Filming on trains - legal aspects

[mlb377]

I'm really sorry if this has already been brought up before (I've spent about 5 mins googling this, and still am not any clearer on the matter).

If someone films something on a train (as innocuous as filming their journey, or filming an event), who owns that material? From what I gather, it seems that permission of photography for personal use is normally granted, but you have to *technically* ask permission if it is for publication (does this also count Facebook/Twitter??). And who legally owns that material?

I was just thinking about all this because of seeing videos where rail staff have asked people to stop filming, most vaguely referencing byelaws, but not explicitly stating what it allows them to do; and I haven't been able to find any reference to filming in any byelaws found online (although granted I apologise as I have probably not looked in the right place). Is there any documentation that directly covers this stuff??

Sorry if I've missed anything crucial or this is dumb! Thanks in advance

 

[dosxuk]

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].

With regards to permission, stations and trains are private property, and if you want to remain there, you need to obey the instructions of it's representatives, the bylaws providing explicit requirements to obey the instructions of staff. So, even though you own the copyright of you filming a member of staff, they can ask you to stop and are required to do so.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm really sorry if this has already been brought up before (I've spent about 5 mins googling this, and still am not any clearer on the matter).

Think this has come up before on here.

If someone films something on a train (as innocuous as filming their journey, or filming an event), who owns that material? From what I gather, it seems that permission of photography for personal use is normally granted, but you have to *technically* ask permission if it is for publication (does this also count Facebook/Twitter??). And who legally owns that material?

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.

I was just thinking about all this because of seeing videos where rail staff have asked people to stop filming, most vaguely referencing byelaws, but not explicitly stating what it allows them to do; and I haven't been able to find any reference to filming in any byelaws found online (although granted I apologise as I have probably not looked in the right place). Is there any documentation that directly covers this stuff??

Whilst on railway premises or on a train you are not in a "public place" so have no right to film other people, and yes Railway Bylaws are quite explicit in that staff can ask you to stop filming, and you must obey their instructions.

Sorry if I've missed anything crucial or this is dumb! Thanks in advance

Don't ask and you won't know.

 

[Bertie the bus]

With regards to permission, stations and trains are private property, and if you want to remain there, you need to obey the instructions of it's representatives, the bylaws providing explicit requirements to obey the instructions of staff. So, even though you own the copyright of you filming a member of staff, they can ask you to stop and are required to do so.

Is this a joke? If the member of staff has no authority to issue this instruction then it doesn't have to be obeyed.

Whilst on railway premises or on a train you are not in a "public place" so have no right to film other people, and yes Railway Bylaws are quite explicit in that staff can ask you to stop filming, and you must obey their instructions.

Would you like to quote this byelaw which explicitly states this?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

For serious/ commercial filming https://filming.networkrail.co.uk/filmingguidelines.aspx
Someone made a commercial film on one of Blackpool's Piers without permission - cost them a pretty penny.

Personal videos - must be loads going on, using phones tablets etc.
I would do as staff advise, right or wrong! Always somewhere else to film!
http://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-public/filming-in-public.html

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst on railway premises or on a train you are not in a "public place" so have no right to film other people, and yes Railway Bylaws are quite explicit in that staff can ask you to stop filming, and you must obey their instructions.

Not *quite* correct, but almost. A public place for filming is, well, any public place. The key is common sense. Film on stations, in trains, in airports, etc as much as you like (but don't be dumb and do stuff like filming security checkpoints etc). But if you end up in a private area like the cab or station manager's office for example, that's not a public area and you should really ask before filming. You can even film staff doing their jobs as long as they're in a public place (station dispatch is fine, booking office is fine, telephoto lens into a signal box, not fine). The test is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Commercial use always requires permission. In practice you can film anywhere you like and as long as you're not turning up with professional gear you will be unlikely to be challenged. Strictly speaking all filming on Network Rail requires permission but that is also daft, given that film is now a daily media (do I need permission to add to my Snapchat story?? As if...).

Note that a place can be private property and also a public place. Waterloo station is both of these. So is a supermarket shop floor, or a petrol station.

There is nothing in the railway byelaws about filming. You also cannot be made to delete video or photos unless there's a court order.

When you film something you own the copyright to it. If your video happens to capture a logo, for example, on the side of a train, you still own the copyright. What you can't do is use the logo to market your video or try to pass it off as your own work.

As you can see it's a mesh between rights and responsibilities. Be reasonable, obey instructions, be nice.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is this a joke? If the member of staff has no authority to issue this instruction then it doesn't have to be obeyed

That's actually correct - staff can ask you not to film if you're on railway property and you don't have permission. In theory anyway. I've never been challenged.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

doesn't the law allow you to film private areas if taken from a public area ?

 

[AlterEgo]

doesn't the law allow you to film private areas if taken from a public area ?

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.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

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.

....does Newcsorp international know that?

 

[bluenoxid]

Hmmmm! This might help you a little more

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

 

[PHILIPE]

There was the stage managed filming of Jeremy Corbyn sitting on the floor to highlight overcrowding but which backfired as there were empty seats available on the train. I don't know if permission had been obtained beforehand or not.

 

[cuccir]

As a social scientist researcher, I pay close attention to with regards to what one is and isn't allowed to record in public spaces. AlterEgo's post summarizes things nicely but it is useful to reiterate.

As posters have said, the railway network is privately owned. Therefore, the landowners can ask people to not do certain things (such as take photos or film the space). They don't need any particular Byelaws to do this.

However, the railway network is also a space in which there is a presumed right of access. The doors are open; people come and go and this is an established social convention. It is, in that sense, a 'public space', even though it is privately owned. Therefore, there is a presumption that people can do things that we would reasonably expect to see in public spaces, and photography/filming are part of this. So you don't need permission for personal, tourist-style photography or filming. Network Rail reiterate that for the spaces that they own and operate here. As noted, they do prohibit photography or filming for commercial gain, so permission is required for that.

What this all means is that you can be asked to stop filming, but you can't be asked to delete or remove anything you've already filmed.

In addition to this (and contrary to what AlterEgo said), there is no specific law prohibiting filming or photographing an individual or private property, in or from public space. However, persistent recording, continuing to record when asked to stop, or intrusively focusing in on someone's property can all be covered under harassment laws. Again, the general guide here would be that if you're asked to stop filming someone then you should, but that anything taken up to then is not illegal. These laws are much less strict than in many European countries, by the way.

Now, we may add further ethical restrictions on what we think that it is right to photograph, particularly with individuals, but that is a somewhat different matter.
--
Edit - I should further point out that, notwithstanding what has just been said, there are further restrictions on specific sites (defence sites, for example) and also on what you do with your footage once captured!

 

[AM9]

As a social scientist researcher, ... and also on what you do with your footage once captured!

I agree with all the above as a sensible approach to taking video or pictures. It also applies to audio recordings, however that activity is not so easily to spot.
Such covert activities may be justified if a person is behaving unreasonably and you may need a record of the event in case that person later denies their involvement. That may also include rail or any other staff who, with the exception of bona fide police officers (not PCSOs), are subject to the same laws as the rest of the public. It may seem unpleasant, but so is the behaviour of a few in public-facing roles. There are an increasing number of prosecutions where verdicts have pivoted on recordings of events that have surfaced after those involved had previously claimed different versions of events, even under oath.

 

[shredder1]

There is a difference between a public place and an area of public access on owned or controlled property.

 

[AM9]

There is a difference between a public place and an area of public access on owned or controlled property.

Yes of course and that was explained in post #13 by ciccir.

 

[AlterEgo]

In addition to this (and contrary to what AlterEgo said), there is no specific law prohibiting filming or photographing an individual or private property, in or from public space.

I didn't say there was such a law, nor did I intend my post to read in that way, though I can see how my clunky wording gave you that impression.

Nonetheless your clarity is appreciated, though I'm a little confused about privacy laws, in that I always thought that if a person could reasonably believe they were in a place where they could enjoy privacy then there was no right to photograph/record them. Is that correct, or are we entering can of worms territory?

 

[cuccir]

I didn't say there was such a law, nor did I intend my post to read in that way, though I can see how my clunky wording gave you that impression.

Ah, apologies!

Nonetheless your clarity is appreciated, though I'm a little confused about privacy laws, in that I always thought that if a person could reasonably believe they were in a place where they could enjoy privacy then there was no right to photograph/record them. Is that correct, or are we entering can of worms territory?

At this point, we delve into interpretations of the Human Rights Act (HRA)!

There is nothing in English law anywhere prohibiting photographing/recording someone. However, the Human Rights Act contains a 'right to privacy' and a 'right to freedom of expression'. The right to privacy might restrict photography, but the right to freedom of expression might also be used to allow it. This is where the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' comes in: courts have introduced this interpretation of the HRA in order to judge whether a published photograph breaks someone's right to privacy. If it has, then publication of that photography/filming is prohibited, unless it is 'in the public interest', in which case the freedom of expression is deemed more important.

I'm not aware of non-published photos ever getting to the stage of being tested under HRA but I suspect that harassment laws would already do the job before we got to that stage.

So it's not illegal to photograph someone on private land BUT it is illegal to harass people, it is illegal to be careless with people's data (which includes images of them) and it is illegal to publish images of people where that breaches their right to privacy. To take a possible real railway-related example, then: a tourist photographing someone working in Blea Moor Signal Box is not breaking the law. If however an enthusiast tried to set up some sort of structure next to the box to try get a better photo, and were asked to stop by the box's operators, at that point it would be illegal to continue.

Tldr; photographing someone is legal until it annoys them.

 

[AM9]

... Tldr; photographing someone is legal until it annoys them.

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.
Although I've not experienced any problems, I have heard of fellow filmmakers who had problems from adults, partiularlly those accompanying children who happened to be within the scene of filming. They had a presumption that no cameras were allowed if they objected, (which is of course wrong). In a public place, (including privately owned ones) provided the children are not the subject of the shots and aren't a significant part of the action, the should be no issue. I don't however see any absolute necessity for 'public interest' unless the camera operator is regarded as the member of the public with an interest.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I have a friend who runs his own film and production company. Basically, he tells me (this is, of course, very over-simplified) that essentially you can film anything you can see from a public place. So filming a signal box from a public road is fine, BUT, you can't see more than the human eye can, so a zoom or other effects, is not permitted. In other words, if you can see it without camera equipment from a public place, it is fair game to film it, as a "human eye" view. A land owner can ask you to stop filming on their property, even if there is public access to that property, and you must comply. However, anything already filmed remains yours, and they can't ask you to delete it. The police can confiscate it, but they can't delete it without a court order. Generally, any faces must be obscured unless they have signed a consent form or it is in the public interest for them to be seen (that would only generally apply to journalists)
But common sense should prevail, and if in doubt, ask first.

 

[Howardh]

What is the *legal* position in this case;
A train-spotter on a bridge (public area) films a train driver in his (private) cab who appears to be asleep* at the wheel (and the train's moving, obvs).
Clearly it's in the public interest for the photos to be given to the TOC, but what if they appeared on youtube first?
There are many, many videos of car incidents where the car and the people can be recognised.

EDIT In the former case I hope a quick phone call to someone (police?) to try to get the train stopped would be in order..
*Note APPEARS. Could have been taken ill, or not even asleep - maybe looking down at a control!!!

 

[cuccir]

Tldr; photographing someone is legal until it annoys them.

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.

Yes, I was oversimplifying somewhat in that summary! Your post is broadly right, but I'd want anyone to be careful: if someone asks you to stop recording them and you continue to do it, then you are starting to run the risk of committing harassment. The right to film in a public space does not exempt you from other laws. As Deafdoggie says, though, common sense should usually prevail.

What is the *legal* position in this case;
A train-spotter on a bridge (public area) films a train driver in his (private) cab who appears to be asleep* at the wheel (and the train's moving, obvs).
Clearly it's in the public interest for the photos to be given to the TOC, but what if they appeared on youtube first?
There are many, many videos of car incidents where the car and the people can be recognised.

EDIT In the former case I hope a quick phone call to someone (police?) to try to get the train stopped would be in order..
*Note APPEARS. Could have been taken ill, or not even asleep - maybe looking down at a control!!!

Uploading the video would seem to be fine. However, if you uploaded it 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.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Whilst on railway premises or on a train you are not in a "public place" so have no right to film other people, and yes Railway Bylaws are quite explicit in that staff can ask you to stop filming, and you must obey their instructions.

You are confusing the terms public place and private property. Whilst on a train or in a station, you are in a public place (i.e. a place to which the public reasonably has access). Unless you are in a part of a station that the public doesn't have access, such as a staff mess room.

 

[shredder1]

Yes of course and that was explained in post #13 by ciccir.

Yes indeed, a lot of good information, but I`ve clarified it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space

 

[island]

It's also worth noting that the Data Protection Act does not apply to films or photographs that you make for your personal use.

 

[AM9]

Yes indeed, a lot of good information, but I`ve clarified it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space

Interestingly, your link includes references to privately owned public spaces, which to a degree, railway property is, (although as Network Rail is no longer a Non-profit making private company, their estate is back as plain public space - often adminstered by private organisations on its behalf).
A much more cynical aspect of public space privatisation is in recently developed urban public spaces, the South Bank being one of the most notorious. It includes prime viewing locations for many of the most iconic public buildings along the Thames, but it is patrolled by private security companies that sometimes try to prohibit many normal activities including photography and video, even by tourists. Local authorities who should respect the status of public spaces take the cheap option of outsourcing the maintenance responsibility, and effectively give the public's access rights to commercial interests.

 

[cjmillsnun]

You are confusing the terms public place and private property. Whilst on a train or in a station, you are in a public place (i.e. a place to which the public reasonably has access). Unless you are in a part of a station that the public doesn't have access, such as a staff mess room.

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)

 

[shredder1]

Interestingly, your link includes references to privately owned public spaces, which to a degree, railway property is, (although as Network Rail is no longer a Non-profit making private company, their estate is back as plain public space - often adminstered by private organisations on its behalf).
A much more cynical aspect of public space privatisation is in recently developed urban public spaces, the South Bank being one of the most notorious. It includes prime viewing locations for many of the most iconic public buildings along the Thames, but it is patrolled by private security companies that sometimes try to prohibit many normal activities including photography and video, even by tourists. Local authorities who should respect the status of public spaces take the cheap option of outsourcing the maintenance responsibility, and effectively give the public's access rights to commercial interests.

Yes the Network Rail thing, to me has always been a bit of fiddling of the balance sheets, and liberties with the actually niche it fits in, its never had share holders for instance. I`m not convinced in real terms its ever actually been privatised, the public purse, we have subsidised it all along. We have a mismatch of a privatised/public Network, So yes I totally agree.

 

[thenorthern]

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.

 

[shredder1]

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)

Again you both appear to be describing a place of public access, (owned by someone or a body who allows the public to access the location within set times and perimeters) and a public place, a place that is owned by all of us and paid for by our taxes, roads, pavements public rights of way et al.