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

[Woolley]

I can't imagine why someone would want to film the aftermath and the usual reply when asking someone not to is an apology for not having thought of it themselves. To head to the scene especially to record it is, IMO, highly insensitive if not pretty offensive.

My thought when there's been a big accident is for the condition of those involved, not for how to get pictures of it and to be a nuisance to the marshals who are in attendance and with a potentially difficult and disturbing job to do is frankly shameful.

As others have stated, accredited media know the rules about the distribution of images. YouTube proves that non-accredited people do not, so different criteria apply. Most I have met will cease to record images unless requested. TV broadcasters are sensitive and even if they are filming the scene - which they normally won't - they certainly won't be broadcasting it in any way.

Better not to ask who has the right to stop you, but whether such actions can be considered acceptable. If you think they can then I am sorry for you.

[numbersix]

I think that the marshal concerned in this incident should be highly commended for resisting what must have been an almost overwhelming desire to punch someone's lights out.

[HairyDJ]

Originally Posted by alfaman

In fact I'm a TV reporter......


I'm experienced enough and mature enough not to intrude on a difficult situation.

Feel free to tell us all who you report for - newsround?

If several folk had to tell you to butt out, then just maybe you were intruding?



A look at your profile says pretty much all we need to know - first post for 18 months and also a bit that made me chuckle "alfaman has not made any friends yet "

If you really feel aggrieved at your treatment, then get in touch with the circuit management and discuss it with them.

[snailpace85]

Originally Posted by bella

as a spectator, non-marshal and occasional media person, it's nothing to do with media value, it's morals. in the end so few people are shocked by anything nowadays they don't know the difference between something happening in front of their eyes and something happening on the tv with actors wearing makeup and pretend dead people.

i stand with the marshal involved here, and think it's pretty sad that anyone doesn't know when they should stop recording the event.

This is the point really. Years ago I used to spectate race meetings with my camera and would absolutely not film the aftermath of an accident.

Often see something similar outside motorsport when something bad occurs - policemen telling people to stop filming - utter mutual incomprehension between the "It's my right" brigade and the "It's immoral" brigade. I know which side I'm on but not 100% sure why I consider it so immoral. Is it partly generational? I'm getting to be the grumpy old man type now! Is it partly the internet where everyone gets their say but no-one's actually discussing or understanding anything? Does that combined with silly celebrity culture etc. lead to this inability to distinguish reality from telly images?

Not saying you're like that OP but it is what the circuit officials have to put up with sometimes and probably explains the reaction.

Scott

[Oscar114]

Having dealt with a serious incident which was being broadcast LIVE on terestrial TV and ended up on youtube. I can categorically state that the spectators where the last people in my mind.

The driver was first, my fellow marshals/officials requirements next (assisting rescue crews, clearing the scene, preventing escalation - fires etc) and then spectators last. This was on circuit and some spectators thought that it was their right to 'see' everything.

The drivers risk their lives driving in the races hence the warning on every ticket and around the circuit that motorsport can be dangerous.

If spectators in this incident thought I was being rude I would obviously apologise after I had finished my job.

As a volunteer I don't see myself as better than any spectator (I am a spectator myself occasionally), however I am there to do a job. If the driver needs me to help then that's what I do.

With regards to the right to film, clause 17 on MSV tickets state:
The use of photographic equipment is allowed for private non-commercial purposes only. Any other recording or transmission of audio, visual or 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 of future rights) the copyright in any audio, visual or audio-visual materials produced by the ticketholder at the Event.

Which I interpret means that even if you recorded the aftermath you would only be able to watch it yourself. Even youtube is questionable looking at this clause.

[Hepatic]

It maybe that the request to stop filming was more to do with the fact that you were in a public area where they were trying to work and it was just a way of engaging you in to dialogue?

Anyone that saw the Breeze/Proctor incident in the Ginetta G50s at Oulton a couple of years ago will understand why the aftermath and especially the extrication of drivers should be offlimits for filming and photography. When they collided i feared the worst, the sound of the impact was the worst thing i had ever witnessed, even more so than my own crash on a public road. I made myself useful by providing fire cover and clearing debris as Proctor was being attended. As i did so i was acutely aware of the vast number of spectators watching and a good number of them taking photos, a few even trying to get shots over the tarps being held up.

The tarps are not just there for the drivers privacy, a huge crowd gawping at you, with gasps of "oh my god look at his leg" or such will do the patient no good at all. Elevated heart rate is the last thing you want if the driver is bleeding. So if they had yet to get those in place as you were filming i can certainly understand why they would have asked you to stop.

You will have also noticed that ITV, covering that race live, showed nothing of the response other than a couple of brief shots as the drivers were put in to ambulances and taken away. Anyone there will have also noticed that every single one of the accredited 'togs in the area were sat down, talking between themselves and had no interest what so ever in recording the aftermath. They know where to draw the line as i'm sure most professionals in tv or photography do.

You have to remember that the people asking you to stop filming have probably just witnessed or narrowly avoided the closest they have ever come to serious injury or even death. There is so much going on, the training kicks in and things will be done efficiently if not necessarily as politely as you might expect. I'd ask that you take that onboard and cut them a bit of slack, try and see it from their point of view

[EvilPumpkin]

Personally, I'd like a clarification on exactly what the purpose of the film is supposed to be.

Obviously it's not for training purposes. It's not for any kind of legal or accident/information.

It's not accredited news of any kind.

Therefore, as far as I can tell, the only possible purpose of such a film - however "tastefully edited" is for entertainment.

So the complaint is that marshals dealing with an incident were not nice to you when you were trying to make entertainment footage to go on youtube while they were trying to deal with an incident? And they didn't stop to ask you what kind of film you were trying to make? Perhaps you should have asked them what their motivation for the scene was.....

Please do correct me if I'm wrong and there was an actual purposeful application for your filming other than to bump up your youtube hitcount because it's not clear from your original post.

[alfaman]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the rule on here was to attack the post but not the poster etc...and for people to say they want to "punch my lights out" is all a bit unnecessary.
There's no need to get so personal I was simply asking a question. Maybe reading some of what's been written here explains why I haven't posted anything for 18 months.
In fact the spin-off thread in the Marshal's forum is far more polite and respectful to what's in this thread.

But the answer was basically what I was expecting - marshals saying they have the right and non-marshals (generally) saying that's not necessarily true.

Let me clarify a couple of points - the 2 marshals who told me not to film were not involved in the actual rescue itself so they weren't distracted from their duties by me. In fact one of them was actually in the paddock area shouting at me...

Some people have questioned why I went from where I was spectating to where the car ended up.
It's very simple - a race car had vaulted the safety barriers and landed in a public area. I went up there to see what had happened. Maybe people with a sensitive disposition should stop reading now but if there were spectators & marshals dead or injured that is a major news story. It knocks Libya, Japan, Cameron/Clegg way off the top of the bulletins. A car going into the crowd is big news and it happening here in the UK is a big deal.
My job is to report news and in TV news we need pictures hence the filming and you need a lot of different pictures to cover even a report lasting just 1 minute. How would my station's rivals report such an incident? They would probably buy up footage from the other "ghouls" filming. But I had it all on film ready to use if necessary.
TV news has evolved massively in the past decade and 24 hour news is a hungry beast. How many times have you seen amateur TV footage from people who've just got off a jet that's crash landed and turned round & filmed it as they run to safety. Or on board footage from jets with holes in the roof etc. News has moved on and with camera phones everyone thinks they're a news journalist nowadays...and yes just look at Youtube. If you're that bothered why don't you campaign to stop Youtube showing fatal crashes on its site?
It's very simple for me to say I was "just doing my job" but ultimately that is my job and it's not everyone's cup of tea. We're not all Robert Pestons or Adam Boultons - a lot of us do deal with death and destruction and believe me it's all very sanitised by the time it reaches your screens at home.

Fortunately it was not a scene of death or destruction and I'm glad to hear that both drivers emerged with relatively minor injuries.

It also means that my favourite sport doesn't have to deal with handringers calling for draconian measures to stop such accidents happening again. And I was pleased to see Jonathan Palmer's measured response to the crash. Maybe HE'S the one to ask who really has the right to stop me filming.....

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I think once you get into a race car on the track you are fair game to any photographer, I would have no problem with being filmed, prehaps the fear was it may help in a future litigation case if something went wrong during the extraction from the car and maybe thats why they wanted to stop the filming which on the face of it was understandable as there are too many ambulance chasers around already without picking on a volunteer force doing their level best. having said that all being well and looks in his case it was I am sure the film would have made excellent training videos.

This is the only sensible response the to the original post on this entire thread imho.

Of course marshalls don't have the "right" to stop the public filming at an event at which the public are admitted. I can understand why they might feel that they should though, but that's a different argument entirely.

If we followed the advice here they'd be no war reporters or war photographers either. Just censor it in case someone gets upset?

Thank God for the Internet and Youtube, it's not perfect but at least it's brought freedom of speech where some would deny it.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Again on what basis? He is on public property, has been admitted with the consent of the owner and the owner (and this extends to the operating club) can set rules as to what that person can and can't do. As to why, many people do it so that they can flog sensationalist footage to dodgy newspapers and make a quick buck at someone else's expense, let's face it footage of injured or dying drivers would be very popular in some media outlets.

T'ish funny these days, everyone has "rights" but nobody has responsibilities.

Just wanted to point out that the operating club cannot set rules as to what people can or cannot do if these proposed rules are superseded by one's human rights; freedom of expression for example. You can't print on the back of a ticket "No holding hands by Gays, or no Blacks in the Kentagon after 6pm" to pick extreme example.

If you saw the recent BBC documentary "The Killer Years" there was some very hard to watch footage there, but had it not been shot and had people not reacted to it in the way that they did the relative safety that we enjoy today would not exist.

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

This is the only sensible response the to the original post on this entire thread imho.

Of course marshalls don't have the "right" to stop the public filming at an event at which the public are admitted. I can understand why they might feel that they should though, but that's a different argument entirely.

If we followed the advice here they'd be no war reporters or war photographers either. Just censor it in case someone gets upset?

Thank God for the Internet and Youtube, it's not perfect but at least it's brought freedom of speech where some would deny it.

Some people on here really are getting too personal with their replies...... Hairy DJ - your dig at alfaman for having no friends on Tenths is uncalled for and childish. He has asked a legitimate question to a legitimate gripe - respect that, you only make yourself appear biased in your reply. Commenting on the intention of the OP with regard to use of the images when he himself has not declared this is just supposition and guesswork - you could be very wide of the mark, and those remarks will only serve to add fuel to the argument.

I agree 100% with alfaman's post (#33) above - it might not be everyone's cup of tea but as he says, that is what he is there to do - to report on the event. Unfortunately as he very rightly points out, that includes the bad and ugly as well as the good.

As to the question of whether marshals can stop you filming/photographing, the answer is no. The statement regarding images etc on the ticket indicates that by present assignment the circuit owner retains copyright, but this does not state that they can prevent you from taking the images - that's what we are discussing here. If they are unhappy with your conduct they (or an appointed representative) can ask you to leave. Unless marshals carry identification to confirm this, they are not appointed representatives - IIRC marshal participation is administered through the organising club (BARC/MSVR/HSCC etc), not the circuit owner. Marshals may be requested to assist the circuit staff in ejecting someone, but cannot do this themselves alone.

As to whether the taking of images of someone in distress could constitute harrassment or an invasion of privacy, this is a possibility, however it requires a course of action (ie two or more instances), not a single event. Again this would require action by circuit staff/security or possibly the Police if they were present.

The property owner may ask the photographer to leave the premises, but has no rights to confiscate equipment or request that images be deleted.

Not wishing to inflame things in any way, but I've got to say it.....it seems clear that many of the posts above have been made by fellow marshals who understandably wish to support the actions of their colleagues, however in this particular case I think some need to take a step back and take a more balanced and objective view on the subject at hand

Maybe the handling of spectators at incidents in public areas is something that should be covered in training (I'm assuming it isn't already?) - remember, this could just as easily be about someone in the spectator area having a heart attack or getting hit by another spectators car - it doesn't necessarily have to be about an on track incident that has spilled over into a spectator area

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

Just wanted to point out that the operating club cannot set rules as to what people can or cannot do if these proposed rules are superseded by one's human rights; freedom of expression for example. You can't print on the back of a ticket "No holding hands by Gays, or no Blacks in the Kentagon after 6pm" to pick extreme example.

[pedant alert] With my lawyer's head on, you can of course print these things on the back of a ticket and on private property you can enforce them; it would be for a Court to decide whether they were "legal", the ones you mention would be a breach of discrimination legislation rather than of the Human Rights Act. I have yet to see any legislation that gives people on private property the right to take ghoul footage of the aftermath of an incident without the consent of those involved.

You can also of course not claim "Human Rights" against anyone other than a statutory or governmental body (simplified), I don't owe you any "human" rights and vise versa. Members of the Jockey Club have tried a number of times to have it declared as a quasi statutory body and failed. [/pedant alert]

[Grumps]

I havent read all the thread but did read the statement from the OP that stated that the marshals generally agreed that they should/could stop the filming and that others disagreed.

For what it is worth I am both a MSA Marshal and a Semi Pro motorsport photographer.

If I had got the shots of the crash I would have retained them until I had been able to ascertain if the drivers and the surrounding public were OK. This should be done after the incident has been cleared and by contact with the media office at the circuit. If everyone was OK I would use the images, if they were not the delete button would be used. This is my own personal ethos and one I know I share with an awful lot of the longer term pro photographers. I know because I eat and drink with them.

As a marshal I am in a position where, despite any 'freedom of information' rubbish is being spouted, or if it is my role or not, I can to what I think is a decent human response. I would have no hesitation in trying to A: Protect the drivers dignity and privacy and respecting his/her rights and the expectation that family should be taken into consideration and B: Understanding my role in protecting the scene while the rescue crews work. It is part of the training and is covered in correctly produced Volunteers in Motorsport DVD's. I personally dont buy into the arguement that the video would be used for training.

In these days of instant communication the video taken at an event can be on the internet within m inutes. Imagine a member of the family seeing footage of a driver dying before they had even been contacted by the emergency services!

To use comparisions with war footage and riots is crass, it tries to dignify actions that what I hope most of us would find wrong. However it may be a generational thing given what passes for entertainment now.

I think the only issue here is not what the marshals did in preventing the OP from entering the area but the way that they did it. However I can say that the adrenalin that surges when we respond to incidents is high, it has to be as it is the fight or flight mechanism. As marshals we use that adrenalin to run towards the scene not away, this is to protect life not service or gain from a voyeristic need. In those circumstances if someone was being over pushy, I have no doubt that I probably would have been aggressive in my response and I would'nt expect to have to defend my response afterwards.

Sometimes a whisper works, sometimes you need to shout and sometimes you shout without thinking about it.

I believe the original post stated that it was more than one marshal responding and this does point to the OP being a bit too keen to get to the scene.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Hubble

Not wishing to inflame things in any way, but I've got to say it.....it seems clear that many of the posts above have been made by fellow marshals who understandably wish to support the actions of their colleagues

i for one wasnt thinking about supporting the marshal involved when i replied. i was thinking about what the driver would want. im both a driver AND marshal and i can catagorically say that as a driver if i was in an incident like that i wouldnt want someone filming me in such distress no matter what purposes it would be for! as a driver, marshal and someone with an ounce of compassion that filming such incidents is bang out of order...whether the person filming it gets a kick out of it or not, as soon as its on the web someone will!

Originally Posted by Hubble

Maybe the handling of spectators at incidents in public areas is something that should be covered in training (I'm assuming it isn't already?) - remember, this could just as easily be about someone in the spectator area having a heart attack or getting hit by another spectators car - it doesn't necessarily have to be about an on track incident that has spilled over into a spectator area

handling incidents with spectators is already covered in training HOWEVER dealing with the media/videos/photos being taken by spectators isnt..mainly because youd assume someone with an ounce of decency wouldnt want to film someone in distress...our main concern with an incident such as that is the driver, if a spectator who gets kicks out of filming someone in distress for what ever reason gets told to stop filming then tough!

may i suggest to alfa man to do one of 2 things,

1) start marshalling, have 2 tonnes of metal thrown at you, and try to deal with the aftermath with a driver unconcious while another spectator has a video camera in your face

OR

2) get a race car, have a massive crash, and while your in absolute agony get some paparazzi to come and film it, so they can put it on youtube and let some sick people get kicks out of it over the next few months while your laying in hospital with internal bleeding, without a race car, you family worried sick and the chance of loosing your job because your not at work while your recovering.

now tell me....do you carry on recording?...i think ANYONE with an ounce of decency or compassion when thinking of the concequences of such a crash would turn off the camera!

[skeee]

Originally Posted by Grumps

I havent read all the thread but did read the statement from the OP that stated that the marshals generally agreed that they should/could stop the filming and that others disagreed.

For what it is worth I am both a MSA Marshal and a Semi Pro motorsport photographer.

If I had got the shots of the crash I would have retained them until I had been able to ascertain if the drivers and the surrounding public were OK. This should be done after the incident has been cleared and by contact with the media office at the circuit. If everyone was OK I would use the images, if they were not the delete button would be used. This is my own personal ethos and one I know I share with an awful lot of the longer term pro photographers. I know because I eat and drink with them.

As a marshal I am in a position where, despite any 'freedom of information' rubbish is being spouted, or if it is my role or not, I can to what I think is a decent human response. I would have no hesitation in trying to A: Protect the drivers dignity and privacy and respecting his/her rights and the expectation that family should be taken into consideration and B: Understanding my role in protecting the scene while the rescue crews work. It is part of the training and is covered in correctly produced Volunteers in Motorsport DVD's. I personally dont buy into the arguement that the video would be used for training.

In these days of instant communication the video taken at an event can be on the internet within m inutes. Imagine a member of the family seeing footage of a driver dying before they had even been contacted by the emergency services!

To use comparisions with war footage and riots is crass, it tries to dignify actions that what I hope most of us would find wrong. However it may be a generational thing given what passes for entertainment now.

I think the only issue here is not what the marshals did in preventing the OP from entering the area but the way that they did it. However I can say that the adrenalin that surges when we respond to incidents is high, it has to be as it is the fight or flight mechanism. As marshals we use that adrenalin to run towards the scene not away, this is to protect life not service or gain from a voyeristic need. In those circumstances if someone was being over pushy, I have no doubt that I probably would have been aggressive in my response and I would'nt expect to have to defend my response afterwards.

Sometimes a whisper works, sometimes you need to shout and sometimes you shout without thinking about it.

I believe the original post stated that it was more than one marshal responding and this does point to the OP being a bit too keen to get to the scene.

Isn't holding up a tarp the same as putting your hand/body in the way of a camera and the same as request to stop filming!


As a new marshal I've only been present at one fatality and only ever had to hold a tarp once (not the same incident, I might add!) so I fully empathise with the marshal’s frustration at spectators when the outcome isn’t known, or when someone is clearly in pain. Personally I don't like seeing pain or death so if I had my camera I'd stop anyway.

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally Posted by alfaman

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the rule on here was to attack the post but not the poster etc...and for people to say they want to "punch my lights out" is all a bit unnecessary.

That is the rule. Although ironically, when we step in to prevent this kind of thing, we generally get accused of censorship, so it's a lose-lose. Everyone wants free speech for themselves - unfortunately, they're less interested in it for other people. That's a general comment, not aimed at you. Just an overview of how discussions forums inevitably work.

However, just to correct your misapprehension, had you read the post fully, the exact quote was as follows:

Originally Posted by numbersix

I think that the marshal concerned in this incident should be highly commended for resisting what must have been an almost overwhelming desire to punch someone's lights out.

To me that reads as a lighthearted way to try and explain that the marshal(s) in question were probably stressed out. At no point has the poster expressed a wish to "punch your lights out". You may want to re-review the post - however, if you still want to lodge a complaint about it after re-reading, please let me know and I'll ask some non-participating mods to look at it since I can't claim any objectivity on this one.

Originally Posted by alfaman

Some people have questioned why I went from where I was spectating to where the car ended up.
It's very simple - a race car had vaulted the safety barriers and landed in a public area. I went up there to see what had happened. Maybe people with a sensitive disposition should stop reading now but if there were spectators & marshals dead or injured that is a major news story. It knocks Libya, Japan, Cameron/Clegg way off the top of the bulletins. A car going into the crowd is big news and it happening here in the UK is a big deal.
My job is to report news and in TV news we need pictures hence the filming and you need a lot of different pictures to cover even a report lasting just 1 minute. How would my station's rivals report such an incident? They would probably buy up footage from the other "ghouls" filming. But I had it all on film ready to use if necessary.

This is what I am struggling to understand. Ok you work in the media, but why does that mean that you are somehow entitled to film if you're not signed on with the rest of the media people? What you're actually saying is you saw a chance at a possible scoop and regardless, you went for it. While I can understand that, it doesn't mean you had a right to go and film it.

Originally Posted by alfaman

TV news has evolved massively in the past decade and 24 hour news is a hungry beast. How many times have you seen amateur TV footage from people who've just got off a jet that's crash landed and turned round & filmed it as they run to safety. Or on board footage from jets with holes in the roof etc. News has moved on and with camera phones everyone thinks they're a news journalist nowadays...and yes just look at Youtube. If you're that bothered why don't you campaign to stop Youtube showing fatal crashes on its site?

What makes you think no-one here has? I've seen fatal crashes on film and sadly, in person. I have no issue with the films in certain scenarios - but they should be viewed with respect and and purpose of learning. Not as entertainment with comment like "LOLZ d00d, watch dis guys hed split open". I suspect you'd agree.

Originally Posted by alfaman

It's very simple for me to say I was "just doing my job" but ultimately that is my job and it's not everyone's cup of tea. We're not all Robert Pestons or Adam Boultons - a lot of us do deal with death and destruction and believe me it's all very sanitised by the time it reaches your screens at home.

Yes but you weren't. You weren't there in a professional capacity, so you weren't doing your job.

Originally Posted by alfaman

It also means that my favourite sport doesn't have to deal with handringers calling for draconian measures to stop such accidents happening again. And I was pleased to see Jonathan Palmer's measured response to the crash. Maybe HE'S the one to ask who really has the right to stop me filming.....

Well I wouldn't be so sure of that based on some of the other threads on the subject of this particular crash.

I have to be honest, had it been my incident scene, I would have politely asked you to stop filming and had you not done so, I would have organised someone to stand in your way so you didn't have a view. That's my personal take on it. That's simply because I do not feel that filming of matters of this nature by non-media is necessary or appropriate and it shouldn't be encouraged. Ok, in your case, you're saying you were approaching it from a media perspective. Fair enough.

But plenty of people aren't and I don't think that anyone has the right to get entertainment from the pain of others. The only way we can tell the difference between those with a legitimate interest and those who are just looking for a cheap thrill is if they have media accreditation. If you want to act in a media capacity, then get accredited and the problem goes away immediately.

As to how you were treated, that is a different matter. It would be preferable if no-one was badly treated by any marshal - it can and does happen - and as has been pointed out, there's a discussion in the marshals forum about whether we should have training on this. But do bear in mind that even if marshals were trained and had approached the matter differently, it's very likely you would still have been asked to stop filming. you were not there in any official capacity and therefore, as far as I am concerned, there was no legitimate reason for you to be filming.

[bella]

whats making me worried here is the use of "citizen journalism" to justify filming of someone in the course of being cared for by marshals and medics. this makes me both sad and concerned for the state of humanity and respect for others. a good journalist knows the difference between something that's newsworthy and something that's simply not important to the context and detail of the story, as i've said before.

during the inquest into the london tube bombings, it became clear that some passengers had been filming and taking photographs on their mobile phones and with cameras of the aftermath of the incident whilst people lay injured and dying in front of them. they were stopped from doing so either by other passengers or by london underground workers trying to save lives (in some cases it took force to do so). that sort of behaviour is clearly out of line, whether it's provoked by a state of shock or greed. why is it so different to what the original poster was attempting to do?

the downside of our common law country, where you can do whatever you want so long as it isn't illegal is that people will act until they are told to stop it. use your common sense and put your respect before your urge to gain fame and cash. suppling the 24 hour media culture with fodder for victim privacy invasion is not the be all and end all.

[Flavio Galtieri]

So I think the answer to the question "Have marshals got the right to stop people filming and/or taking photos? " is No they haven't.

Having said that E Pumpkin's idea seems the most pragmatic if you feel strongly about the fact that undignified or unsuitable footage is being obtained and I can't really see any way an unaccredited photographer could complain successfully about having his view blocked.

It's not long ago you would go to a music concert and be searched in case you had a camera on you. Tickets were full of legalise about image rights and so on and there were signs in every foyer warning you no photography was allowed. Even accredited photographers were warned by the management "first two songs only"..
Now cameras are ubiquitous, nobody cares and bands even have competitions for "best fan video".

There's no going back so we might as well all get used to it imho.

[White flag man]

Alfaman,
I was the marshal, stood at the back of the overturned car, who questioned you're actions. As far as I am corcerned you were not interfering with our efforts, there was a tall wire fence between you and myself and, dare I say, if you REALLY WANT TO, I don't believe I have the right/juristiction to stop you BUT, as I said at the time (with a car upside down, very badly damaged, with a driver inside that could be seriously, or fatally, injured) "why do you want to film that, what are you really filming". There was also the fact that several MR2 team members were getting very aggitated with you, and were you're side of the fence, I thought it best to have a word.
Videos/film and still photographs of an accident happening can be useful and interesting, if a little frightening, I don't believe footage of an injured driver hanging in a mangled car is.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

So I think the answer to the question "Have marshals got the right to stop people filming and/or taking photos? " is No they haven't.

No, on private property the owner of that property and those they elect to keep order set the rules. The same as you do in your own home. Much as it seems to confuse people, my then 3 year old niece's quote of "everyone can do what they want to do" is flawed.

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

There's no going back so we might as well all get used to it imho.

So when it's your relative who learns that your son has been injured on a news bulletin that will be OK?

It's been demonstrated that when big incidents are shown on live TV they are on You Tube within approximately 14 seconds of happening. The TV broadcasters know when to stop transmitting sensitive footage so nobody gets to see the aftermath until the outcome is clear. The casual photographer and video maker takes and posts footage for kicks with no through as to what it means for those involved.

I suspect the two views will never meet in the middle, I find the idea of videoing major accidents entirely abhorrent and I doubt anyone is going to persuade me that there is any benefit in someone's pain and suffering being shown on You Tube and I can't see that anyone is going to convince me that filming injured drivers is in any way similar to the filming of distasteful acts that are being masked by foreign governments etc. and as someone said above I find the comparison entirely crass.

IMV this is a uncredited ghoul who hoped he was going to get newsworthy footage of injured drivers to flog to a news network or to improve his hit count on You Tube (do they pay high hit sites ad revenue?).

Lastly, I'd be really interested in who you work for alfaman, I know a number of proper journalists, none of whom leave home without their press card and all of whom (as bella says) know when they have a good story and when to stand back.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by White flag man

BUT, as I said at the time (with a car upside down, very badly damaged, with a driver inside that could be seriously, or fatally, injured) "why do you want to film that, what are you really filming". There was also the fact that several MR2 team members were getting very aggitated with you, and were you're side of the fence, I thought it best to have a word.

that post sums this whole thing up really....your videoing something that could have been very serious, marshals can see that, team members didnt like the fact you were videoing, so marshal asks you to stop, by this point a little switch in your brain should have switched on thinking i must be doing something wrong or not appropriate!.....but no, you have to come on here and start complaining about marshals impinging on your rights to video a crash, when in fact the marshals were protecting the rights of the driver and showing some sense by stopping you videoing before one of the MR2 mechanics put you flat on your back!.....i say white flag man actually did the right thing and protected you from yourself......or maybe not, maybe next time he should leave you to the wolves and you will learn the hard way!

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by Piglet

No, on private property the owner of that property and those they elect to keep order set the rules. The same as you do in your own home. Much as it seems to confuse people, my then 3 year old niece's quote of "everyone can do what they want to do" is flawed.

OK I'm am now getting confused. I do appreciate the free legal advice (if only because it doesn't happen very often in my experience ) but are you saying a marshal does have the right to stop an amateur photographer taking pictures or video in these circumstance or not? That is the question and I'm interested in knowing the answer as I frequently video races myself.

I'm not for one second suggesting it's morally acceptable or even desirable for ghoulish footage to be uploaded in seconds to youtube, I'm just pointing out that the facility exists, it happens and there's no going back. It's a long time since I was a 10 year old developing 35mm black and white film in the blacked out bathroom after a visit to Goodwood with my parents. I still think of that as "proper" photography, how sad is that?

But times have changed. Whatever happens today someone, somewhere will have a camera recording it. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, just that I doubt you'll ever be able to reverse the trend.

[Piglet]

As far as I am concerned as a lawyer and as an official, an owner of private property whether that's a private home, a race facility or a shopping centre, can set whatever rules it likes and can require people to behave in whatever way it sees fit (subject to legislation - so your no gays holding hands example).

Marshals are the people who keep order at race meetings, trackside, in the paddock, in assembly area, in the pit lane and in spectator areas. Nobody has the right to do as they wish on private property.

In this climate, try setting up a camera in a shopping centre and see how long it takes for security to descend on you.

Marshals are security at race meetings, in the old days we had a security presence, now it only happens at very large meetings and this is mainly in the form of spectator marshals. No race circuit has sufficient staff on duty over a weekend to keep order, no race circuit has sufficient security staff on duty to keep order - the volunteer marshal workforce does this in all of the areas shown above. If a circuit was required to pay for staff to do this, motorsport would be unaffordable for many as these costs would be passed on through the competitors entry fees.

If the marshal felt it inappropriate for the OP to film then that is an instruction that should have been obeyed.

I applaud WFM for his measured response, he was one of those marshals who came very closed to being seriously injured or killed in the unpaid pursuit of his hobby. I admire the fact that he's watched this thread run for a few days without responding and that when he has responded it's in a measured fashion, explaining just why he stopped THIS person filming. Nick, you're a good man and a good marshal.

As I said in my first post. We need to put this in the correct context of an incident where, at the time, nobody knew if they were dealing with fatalities, serious injuries or not.

[EvilPumpkin]

guys, one point that alfaman made stands - attack the post, not the poster. . While I appreciate people's feelings, we have the rules for a reason and I must ask that people stay within them. Please don't put the staff in a position where we have to start pulling posts.

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

.or maybe not, maybe next time he should leave you to the wolves and you will learn the hard way!

I'd rather help people to see the bigger picture (excuse the pun) and only have one incident to deal with at a time.