

You're confusing copyright (ownership of the photo / video) with permission to carry out filming / photography.

When filming something personally, you own the copyright of that recording (automatically - no registration or anything required in the UK). [Note however, this doesn't grant you any rights to content you have captured which is copyrighted by others, so background music, images or even logos].

Unfortunately, it is slightly more confusing than it used to be regarding taking pictures of images and logos (as long as it isn't a straight copy), thanks to 2014 Statutory Instrument No. 2356 "The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Quotation and Parody) Regulations 2014"