Filming in public: what are your rights? Sydney Morning Herald

[Bear Dale]

Here's an informative video clip today off the SMH's website -

http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-news/filming-in-public-what-are-your-rights-4086145.html

[ameerat42]

Yes. I saw this one earlier today. There are so many issues at play, and we have no idea of the
before and after, nor much about the main players. However, the senior police spokesman - assuming he was talking about this incident -
seemed rather perturbed. All I can say is that the constable involved rather looked like a "fugg", sounded like a bullying "fugg", and certainly
seemed to have acted like a "fugg". Unfortunately, one has to wonder how m any of his ilk are out there "protecting us", and at the same time
giving the "force" a very bad name. I think his days of thin-blue-linery might be up for some critical evaluation.
Am(a bad speller).

[Mark L]

The link gives me a fake Kevin '07 at Rooty Hill.:eek:
Were's the above mentioned constable when you need him.:)

[ricktas]

http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-news/filming-in-public-what-are-your-rights-4086242.html

[extraball]

filming could be viewed as obstructing police, which is an offence.

[ricktas]

So is failing to abide by the directions of a police officer.

However, I think there will be some answers needed on this video footage, as the efforts used on this young bloke did seem a bit excessive. BUT, his own grandfather has come out and said he has had several run-ins with police before, so what we do not see on the videos might well be telling in relation to 'what happened before'..the video recording started.

[Bear Dale]

So is failing to abide by the directions of a police officer.

However, I think there will be some answers needed on this video footage, as the efforts used on this young bloke did seem a bit excessive. BUT, his own grandfather has come out and said he has had several run-ins with police before, so what we do not see on the videos might well be telling in relation to 'what happened before'..the video recording started.

This new footage throws a different light on what he actually did -

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/youll-make-it-worse-for-yourself-new-footage-shows-mardi-gras-teen-kicking-at-officers-20130308-2fp79.html

[extraball]

just like the media to stir us up, then release a video to prove things were different.

[CapnBloodbeard]

filming could be viewed as obstructing police, which is an offence.

How could it possible be seen as that? Assuming you're not in their face, I don't see how that could possibly be a reason.

Glad to see the brass publicly support the public and not the officer on this one.

[Erin]

There are now a couple other videos circulating taken earlier showing what Jackson was behaving like prior to being cuffed and put down. He was being a public nuisance and provoking the police. He made it physical, the police reacted in kind. Probably a bit overkill I agree, but they were dealing with a drunk/drugged up and disorderly person.

As for filming rights - I'd rather follow the rules which state you don't disobey a direct order from a police officer than stand there being a w@nker and proclaiming "I know my rights!", particularly in situations like Mardi Gras or any large, public event where the police are actively looking out for people who might be up to no good and where they are also likely to attract negative attention anyway. Sure it's not against the law to film in a public place, however getting all up in the faces of everyone isn't necessary.

[Bear Dale]

As for filming rights - I'd rather follow the rules which state you don't disobey a direct order from a police officer than stand there being a w@nker and proclaiming "I know my rights!"



..........................don't disobey a direct order from a police officer.


Who told you of such a 'rule'? Why would you believe that you had to follow an order that was unlawful?

[extraball]

it isnt worth the hassle, just let the police do the tough job that they have, without making it any harder

[Bear Dale]

it isnt worth the hassle, just let the police do the tough job that they have, without making it any harder

Of course it's worth the hassle. That is what makes N.S.W (and Australia) not a police state.

[extraball]

Of course it's worth the hassle. That is what makes N.S.W (and Australia) not a police state.

so we disagree :cool:

[Bear Dale]

so we disagree :cool:

Don't worry I won't use an extendable baton, capsicum spray nor Glock you just because we disagree :th3:

[Bear Dale]

After watching him trying to kick the officer in the face and trying to punch....I would have put him on the ground as well!

[Lance B]

just like the media to stir us up, then release a video to prove things were different.

Exactly. I just never trust anything the media tells me anymore. It's all about spin, hype, opinion and pushing their views/editorial. I don't think I been able to read an actual factual account of anything in the last 10 years!

[ricktas]

Exactly. I just never trust anything the media tells me anymore. It's all about spin, hype, opinion and pushing their views/editorial. I don't think I been able to read an actual factual account of anything in the last 10 years!

Not just the media. People do it as well. The original phone cam footage of this only showed us part of the story. It is most likely that the person who shot it, edited it before uploading it to FB etc. Everyone seems to try and manipulate everyone else. Having trust in anyone these days is much harder than it used to be. You used to be able to shake hands on a deal and it was done. Not any more.

[Lance B]

Not just the media. People do it as well. The original phone cam footage of this only showed us part of the story. It is most likely that the person who shot it, edited it before uploading it to FB etc. Everyone seems to try and manipulate everyone else. Having trust in anyone these days is much harder than it used to be. You used to be able to shake hands on a deal and it was done. Not any more.

You are so correct, Rick.

[Kym]

Not just the media. People do it as well. The original phone cam footage of this only showed us part of the story<snip>

But but but!!! It was on the Interweb - it must be true :D :D :D

[extraball]

yep, take me to the life was so much better up until say 1990, it's been on a downward spiral ever since. The 80's were awesome, man I miss that decade!

[Bear Dale]

yep, take me to the life was so much better up until say 1990, it's been on a downward spiral ever since. The 80's were awesome, man I miss that decade!

The 70's were awesome as well.......just a bit of a blur ;)



I can't even be in the same room as a TV that has those 'talking head buffoons' on those morning and don't get me started on 'shows' like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.....seriously the masses are getting dumbed down by watching (being spoonfed) the crap that these productions spew forth.

[Lance B]

The 70's were awesome as well.......just a bit of a blur ;)



I can't even be in the same room as a TV that has those 'talking head buffoons' on those morning and don't get me started on 'shows' like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.....seriously the masses are getting dumbed down by watching (being spoonfed) the crap that these productions spew forth.

Everything is being dumbed down, lowest common denomintor for just about everything.

[Mark L]

'tis all well and good to blame the media but ain't they supplying what people want.
Also, maybe the media isn't as influential as some think, dunno. 'spose it depends what we now call the media, though I would think that any given part of the media has less of an audience than the mainstream media used to have.
ACA was crap 25 years ago (does it have fewer viewers now?). I can only assume it's still crap 'cause I stopped watching it 30 years ago and simply don't watch TV any more at all.
blah, ....

[I @ M]

'tis all well and good to blame the media but ain't they supplying what people want.

My view is no, they are simply conditioning people to watch what they offer as a platform to shove advertising down the throats of the gullible masses.

Without advertising, the commercial TV channels would not exist in any shape, form or manner.



simply don't watch TV any more at all.
blah, ....

Same here, at least not for the last ten years. To think that some people even pay money to buy TV channels and then still watch advertising. :D

[jim]

Same here, at least not for the last ten years. To think that some people even pay money to buy TV channels and then still watch advertising. :D

Guilty, or at least somewhat. Not long ago I turned on Foxtel for the first time in over 6 months and was appalled to find that not only was there almost as much advertising as programming, but also that they'd apparently turned off my service at some point, and I had to call to get it turned on again.

I'm still paying for it. :rolleyes:

[Bear Dale]

and simply don't watch TV any more at all.


Since our last child moved out into their own home 5 years ago, my wife and I haven't watched any aired television at all. The television is only used to watch a movie on DVD.

It's been a truly wonderful experience not to watch TV and something that gave us both back so much time. When we go to someones house and they have the idiot box on, it seems so strange to see ads.

Besides us both giving up smoking 25+ years ago, the next best thing has been giving up the idiot box.

[Lance B]

My view is no, they are simply conditioning people to watch what they offer as a platform to shove advertising down the throats of the gullible masses.

Couldn't agree more. We are being conditioned to accept things nowadays that we wouldn't have dreamed to put up with years ago.

[Ezookiel]

There was once a very interesting training video done for media students, that showed a mock clash between "police" and "protestors" (all just actors) that was filmed from multiple angles,and then a "reporter" added their editing and spin to it. The first made primarily from footage from the protestors side, with the reporter's appropriate commentary, made the police look like legal thugs.

The second footage primarily shot from the police side, with matching commentary, made the protestors look like violent good-for-nothing's. The third version showed that those acting the roles were mostly just having a ball.

It is used to show media students how important their role is in portraying the story.

I have never trusted news stories ever since. This recent story was a living example of the same training video. Amazing how different the story was when you see him trying to kick the police officers, including trying to kick the shins of a FEMALE officer. Such a little hero this guy is.

I have friends that are police. Genuine brutality is incredibly rare. It's not the 60's 70's when a cop would take a troublesome kid out of town give him a bit of a "lesson" and make him walk home. I personally believe that if you pass the attitude test when first approached, your chance of getting rough treatment from a modern cop is almost non-existent.

[Lance B]

There was once a very interesting training video done for media students, that showed a mock clash between "police" and "protestors" (all just actors) that was filmed from multiple angles,and then a "reporter" added their editing and spin to it. The first made primarily from footage from the protestors side, with the reporter's appropriate commentary, made the police look like legal thugs.

The second footage primarily shot from the police side, with matching commentary, made the protestors look like violent good-for-nothing's. The third version showed that those acting the roles were mostly just having a ball.

It is used to show media students how important their role is in portraying the story.

I have never trusted news stories ever since. This recent story was a living example of the same training video. Amazing how different the story was when you see him trying to kick the police officers, including trying to kick the shins of a FEMALE officer. Such a little hero this guy is.

I have friends that are police. Genuine brutality is incredibly rare. It's not the 60's 70's when a cop would take a troublesome kid out of town give him a bit of a "lesson" and make him walk home. I personally believe that if you pass the attitude test when first approached, your chance of getting rough treatment from a modern cop is almost non-existent.

Good post and interesting about the training video.

[ameerat42]

The "60s", the "70s"? What next, Heartbeat? Did they really do that then and, what, not now?

(You know who I)Am.

[ricktas]

The thread title here is "Filming in public: what are your rights? Sydney Morning Herald".

I think perhaps we need something that says 'Filming in public: what are your right and responsibilities'. Everything seems to be about the rights of what people can do, rather than being about the person's responsibility to our society to use those rights in an intelligent manner.

[Ezookiel]

Poking your camera up close in the face of police doing their job doesn't seem to me to fit those responsibilities. But I was brought up when responsibility was linked to rights, you didn't have the rights till you were responsible enough to use them. It seems that that part of the equation has long ago dropped off the equation.
And I'm pretty sure the law regarding having to obey the instructions of a police officer is something along the lines of obeying any lawful instruction of a police officer. I think the Officer did a pretty good job of keeping his cool given the situation at the time. But it does show the importance of knowing your rights (and your responsibilities) if you intend to film or shoot in public, because there is always a chance you'll meet police/security/others who won't know what your rights are, and may want to try to restrict them. How you go about not getting yourself into a "situation" while teaching these people what your rights are, is part of the "responsibility" part of it.

[extraball]

The 70's were awesome as well.......just a bit of a blur ;)



I can't even be in the same room as a TV that has those 'talking head buffoons' on those morning and don't get me started on 'shows' like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.....seriously the masses are getting dumbed down by watching (being spoonfed) the crap that these productions spew forth.

we are not only starting to sound like our parents, but even like our grandparents.

[Bear Dale]

if you intend to film or shoot in public, because there is always a chance you'll meet police/security/others who won't know what your rights are, and may want to try to restrict them. How you go about not getting yourself into a "situation" while teaching these people what your rights are, is part of the "responsibility" part of it.

Thats all ok, but that must be countered by saying that the police have a 'responsibility' to not unlawfully restrict a citizens rights by intimidation.

[Rattus79]

The law states that we can film anyone in a public space provided a "reasonable expectation of privacy is met"

As far as I see it, the Police Officer has an expectation that his face not be revealed and is within his right to say to stop filming. If I was a frontline cop, I'd hate for my likness to be put on national television. I wonder how many unsavoury characters were watching that and have marked his face for next time they see him at coles or woolies?

That said .... Be buggered if I would have stopped filming though!! We live in a world where every person has a video camera in their pocket. Expect to be filmed regardless of what your're doing!

Expect that film to be edited to make you look like a mongrel by the media!

[Bear Dale]

As far as I see it, the Police Officer has an expectation that his face not be revealed and is within his right to say to stop filming.

If a N.S.W Police Officer mistakenly believes that they have or they hold the right to the expectation that his or her face not be revealed and it is within his or her right to say to a citizen to stop filming me or stop photographing me whilst in a public area......they need some remedial refresher courses back at the Goulbourn Police Academy.

[Rattus79]

All they need is for a court to believe that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. that's it!

Could be worse. Could have been a QLD police officer. They would have just smashed the phone. and likley your face as well .... :D

[Bear Dale]

Could be worse. Could have been a QLD police officer. They would have just smashed the phone. and likley your face as well .... :D

LOL what about Vic cops....shoot first and DON'T bother about bothersome questions!

[Mark L]

Do Police Officers on duty have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" while carrying out their duty on public land?

[Rattus79]

Do Police Officers on duty have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" while carrying out their duty on public land?

Depends whether they're in a compromising position or not.

[Ezookiel]

There was a debate on television recently about organised crime now apparently planning well ahead and attending police graduation ceremonies and taking photos of the new graduates, with the intention of then using facial recognition technology to detect undercover police later on, and in that discussion they mentioned that police officers with intention of ever going into undercover work, should not have facebook pages, or photos of themselves online anywhere.

I notice on lots of TV coverage now, of various law enforcement events not just police, but Customs, Fisheries Officers, military actions, that they now blur out the faces of many of the officers involved. I'm guessing they have the same thought. I guess they don't want these people to potentially be recognised while they're doing their jobs some time down the track.

If they tried to follow this line of action through to its ultimate conclusion, wouldn't they have to make it an offence to take any photo of any law enforcement personnel? And that would never be feasible.

[jim]

I think there's a big difference between officers who are the public face of the police and who deal with members of the public—not all of whom are criminals—on a day to day basis, and the relatively small number of undercover police who really do have valid reasons to protect their identity.

[Bear Dale]

The bottom line is that members of the public have the right to take photographs and/or film police officers and incidents involving police officers and police do not have the power to prevent anyone from photographing or filming them and cannot confiscate camera equipment or delete images.

If you still don't believe it or are unsure just check with the Police media unit in your state for confirmation of the above.

[Rattus79]

The bottom line is that members of the public have the right to take photographs and/or film police officers and incidents involving police officers and police do not have the power to prevent anyone from photographing or filming them and cannot confiscate camera equipment or delete images.

If you still don't believe it or are unsure just check with the Police media unit in your state for confirmation of the above.

If you are impeeding traffic, be it pedestrian or otherwise, they CAN issue a move along order, which must be obeyed. (Brisbane city Council has a rule about tripods impeeding traffic. In essence, you're not allowed to use a tripod in Queen Street mall, or on a foot path as it can impeed traffic)

[pixy]

The local paper has an article today saying the "peoples party" is bringing in a law to stop filming acts of,bullying,sexual or violent assault and private images,to me this will stop all rights you have.

Who will decide if a push is a violent act, or telling your child he/she should not do this or that is bullying,every time law makers pass laws, it makes me wonder what is the real reason for passing these laws.

Jack

[Bear Dale]

If you are impeeding traffic, be it pedestrian or otherwise, they CAN issue a move along order, which must be obeyed.

But thats got nothing to do with photographing police at work.

You could be photographing/videoing them the entire time that they are approaching you, talking to you, telling you the reason why they are giving you a move along direction (in NSW it's called a direction and not an order) and you obeying the direction.

[Boo53]

I don't agree that a police officer has any more expectation of privacy in a public place than anyone else.

What we all should have an expectation of is an accurate portrayal of what occurred, and that seems less likely to be the case from either the public in general or the media.

Making things up (a spade is a spade) has been going on forever. Back in 1968 my father & I spent a great month in the owners suite on a oil tanker going to & from Sumatra.

About 3 months after we got back there was a report of a fire on board the ship, which was tied up in the Brisbane River, that indicated the ship had burnt to the water line.

My father, who was state Operations Manager in Vic for the oil company rang his opposite number in Brisbane ho was horrified. It was his responsibility & he'd heard nothing about it. 2 hours later he rang back to say there had been an incident on the ship - a bearing in a pump had overheated & a small amount of oil had caught alight but because it was within an Oil refinery precinct the Fire Brigade had been mobilised and the area locked down - the Brisbane reporter hadn't gotten any details on the site so he made it up. Actual total damage was $60.

Another, more recent example. About 4-5 years ago the army had arranged for a cull of Kangaroos on the Puckapunyal base and protesters were picketing at the main gate.

I had to go out there on business & saw the protesters and the vans with satellite dishes from all the major stations, including the ABC. Out of curiosity I watched the 9 news at 6 o'clock, taped & watched the 7 news & also watched the ABC. ALL the news reports were cut is such a way as to portray a large group of protesters waving banners & the like - there were 3 - and about 15 media crew.

[Ezookiel]

I think there's a big difference between officers who are the public face of the police and who deal with members of the public—not all of whom are criminals—on a day to day basis, and the relatively small number of undercover police who really do have valid reasons to protect their identity.

They generally all started as General Duties cops on the beat, doing all the above, and only later progress on to Undercover work etc, so that's why the problem with filming any Police Officers, and is supposedly the plan for organised crime taking photos at graduation ceremonies and storing those images for facial recognition later on when they're checking out whether members might be undercover cops. But then again the TV show that made the story about organised crime doing this, might have been sensationalising things a little, I hear they sometimes do that ... just occasionally :rolleyes: