Sorry this isn't as technical as perhaps is appropriate, but the 
interminable debate about the c**pness of DAB and DTT is getting a bit 
wearing (ultimately it's political anyway).

For the rest of this document substitute 'broadcasting' or 'recording' 
for 'filming' as appropriate (life's too short for that debate too!).

I've been looking at a document from a borough council, nameless for the 
time being, that describes the 'services' offered to the council for 
film makers, and presumably also broadcasters. In essence they actually 
mean 'interference' or 'what we intend to control' as they want to know 
detail of production planning (everything but the script, it seems), and 
threaten that 'permission to film' will be withdrawn for what they deem 
to be bad behaviour.

Now I fully support the idea that co-operation with local authorities is 
far better than conflict, but the idea of 'permission to film' is a bit 
worrying from a civil liberties perspective. AIUI, despite pressure, 
there is presently no law against filming in public outdoor spaces, 
provided nuisance is not caused. Obviously, if you stage a riot, block a 
road, or blow up a car you'll be transgressing umpteen bits of 
legislation, but the idea that any council should have any control over 
how something is filmed on its patch, purely because said filming is 
done there, is disturbing, to put it mildly.

So what's the team's considered wisdom on the subject? Is this a power 
grab by bureaucrats, helpful custom + practice, or the effect of recent 
legislation? Or has it always been like this and freedom to film is a 
myth?

Incidentally, the document is titled "Film Makers' Code Of Conduct". 
It's not bad as a checklist for a well-behaved production, but the 
implication that the council can micro-manage to the extent implied is 
to my mind, very disturbing.

What do the team think?

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

In article <nnyiRMBet+LIFwFc@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk>,
   SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
> Now I fully support the idea that co-operation with local authorities is 
> far better than conflict, but the idea of 'permission to film' is a bit 
> worrying from a civil liberties perspective. AIUI, despite pressure, 
> there is presently no law against filming in public outdoor spaces, 
> provided nuisance is not caused. Obviously, if you stage a riot, block a 
> road, or blow up a car you'll be transgressing umpteen bits of 
> legislation, but the idea that any council should have any control over 
> how something is filmed on its patch, purely because said filming is 
> done there, is disturbing, to put it mildly.

Have you ever seen a film unit? It's not just a camera and camera person.
They can cause a great deal of disruption to the area being used. And can
produce resentment from the locals if it happens often.

If you want to film in a private house you'll have to pay a facility fee.
Don't see any difference in a council charging the same to use their
roads, etc.

-- 
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" 
 writes
>In article <nnyiRMBet+LIFwFc@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk>,
>   SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
>> Now I fully support the idea that co-operation with local authorities is
>> far better than conflict, but the idea of 'permission to film' is a bit
>> worrying from a civil liberties perspective. AIUI, despite pressure,
>> there is presently no law against filming in public outdoor spaces,
>> provided nuisance is not caused. Obviously, if you stage a riot, block a
>> road, or blow up a car you'll be transgressing umpteen bits of
>> legislation, but the idea that any council should have any control over
>> how something is filmed on its patch, purely because said filming is
>> done there, is disturbing, to put it mildly.
>
>Have you ever seen a film unit?

Of course I have. And umpteen OBs.

You're missing the point.

>Don't see any difference in a council charging the same to use their
>roads, etc.

If you use their facilities that's fine. If they move street furniture 
or suspend parking bays or whatever, it's reasonable to charge for it, 
and/or policing required, etc. and all the rest (and I agree it can be a 
very big list).

The issue is "permission to film" per se. As I understand it there is no 
such thing in law in a public place, so the council has no authority to 
give it nor regulate it.


Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:39:28 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Have you ever seen a film unit?

Simon used to be a colleague of mine in the dim and distant...  

> They can cause a great deal of disruption to the area being used. And 
> can produce resentment from the locals if it happens often.

Agreed, 

> If you want to film in a private house you'll have to pay a facility 
> fee.

You don't *have* to but any sensible production offers one and any 
sensible home owner would ask. But I suspect there are plenty of people 
out there who would let a crew into their home for nowt for the "fame of 
television".

> Don't see any difference in a council charging the same to use their
> roads, etc.

I think Simon is more concerned about the civil liberties aspect. That is 
these "guidelines" could be used to prevent any one making any "visual 
record" in a public place. AFAIK if you are in a public place you can 
"photograph" what ever and who ever you like. There are exceptions for 
"restricted places"[*] but they should have notices displayed saying that 
they are "restricted places".

There are a growing number of cases where an inncocent person taking a 
picture in a public place have had camera/film confiscated,r had to delete 
digital images or being otherwise hassled. Based on all manner of 
superious "laws" from child protection to the anti-terrorist legislation.

[*] Military bases, etc but these days I'd also include airports, rail & 
bus stations, grid switching centres and infrastructure, etc even if they 
didn't have explicit "resctricted place" notices.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
> Now I fully support the idea that co-operation with local authorities is 
> far better than conflict, but the idea of 'permission to film' is a bit 
> worrying from a civil liberties perspective.

Those regulations are not targeted at private individuals but at 
commercial and other organised undertakings making a film - otherwise 
every tourist brandishing some form of motion camera would infringe. 
Your rights as an individual, as they are, are unaffected in that regard.

Councils control all manner of things like planning guidelines and 
commercial activities. Would you view these as infringements of civil 
liberties or the exercise of reasonable powers in the public interest?
You might think filming should be unregulated but so might a market 
stall holder or a builder going about their lawful, daily business.

 > Or has it always been like this and freedom to film is a myth?

It certainly isn't new but clearly there was a point between the 
creation of the film industry and now, where regulation was deemed a 
good idea - presumably as an opportunity to extract revenue, minimise 
possible disruption, promote the area or similarly reduce the risk that 
a bad image of the region was conveyed. There is no explicit 'freedom to 
film' but, save for a number of circumstances, it is unregulated.

As another poster has mentioned, it is not council regulations that need 
be worried about from a civil liberties perspective, but the 
heavy-handed and deeply misguided policing that is going on in the name 
of prevention of terrorism etc., e.g;

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=40875
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Terror_Act_Police_attack_government_over_photography_in_public_news_254852.html

ESB

In article ,
   Dave Liquorice  wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:39:28 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > Have you ever seen a film unit?

> Simon used to be a colleague of mine in the dim and distant...  

Perhaps I should have put a smiley after it. 

> > They can cause a great deal of disruption to the area being used. And 
> > can produce resentment from the locals if it happens often.

> Agreed, 

> > If you want to film in a private house you'll have to pay a facility 
> > fee.

> You don't *have* to but any sensible production offers one and any 
> sensible home owner would ask. But I suspect there are plenty of people 
> out there who would let a crew into their home for nowt for the "fame of 
> television".

More fool them. I wouldn't allow a crew in my house at any price. I know
what they say about everywhere else. ;-)
 I've let them use the outside power socket though. For a fee, of course. 

> > Don't see any difference in a council charging the same to use their
> > roads, etc.

> I think Simon is more concerned about the civil liberties aspect. That
> is these "guidelines" could be used to prevent any one making any
> "visual record" in a public place. AFAIK if you are in a public place
> you can "photograph" what ever and who ever you like. There are
> exceptions for "restricted places"[*] but they should have notices
> displayed saying that they are "restricted places".

 I don't see individuals being stopped from using a domestic camera
anywhere. Unless there are specific restrictions - usually where the
premises etc want to sell you their pics. 

> There are a growing number of cases where an inncocent person taking a
> picture in a public place have had camera/film confiscated,r had to
> delete digital images or being otherwise hassled. Based on all manner
> of superious "laws" from child protection to the anti-terrorist
> legislation.

Indeed - but isn't that a different matter from simply filming in the
street?

> [*] Military bases, etc but these days I'd also include airports, rail &
> bus stations, grid switching centres and infrastructure, etc even if
> they didn't have explicit "resctricted place" notices.

-- 
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again 

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Ernst S Blofeld wrote:
> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
> > Now I fully support the idea that co-operation with local authorities is 
> > far better than conflict, but the idea of 'permission to film' is a bit 
> > worrying from a civil liberties perspective.
> 
> Those regulations are not targeted at private individuals but at 
> commercial and other organised undertakings making a film - otherwise 
> every tourist brandishing some form of motion camera would infringe. 
> Your rights as an individual, as they are, are unaffected in that regard.

The problem seems to be one of scale. You may have rights as an individual, 
but how many individuals need to be working in the same place at the same time 
before they are legally speaking something else that needs regulating? Should 
it make a difference if they are all working together or if they are 
independent but just happen to be covering the same event?

A film or TV drama unit in a public place, depending on exactly what sort of 
scenes they are shooting, can comprise enough people and vehicles to form a 
serious obstruction for the best part of a day just to shoot a few minutes 
worth of finished material, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that this 
can't be allowed without all the proper permissions and arrangements being 
dealt with beforehand.

At the other end of the scale, a news unit or freelance photographer might be 
just one or two people with nothing more than hand-held equipment, and the 
very nature of what they need to shoot would make it pointless if they had to 
go through a lot of time-consuming bureacracy every time. And of course there 
are lots of casual or amateur photographers who just like taking pictures.

Try to devise an unambiguous legal definition which would include one category 
and exclude the other and you'll see what the difficulty is. I can't think of 
such a definition based on photography per se, nor can I think of any moral 
reason for having one in a free society. It would probably be easier to devise 
a definition based on numbers of people and vehicles, and it would make a lot 
more sense too, because it is these factors that determine the nuisance value, 
not the fact that somebody is taking pictures. Everybody takes pictures. If a 
thing is in a public place anybody can see it with their eyes anyway so it's 
difficult to imagine what could be kept secret (if that's the aim) by 
preventing people from taking pictures of it.

> As another poster has mentioned, it is not council regulations that need 
> be worried about from a civil liberties perspective, but the 
> heavy-handed and deeply misguided policing that is going on in the name 
> of prevention of terrorism etc., e.g;
> 
> http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=40875
> 
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Terror_Act_Police_attack_government_
over_photography_in_public_news_254852.html

Couldn't agree more. In the absence of clear unambiguous legal definitions of 
what's allowed and what isn't, jou just get jobsworths with too much freedom 
making up their own minds on the spot, and before you know it you have a 
police state. A pox on it, say I.

Rod.

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >But I suspect there are plenty of people 
> > out there who would let a crew into their home for nowt for the "fame of 
> > television".
> 
> More fool them. I wouldn't allow a crew in my house at any price. I know
> what they say about everywhere else. ;-)
>  I've let them use the outside power socket though. For a fee, of course. 

I've been *in* TV crews that have shot scenes in private houses, and there is 
absolutely utterly definitely no way whatsoever that I would ever in a month 
of Sundays even under torture and no matter how much they offered to pay me 
ever agree to allow one to shoot in mine. I wouldn't let them park in my 
drive, I wouldn't let them run cables through my windows or gaffertape them 
to my walls, I wouldn't want them moving my furniture about, and I certainly 
wouldn't let them piss in my toilet, even if they promised to clean it 
afterwards. Of course I always did my best to behave decently and 
consideratey myself, but in any large group of people there will always be 
some that act like animals if they think there will be no personal 
consequences. You have been warned.

Rod.

In article ,
   Roderick Stewart  wrote:
> In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > >But I suspect there are plenty of people  out there who would let a
> > > crew into their home for nowt for the "fame of  television".
> > 
> > More fool them. I wouldn't allow a crew in my house at any price. I
> > know what they say about everywhere else. ;-)  I've let them use the
> > outside power socket though. For a fee, of course. 

> I've been *in* TV crews that have shot scenes in private houses,

Same here. Probably over a thousand times. ;-)  

> and there is absolutely utterly definitely no way whatsoever that I
> would ever in a month of Sundays even under torture and no matter how
> much they offered to pay me ever agree to allow one to shoot in mine. I
> wouldn't let them park in my drive, I wouldn't let them run cables
> through my windows or gaffertape them to my walls, I wouldn't want them
> moving my furniture about, and I certainly wouldn't let them piss in my
> toilet, even if they promised to clean it afterwards.

I did let them use the outside loo. It's easily hosed down...

> Of course I always did my best to behave decently and consideratey
> myself, but in any large group of people there will always be some that
> act like animals if they think there will be no personal consequences.
> You have been warned.

Thing I always find strange is the constant moans about location catering.
'You don't want to eat there - you'll get the runs' Yet just how many do
you see washing their hands before a meal? And the number who finger there
way through the sandwiches at tea time too. 

Since I'm not at the 'sharp end' being a recordist I far prefer to set up
outside a private house if there's cover - like say in the garage - rather
than going inside. Or, of course, stay in the van. ;-)

-- 
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Try to devise an unambiguous legal definition which would include one category 
> and exclude the other and you'll see what the difficulty is. I can't think of 
> such a definition based on photography per se, nor can I think of any moral 
> reason for having one in a free society. 

The regulations are unambiguously for the making of films (movies, 
dramas etc.), not reportage or casual operators of cameras - still or 
motion. If you look at the details you will note there is almost no 
possibility of someone falling foul of these regulations inadvertently. 
They do indeed take into account numbers and the possibility and extent 
of disruption at the time of application.

ESB

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>  I don't see individuals being stopped from using a domestic camera
> anywhere. Unless there are specific restrictions - usually where the
> premises etc want to sell you their pics. 

This came up in uk.rec.photo.misc recently. Several reported instances 
of Plod stopping amateur photographers taking pictures in the 
street/other public places. See the thread entitled " Interesting 
article on the amateur photographer hysteria"

<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/1cdb8ecc5d52b2a4/6f156b1d9be2381f?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#6f156b1d9be2381f>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/5oa9rt>

Sparked off by a Beeb article: 
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm>

Austin Mitchell MP has even tabled an early day motion:
<http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=35375&SESSION=891>

-- 
Fred

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fa15c4b9adave@davenoise.co.uk...
<snip>
> They can cause a great deal of disruption to the area being used.

Does anyone know if there has there ever been a case, when no 
'regulation' has taken place, where two film crews [1] turn up at the 
same time to use the same location (or at least be close enough to 
each other to cause problems)?...


[1] except, obviously, news and current affairs crew

In article <g0u994$8km$1@registered.motzarella.org>, :Jerry: wrote:
> Does anyone know if there has there ever been a case, when no 
> 'regulation' has taken place, where two film crews [1] turn up at the 
> same time to use the same location (or at least be close enough to 
> each other to cause problems)?...
> 
> [1] except, obviously, news and current affairs crew 

Film and TV companies are supposed to employ location managers, not just 
to find suitable locations but to obtain permissions, make arrangements, 
and inform and liaise with the appropriate people, then usually turn up 
on the day to deal with any unforeseen problems. Nobody would invest 
money in a production of any size that didn't do this.

I should think the probability of even one shoot crew (other than 
amateurs, or news crews as you suggest) setting up on its own without 
authorisation would be extremely small, so the probability of two 
deciding to take the same stupid risks at the same location on the same 
day would be astronomically small.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.000003e4.01465305@removethisbit.beeb.net...
> In article <g0u994$8km$1@registered.motzarella.org>, :Jerry: wrote:
>> Does anyone know if there has there ever been a case, when no
>> 'regulation' has taken place, where two film crews [1] turn up at 
>> the
>> same time to use the same location (or at least be close enough to
>> each other to cause problems)?...
>>
>> [1] except, obviously, news and current affairs crew
>
> Film and TV companies are supposed to employ location managers, not 
> just
> to find suitable locations but to obtain permissions, make 
> arrangements,
> and inform and liaise with the appropriate people, then usually turn 
> up
> on the day to deal with any unforeseen problems. Nobody would invest
> money in a production of any size that didn't do this.
>
<snip>

I think that answers the OPs original question as to why local 
authorities give 'permission to film', although I agree that the 
phrase could be better, perhaps 'clearance to film' might be 
better?...

In article <g0ufat$9rd$1@registered.motzarella.org>, :Jerry: wrote:
> I think that answers the OPs original question as to why local 
> authorities give 'permission to film', although I agree that the 
> phrase could be better, perhaps 'clearance to film' might be 
> better?...

Clearance to park vehicles, run cables, alter road signs, make a lot of 
noise etc. Maybe also individual agreements to be sought with 
shopkeepers in the vicinity who feel their trade could be affected, 
and/or alternative arrangements made for people who normally park in 
the vicinity in case their cars cause continuity problems. And so on, 
and so on, depending on details. And as for stunts....

Rod.

In article <g0u994$8km$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> Does anyone know if there has there ever been a case, when no 
> 'regulation' has taken place, where two film crews [1] turn up at the 
> same time to use the same location (or at least be close enough to 
> each other to cause problems)?...

Two *units* of The Bill have turned up to shoot at the same place and
time. Let alone two different productions. I'd guess the council expected
different production managers actually talked to one another. ;-)

-- 
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fa278ecd3dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <g0u994$8km$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> Does anyone know if there has there ever been a case, when no
>> 'regulation' has taken place, where two film crews [1] turn up at 
>> the
>> same time to use the same location (or at least be close enough to
>> each other to cause problems)?...
>
> Two *units* of The Bill have turned up to shoot at the same place 
> and
> time. Let alone two different productions. I'd guess the council 
> expected
> different production managers actually talked to one another. ;-)
>

Cough, splutter, LOL.....
...and there I was thinking more in terms of *different* production 
companies! :~)