Have marshals got the right to stop people filming and/or taking photos?

[Startline Ed]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

On the other hand, on the back of MSV tickets, paragraph 17 states:

"The use of photographic equipment is allowed for private non-commercial purposes only. Any other recording or transmission of audio, visual ot audio-visual material or any information or data by any method in any media relating to the Event or any part of it is prohibited. The ticketholder hereby assigns to MSV (by way of present assignment or future rights) the copyright in any audio, visual or audio-visual materials produced by the ticketholder at the Event".

Different circuits, different rules.

That is odd Dave, my quote was from a variety of MSV programmes from a number of circuits.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Startline Ed

That is odd Dave, my quote was from a variety of MSV programmes from a number of circuits.

Current MSV terms and conditions of ticket admission are available here:

https://tickets.motorsportvision.co....nfo/terms.aspx

Notably, there is nothing about 'obeying instructions from Marshals'

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Notably, there is nothing about 'obeying instructions from Marshals'

.....so if a marshal thinks your in danger next time your at a track, for instance you walk somewhere that is dangerous, are you telling me that you wont do what a marshal says.....fine by me, walk onto the track....get run over, and then harp on about not having to obey what marshals instruct you to do!

the terms and conditions state that ONLY videoing for private use is permitted, the fact that the OP put it on youtube, and obviously always had that intention, shows that his reason to video the accident was to put it on youtube, ergo he was in breach of the terms of entry at the track and is currently in breach of the terms and conditions unless the video has now been taken off youtube.

im getting sick and tired of all this marshal bashing to be honest.....marshals are there to try and work in the best intrerests of the track and drivers. obviously the marshal in question thought the drivers privicy and RIGHTS were more important than some spectator on a blood trip......does a marshal have the RIGHT to stop a spectator from filming? NO....but does he have an obligation to uphold and work in the best intrest of the drivers RIGHTS....HELL YES!!!!.......the drivers RIGHTS must ALWAYS come above a spectator who is trying to video the accident, whether its for personal or commercial use.....

.....its really a moral issue, marshals have no jurisdiction over spectators, and have no juristiction to interfere.....its funny though, if a spectator is in trouble or needs something, they EXPECT a marshal to help, and yet there are certain spectators who will bash and condem them for trying to do what is RIGHT for the driver.....

.....people on here really need to GROW UP and show some COMPASSION and SENSE!......take a step back.....AND THINK....the original poster talks about HIS RIGHTS to video.....yet he doesnt say IF HE WAS RIGHT to video.

...is it RIGHT to film a driver who is injured and potentially dying infront of you NO!.....

...is it RIGHT for the spectator to winge about being told to stop NO!....

...is it RIGHT to put the video of the accident on youtube NO!.....

...is it RIGHT for a marshal who has just had a 2 tonne chunk of metal hurled at him at 100mph, a driver who is injured and potentially dying, request that a spectator to stop recording a potentially serious situation..HELL YES!



the origional poster is very prepared to WINGE about HIS RIGHTS to record a driver who is in pain, potentially dying and could have ruined the rest of his life through an accident...and yet clearly has NO MORALS, and has not THOUGHT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE DRIVER!....

...personally i think your bang out of order coming on here slamming marshals for stopping you from recording.....you should be taking a hard look in a mirror and asking yourself IF IT WAS RIGHT to be recording in the first place....and if the answer is still yes, then put yourself in the drivers shoes and see if youd want to be recorded, while in agony in a tangled wreck of a race car in fear of your life!

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by Startline Ed

That is odd Dave, my quote was from a variety of MSV programmes from a number of circuits.

It doesn't matter what's in the programme, since you're not obliged to buy one....it is a requirement however that you have an entry ticket...

[Greem]

Blimey. What a heated debate.

Interestingly there is still no absolute, categorical answer and so far as I can tell the *only* people who can actually answer the original question are the circuit operators. Any folks here (including me) who are quoting from tickets, programmes, common or precedent law - none of us are in the right, whichever side we appear to be taking.

Taking morals and ethics out of the equation, I think I will contact a couple of circuits and ask them the question. I'm sure their answers will be fairly instructive.

In the meantime, here's some calming music...

[Dan Friel]

Agreed, no clear YES / NO and comes down to application of common sense.

As a marshal I'm not there as crowd control, although at certain times you may be required to become involved - very very rare. Circuit security are there for a purpose. I've only ever directly mentioned something if it caused a danger. Sitting wrong side of the fence / bringing a dog to the circuit.

Taking photos is personal preference (there's a very wide range of opinions on what's acceptable), and unless it's causing distress why become involved?

More chill out tunes...

[Greem]

Originally Posted by phoenix

There is a reason why football clubs have Police providing pitch/ground security; private security firms may be less costly, but only the Police are empowered to get physically involved with troublesome spectators, whereas security guards don't have the same powers in the eyes of the law. Motorsport marshals most certainly don't have any special legal dispensation either.

Football grounds have a police presence to prevent, or deal with, public order (or more serious) offences. The security folks *do* have the right to escort off or eject from the premises with reasonable force anyone the ground's owners (or they, as agents thereof) decide needs to go. Providing no offence is being committed, the police usually just let them get on with it.

I worked in concert venues/clubs for a number of years; the rules were pretty similar and boiled down to the fact that it was the venue management (or their agents) who had the last word in the heat of the moment. All I can say in hindsight is I'm thankful I had some "agents" who were a lot bigger than me (although back then I could run a lot faster than I can now...)

Without judging in any way the incident which sparked this debate I would suggest that we can only compare motorsport venues with football grounds in a fairly superficial way - the track and perimeter are prohibited areas in the same way as a football pitch, but there are laws governing football pitches which don't apply to motorsport venues. The difficulty (as it appears to me) in this specific case is because the incident escaped the prohibited area and encroached into a public area. There, everything becomes shades of grey; even more so when the ferocity of the incident is considered - it was an immensely unusual incident.

Personally, I think we're focussing on the wrong aspect anyway. Neither of the involved cars should have got airborne, neither of them should have found a way through the gap above the ambulance gate, and neither should have landed in the paddock. The fact that they did, and nobody apart from the drivers got hurt, is a bloody miracle and is the *only* thing we should be discussing, really.

[Steve Milward]

Originally Posted by Greem

Blimey. What a heated debate.

Indeed and hopefully someone with some 'Authority' will appear on this forum and settle this little debate.

Until then back to the music..........

[Flavio Galtieri]

I hesitate to rejoin this heated yet interesting debate and I know my views will not be shared by the majority.

Whilst I can understand all the reasons people feel that videoing accidents and their aftermath are morally wrong and circuit owners state their "rights" and so on what is being lost here is that times have moved on.

You can shoot and upload a video to the internet in minutes now, from either a decent camcorder and/or a mobile device and soon it will probably be possible for Joe Public to stream in realtime.

Any attempt to reverse this new technology by enforcing rules written in the last century will be futile. Just as with the ludicrous "superinjuctions" supposed to stop us knowing what anyone with a computer and Google already knows.

Can a marshall stop you filming? If he's bigger than you probably but the point is that there are so many cameras out there now that someone, somewhere will probably have caught whatever you were trying to stop anyway.

By all means put up the tarpaulins, I agree there are some things which really do not need to be filmed, but can you stop people trying? I doubt it.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

I agree there are some things which really do not need to be filmed, but can you stop people trying? I doubt it.

again i suppose its a case of morals.....can you stop a kid being beaten up in the street by a pack of 20 youths without getting hurt yourself?...i doubt it....SHOULD you try.....of course....likewise MORALLY, can you stop accidents and the recovery from being filmed by spectators...like you said i doubt it....but that doesnt mean you shouldnt try to protect the dignity and rights of the driver.....if a marshal was to stand by and do naff all while a driver is injured and the team members at the scene are obviously in distress over the spectator who is trying to record and upload to youtube, it would just be morally wrong.

again....sod the legalities of it all, you may not have the RIGHT to do it....but you should do what IS RIGHT

[Robin_D]

I believe this thread is getting a bit out of hand and I am keeping a close eye on it.

Personally speaking as a marshal myself, it's not down to me to stop members of the public taking photo's unless they are interfering with me doing my job.

For example they are in a position they should not be. I would advise them to move. If they do not then security would be informed.

My duty is not crowd control.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Robin_D

I believe this thread is getting a bit out of hand and I am keeping a close eye on it.

dont see how its getting out of hand...ok my posts may seem a bit like a rant...ok well a lot like a rant actually!....but im not angry at what alfaman has done, or the fact people condone what he has done because LEGALLY its ok....



....im trying to get across the other side of the argument that while it is legally ok, and marshals cannot legally do anything, morally we should do, if someone has no morals and is filming in the first place.....


.....just trying to bring some balance to a discussion that personally i think has lost the point, everyone is so caught up in terms and conditions and what can legally be done, but really the biggest issue is whether morally he should have been videoing in the first place


...it doesnt just apply to alfaman either, its a sad state of the world these days that if its within the law and within your human rights then its perfectly ok to do it.....like i said in my post above though, there is a massive difference between your rights, and doing what is right!


...personally i think marshals cant just take the attitude that anything infront of the catch fencing is ours, anything behind is isnt...marshals need to be vidulant and be prepared to act on either side of the fence....we may not be trained in crowd control or dealing with the crowd, but ive had dozens of incident involving the crowd over the years that i have had to sort out, from simple things like kids being infront of the metal rail, speccies taking photos in gaps of catch fencing, fires from bbq's, speccies needing medical attention and even parents and team members of 2 different teams having a bust up!.....the attitute of well its not ours to deal with cos its not on the track isnt a good one.

[Steve Milward]

Originally Posted by Robin_D

My duty is not crowd control.

Hallebloodylujah, I couldn't agree more. Security and Race circuit staff are duly employed and paid to carry out that task.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

...im trying to get across the other side of the argument that while it is legally ok, and marshals cannot legally do anything, morally we should do, if someone has no morals and is filming in the first place.....

The other side of the argument has been well covered, if anything it's been better covered that the original question. Most of the last 5 pages has been devoted to people telling us what is or isn't morally right.

I think Hubble summed it up perfectly. We all understand this is a very emotive issue, but this wasn't supposed to be a debate about ethics or morals.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by redshoes

I think Hubble summed it up perfectly. We all understand this is a very emotive issue, but this wasn't supposed to be a debate about ethics or morals.

maybe not, but with such an emotive issue its impossible to seperate the 2 from the debate.....anyhoo...my last post on the subject, my views are known, people may think im ranting, but just shows how much i hate this sort of thing.....the thought that someone could be videoing me to upload to the internet or get some sick kicks when ive had a crash and in absolute agony makes my blood boil....

[Piglet]

This is going around in circles but as I've said over and over again off track (ie specialist) marshals do plenty of crowd control, both in restricted and in public areas. It only seems odd to you guys who are used to being circuit side.

[Ian Sowman]

Two things occur to me. First - and I haven't gone back through the thread to check - and don't think anyone who has posted here has been interested in getting "some sick kicks". Second, and ignoring the morals and legalities of this, if you perform at a public event - so a competitor, marshal like you, or commentator like me - you have to take the rough with the smooth. Most of the time you will love it; sometimes things will take a turn you don't like. But that is a fact of life.

[Piglet]

In law, the concept of "volenti" (consenting to risks) in the context of sport is usually defined as "consenting to the risks usually inherent in the sport", I suspect consenting to have your photograph taken is likely to be held to be similar. Consenting in usual circumstances, I suspect is unlikely to be held to be consenting to a stranger taking photographs or video of a driver who has been injured and is trapped in a car.

And as said many times, on private land, nobody has the "right" to do anything.

[Flavio Galtieri]

I agree we are going around in circles but I've enjoyed the specialist advice although my worry is, like much of the law surrounding the new media, it is completely out of date and largely unenforceable.

Although I accept many people feel it is sad and even immoral, these days if you are performing at an event where the public are admitted you had better factor into your decision to participate the possibility that everything that happens, good and bad, is likely to be recorded.

Anyway I'm now done with this, it's been an interesting discussion.