Filming kids in park

edgex

biscit wrote: »

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the legality of taking photographs and filming in public places, even among police officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers have made clear that photography is not illegal, but photographers taking photos of interesting looking buildings and public scenes still get hassled by the police all the time.

There may be regs relating to permanent CCTV installations, but I don't see why it should be different.

The idea that filming or photography is suspicious or worrying behaviour needs to be stamped out.

people on these boards really need to learn to read



the OP's situation:

the camera is on/in a private premises
it is filming a public place


you, with camera, whilst in a public place, are legally allowed to photograph & film that public place

pogofish wrote: »

Nope - This "rule" only exists in that officer's incompetent head. There is nothing to stop you setting up or using a camera at all.

Once again, legal summary here:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

& again:

photographer IN PUBLIC photographing other people IN PUBLIC

pogofish wrote: »

CCTV law and guidelines here -

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/cctv.aspx

but they only apply to biz and organisations. Not to private individuals.

http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/cctv/part_2.php

"I am often told (and indeed read it in numerous publications) that if security is for domestic purposes then the Data Protection Act does not apply. Can I dismiss that myth immediately. The Data Protection Act most certainly applies to any processing of personal data, which would include CCTV images and details of persons accessing premises."

"However, the Act does afford certain exemptions with some of the processing of personal data that takes place.

Section 36 of the Data Protection Act states such an exemption.


However (there is always an "however"), consider the following.

Mr. Smith at 11 Acacia Avenue has a CCTV system installed which monitors persons accessing his premises. It picks up any visitor as soon as they enter the gate and only captures their images whilst they are on his property.

(a) Mr. Smith is entitled to do this.

(b) He does not need to provide a notice saying that the person is entering a CCTV controlled area.

(c) He is not required to provide a copy of the footage he has captured to the Data Subject if they make a request. However, if that CCTV camera picks up images outside Mr. Smith's premises, such as the entrance to his neighbour's premises or persons walking down Acacia Avenue, then he has to consider the implications of the Data Protection Act.

He must consider what justification he has in capturing the images of visitors to his neighbours, or those persons on Acacia Avenue. Note, I am not saying that he can't, only that he has to justify it. Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act lists six conditions that can justify processing of personal data. Mr. Smith would have to satisfy just one of them in order to capture those images.

Personally, I feel he would be hard put to find one of the conditions that would meet this requirement. Even if he proved me wrong, he would have to put up a notice to notify the persons walking into his neighbour's garden or walking along Acacia Avenue that they were being caught by CCTV camera, the purposes of those images being caught, and who was responsible for the processing. He would also have to provide a copy of the images if the Data Subjects made an access request.

Clearly the solution to this is to ensure that the CCTV camera does not pick up any images that are not within Mr. Smith's premises.

hjibds

...and if its plugged directly in to the TV and isn't being recorded? If he hears a noise at night and doesn't feel safe to venture out he can switch the TV to AV and see whats going on.

Maybe we should make play parks indoors, where you sign in and sign out but only after you have been vetted and shown not to be a risk - Is this really the kind of world you want to live in???????????

Or we could turn the law around - your guilty of <insert crime here> until you prove otherwise.

Maybe if i'm in the background of one of your photos I can accuse you of being a stalker????

pelirocco

zoelouise88 wrote: »

I agree its innocent as its a public place hes filming but as for what he does with the videos who knows? that how ever may not be innocent.

I am not going to feel bad for protecting my child, unfortunately the world is full of sick people so if i feel unhappy with something then i will question it. Its better to be safe than sorry. child molesters, murderers etc do not go around advertising themselfs so unless us 'drama llamas' question things and report things then they would all be walking free to do as they please.

As i have said i am not saying this man is doing anything wrong i am just expressing my concern as no one knows what this man could be doing, yes he could be filming to protect his property but until i know this for sure i am not going to assume this is all he could possibly be doing.

Actually the world isnt full of 'sick ' people .well not in the sense you mean . Children are not in any more danger now then they were 30/40/50 years ago ( except from traffic ) .........and its rarely from a stranger


As an aside there are plenty of tv programmes out there that are far more detailed then any long distance shot into a park ..........have you ever seen this

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/toddlers-tiaras/about-toddlers-and-tiaras.htm


something not quite right with that

oldone_2

This thread would have not existed 30 years ago. Then parents took responsibilty for their children. Today some parents scream blue murder if a camera if waved in the general direction of their precious offspring, or shout 'abuse' if a teacher touches their child to comfort them. They now expect the whole of society to act abnormally to compensate for their lack of parental skills.

Being a parent is about looking after and protecting your children.It does not mean going around actively seeking 'pedo' crimes where none exist.

It used to be that childhood was an age of innocence.These ineffective parents have destroyed that; actions which some people say is also a form of abuse.

Dave101t

this is what happens when poorly brought up kids then have their own kids.....a systemic failure of our society to 'look after our own'. too busy looking for all the pedo's that dont exist and not noticing the childrens minds being warped by their parents neuroses. good luck for the next generation, ill be off abroad where british values are preserved....funnily enough not in britain!

Jeff_Bridges_hair

edgex wrote: »

people on these boards really need to learn to read



the OP's situation:

the camera is on/in a private premises
it is filming a public place


you, with camera, whilst in a public place, are legally allowed to photograph & film that public place






& again:

photographer IN PUBLIC photographing other people IN PUBLIC







http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/cctv/part_2.php

Neatly avoiding my question as to how you know they are filming..

But there have been lots of cases in the newspapers and on telly of people setting up cameras to film not only their premises but the street to capture neighbours and unruly yobs who loiter outside their houses and these have been allowed by the police and courts as evidence in prosecutions and we have all seen them.

so apart from my first question - how can it be ok for one set of people to be allowed to do this by police and councils yet you are trying to claim that you are not allowed to do this?

eyeinthesky

This thread makes me so sad . I have 2 lovely granddaughters, who I adore, and I also have a large digital slr camera. I love capturing pictures of them, but I have to be so careful not to catch any other kids in my photos. This is so difficult sometimes, that it makes me miss some photos that would be amazingly good.

I took my daughter, a single mum, and my grandkids, on holiday with my wife and I last year. We went to a holiday park in august, and it was the kids first holiday, they were so excited to be going on holiday! Anyway, we went to the holiday park, staying in a caravan, and they absolutely loved it! Their little faces were a joy to behold, and the entertainment characters really captured their imagination. Of course I wanted to take lots of photos, something for all of us to remember, so I did. About halfway through our holiday, I was approached by a member of the security team, and he said that some parents had complained that I was taking too many photos of the dance floor, during the early children's bit. He also said that it was policy that photography on the dance floor was not allowed. I explained that I was only taking photos of my grandkids, and that I was zoomed in on them and my daughter in every shot. I also offered to show him the images on the memory card, but he declined, saying that photography on the dance floor was not allowed. I accepted this, but noticed that for the rest of our stay, people with compact cameras and camcorders were shooting without any approach from the security team. I concluded that I was singled out because I use an slr camera and large flash unit. I am just an adoring granddad, with a love of my grandkids, and want to have as many photos of their growing up as I can. Is this so wrong?

I am taking my daughter and grandkids away again in august this year, but I will make sure I have a camcorder, and my wife's compact camera with us. I am not a perv!!!!!! I just love my grandkids and want to have pictures of them growing up.

I just wish people would keep things in perspective, and not jump to the most sensationalist conclusion.

edgex

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Neatly avoiding my question as to how you know they are filming..

But there have been lots of cases in the newspapers and on telly of people setting up cameras to film not only their premises but the street to capture neighbours and unruly yobs who loiter outside their houses and these have been allowed by the police and courts as evidence in prosecutions and we have all seen them.

so apart from my first question - how can it be ok for one set of people to be allowed to do this by police and councils yet you are trying to claim that you are not allowed to do this?

those cameras may well have been allowed/provided by the police, not by private individuals, for the purpose of evidence collection.

cctv evidence presented in courts has to meet certain standards, cheap home security cameras generally dont meet those standards.
therefore the police may provide suitable equipment for a period of time.



how do you know that they arnt filming?

Lirin

For Edgex-

Despite the explosion in the use of CCTV cameras in the UK by both public and private bodies, there are still no statutory rules which apply specifically to the use of CCTV cameras – even those used by the police or other public bodies. The coalition government has promised to rectify this, but in the meantime we can only rely on the Data Protection Act 1998 and article 8 of the European convention on human rights (the right to respect for private and family life), both of which have played an important role in providing some regulation but which have inevitable limitations in this context.

CCTV will only be subject to the DPA if the footage captured "relates to living individuals who can be identified" from it. Therefore fixed cameras in city centres, which simply capture crowds of unidentifiable individuals in a particular area, would not be subject to the DPA. Cameras with remote zoom functions, though, probably would, as would cameras used by businesses or individuals for private security purposes.

The DPA contains an exemption for domestic use, however, so a householder who has a camera on their property for their own personal use would not be covered by the DPA even if the camera overlooks the street or other public areas near their home. This exemption also applies to recreational use, eg by using a mobile phone or camcorder.



That's copied from a quick search, but could have told you as much. Very few laws actually exist in the UK relating to filming/shooting.... Largely, anything that does exist is aimed at companies, or deals with the byproduct of filming and the use of it in a court.
By that, it's not actually illegal to film in or onto a public place- it is the end use of the images/film that is queried, not the actual act. Private land is a private matter, unless there's a reasonable expectation the public will be on those grounds. Then, depending on whether the private ground is residental, business, whatever, differing laws and advice come in.

biscit

edgex wrote: »

people on these boards really need to learn to read



the OP's situation:

the camera is on/in a private premises
it is filming a public place

My reading comprehension is fine, I understood the camera was on private property and filming public property. I don't feel that makes much difference. This is my opinion. I stated that I didn't see how CCTV filming was significantly different to taking photos in public- my opinion not a statement of absolute fact!

I've read the passage on data protection and I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of it. The passage refers to someone filming from a private place and taking in areas outside the boundaries of that place. The data protection issue here appears to me to be that of the recording of property under the control of other householders- not the recording of the public place.

I'm not saying with 100% certainty that your interpretation of that passage is the wrong one and mine is the right one. There might be issues with photographing public from private. I don't think the arguments you present prove this, that's all.

But still this is a side issue. There may be minor regulatory issues surrounding the cameras, the main issue is the idea that someone filming a public place (from whatever perspective) is something to be worried about.

While is possible that there is a less than wholesome motive for the cameras, it is incredibly unlikely. Nice, sensible people need to keep that sense of proportion.