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

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

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.

To answer this more generally, in the normal run of events nobody is going to stop you video'ng or taking photo's (outside of a pitlane where you may have more of a problem). Your obligation is not to use that footage or those photographs for commercial use. I know people who have had a tap on the shoulder for trying to sell images that they have taken without having correct accreditation and commercial licence.

There is a big difference between moving to video the aftermath of a potentially serious accident and having captured the accident taking place as it happened.

I suspect most of us can see the difference between these things. As I said previously, I know many professional photographers who have taken photographs of dreadful incidents and have chosen not to publish that footage, sadly modern technology puts that decision into the hands of those who do not have the same respect for others and subscribe to a more "me me me" culture and you won't ever convince me that there is any valid reason for such footage to be taken or shown.

[Stuart H]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

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!



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!

Got to agree with you there Adam

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by 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.

PM sent.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by White flag man

PM sent.

I don't think EP means you, your post was very sensible.

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by Piglet

I don't think EP means you, your post was very sensible.

It's alright Piglet, it's a reply to her PM explaining that very thing.

[NewYankee01]

as a marshal myself its a shame this person has overstepped the mark a bit. im quite new to marshalling but im old enough to realise it cant harm anyone if i speak to a rider/driver the session/day after a crash to see if he's competing to build a good sense of feeling and relationship between us and them. i also try and extend the same courtesy to the public if the see an injured rider, not the condition or how it happened but just reassure people especially if its the riders team. this just flies in the face of that and all the good work us marshals put in. i know it hopefully wont but dont let this small thing sour your thoughts of brands marshals, ive never been there but my advice is to carry on somewhere else if a person does that again he'll take it too far then realise hes done wrong or he do something and then if his post chief is standing by him he'll have a few difficult questions to answer for for being so disrespectful (theres spectators whove got rights like you, you probably paid to get in and then theres difficult spectators which i hope i dont get too much of!).
the only thing is most marshals can tell media a mile off as you know yourself if you didnt have your passes they might have thought you were trying to get too much your monies worth and not been a diligent photographer who wouldnt post anything no matter how bad it may be
one last thing thanks for at least trying, i wanted to look at the videos i heard there was a big crash when i was at the btcc donny thankfully theres 2 at the time of writing on the tube, i dont look at crashes now as how many flips i look how the cars ended up after the crash and how long and how the marshals dealt with it. maybe one day your footage will be used to train marshals as we got a load of spectator footage to demonstrate different things to marshals in the seminars

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by NewYankee01

one last thing thanks for at least trying, i wanted to look at the videos i heard there was a big crash when i was at the btcc donny thankfully theres 2 at the time of writing on the tube, i dont look at crashes now as how many flips i look how the cars ended up after the crash and how long and how the marshals dealt with it. maybe one day your footage will be used to train marshals as we got a load of spectator footage to demonstrate different things to marshals in the seminars

NewYankee01,
If I may answer you personally, as one of the marshals involved.
I did not tell alfaman not to film. As some MR2 mechanics near him were beginning to get angry with him, saying "the driver was their friend", I simple asked alfaman why he wanted to keep filming and what he was going to gain from it?
Regarding the training of marshals, when I said this to alfaman, the accident had happened, the car was upside down, stationary, the marshals had done everything they could, for the time being and the driver was now in the hands of the rescue team/medics. IMO, as alfaman was stood at the back of the car, the only film he would have got, at that point, was the bottom of an MR2 and a doctor's legs sticking out the side. I hope you agree this would not be exciting/of much use to anyone.
I hasten to add I was not the only marshal/official that spoke/yelled at alfaman at that time and, in the heat of the moment, some were more direct than myself.

[numbersix]

I am concerned that my 'punch lights out' comment may have been misconstrued and I thank EvilPumpkin for clarifying my thoughts. It was badly worded and for that alone, I apologise.

The message I was trying to promote was the idea that marshals, like St John personnel and Fire Service personnel occasionally find themselves in situations in which by-standers, and others, drive them round the twist and it would be less than human for them to not wish that some divine power could remove the problem with a lightning strike. Of course, those same personnel do not let these feelings overcome them, and if they did, they would be in serious trouble and quite rightly so.

The poster asked a question which was if marshals are allowed to stop him taking pictures. I believe the answer is no. This is based on the ticket condition which allows people to take photographs for private and non-commercial use. A marshal will be unaware of the reason why the photographer is taking the pictures and therefore cannot intervene. (Do not confuse this with stopping people entering a potentially dangerous area, or impeding rescue personnel in the performance of their duties.)

The fact that the poster then appears to mention their intention to use YouTube, and also mention that what they do is in their line of work, would indicate that the intention was not private and therefore in possible breach of copyright, and is not a problem for marshals, but for the relevant authorities.

I need to add something that will be a waste of my time to those who do not inherently understand these things, and but will shine as a light to those that do.

Marshals, and all 'rescue' personnel, whether volunteers or paid, do so with a built-in desire to help people. If we wanted to just watch, we'd be spectators.

We want to help, we spend our own money doing so, we get excellent training and quite often we risk our own health and safety in pursuit of an ideal - which is to save life, reduce suffering and generally help out.

This is in our DNA. It's in our wiring. We are not interested in merely watching and we have no problem with others that do just this. But many of us have a deep seated revulsion of those people who feel that for some reason or other they have the right to intrude in someone else's personal catastrophe. Those who do not have any desire to help, but merely to record misery, whether it be for personal gain or pure voyeurism.

There are situations where such things must be done, such as war footage, to expose evidence of wrong doing and to educate the public to take action, and they are often done by experienced (often brave) professional people or by brave members of the public within repressive regimes.

I'm talking about an inherent understanding of human dignity, the right to privacy, and an understanding of what is right to do and wrong to do, even if both actions are legal. It's to do with 'good form' - an old fashioned expression which includes notions or honour and of doing the right thing.

And for those people whose desire is to help, such breaches of good form, honour and human dignity are highly offensive, and sometimes we may act outside our remit in a moment of passion.

The poster then attempted to justify reasons why people should have the divine and legal right to photograph and publish a record of human distress, siting as evidence, war photographers.

I do not believe that any of the reasons sited are valid, and some are insulting to those many professionals who do have a sense of responsibility and are accredited.

I believe that the often contradictory reasons given are an invalid and preposterous attempt to raise voyeurism to the ranks of those professionals who instinctively understand the concepts of privacy and dignity, i.e. those professionals who are also 'gentlemen' (and indeed 'ladies') who understand these things as distinct from the paparazzi who drove Diana to her death.

I am reminded of an old saying, "There is no indignation so righteous as that of a criminal accused of the wrong crime."

I believe the poster is correct in that the marshals acted outside their remit. But I believe they were trying to enforce ethics, which they inherently understand but remain a mystery to those who know they have rights, but have no idea of responsibilities.

I speak generally against anyone who does not know when to keep his or her camera in their pocket, and stress that I was not at the incident mentioned by the poster and therefore I leave it to those who were there to draw their own conclusions.

[CLIP-Motorsport]

Here's a point of view from an amatuer photographer. Has a marshall the right to stop you filming a scene? Erm, I'n not sure, maybe, they are representing the curcuit.
Have they a right to ask you to stop filming, absolutely. It's then up to your own morals if you choice to do so. Personally I think there is a time to put your camera down, you have to remember the person standing next to you while your clicking away might the drivers relation/friend etc.

I think there is a moral question as to when images are used as well.

I have had the misfortune to have photographed a fatal crash, as sensational and newsworthy as the photos were, I felt it was morally wrong to ever let them see the light of day. The only other people to have seen them was the crash investigators. Not only would it have been morally wrong to share them, it would also have breached the T&Cs of the curcuit. They often don't enforce them but they could.

If I've captured a crash, I would only ever use the images if I know the driver is ok or at least on the mend to a full recovery.

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by Piglet

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?).

Fortunately we don't yet live in a Police state, so members of the public can go about their business relatively uninterrupted. It is not up to you or any other marshals to decide what is newsworthy, it is for the individual concerned to make that judgement...and in some cases it is better to shoot first and then delete later.....but that's their call, and whether you like it or not, that's just how it is.

I am quite disturbed by a number of the posts in this thread where the OP is referred to as a 'ghoul', is ridiculed for having no friends on here, or is condemned as just wanting to put the images/footage on youtube to up their hit rate, or for entertainment - without there being any evidence of this. If you actually bother to read alfamans posts you will see he has been quite restrained and even sensitive to the subject matter - he merely asked a question.....a legitimate one at that... Those people making such posts (and you know who you are) should try to take a more balanced view of things

Just because you don't like what's being discussed here doesn't make it wrong

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally Posted by alfaman

I'm not there for gore and any footage I put on Youtube is edited tastefully and respectfully. Ultimately I wanted to tell the story of the crash, the aftermath, the rescue.

Originally Posted by alfaman

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.

Originally Posted by Hubble

or is condemned as just wanting to put the images/footage on youtube to up their hit rate, or for entertainment - without there being any evidence of this.

See above. People are interpreting what has been said.

I respect your comments, but given the original poster's own comments, it's not surprising that people are questioning exactly what he - or anyone - wants the footage for. I'm one of those people.

It's subsequently been explained in the case of the original poster. Based on his comments, it appears that he wanted the footage in case someone died and it became newsworthy. That's understandable, although I personally feel it's somewhat unfair on those members of the media who went to the effort of getting accreditation to attend the meeting in a professional capacity - but that's a wider discussion and I don't pretend to understand how the media works or what is professionally acceptable.

I agree that personal attacks are not warranted - and you'll see that issue has already been addressed within the thread.

On a more general note, I simply do not understand why someone who is not acting in an official (or unofficial) media capacity or on behalf of involved parties - be that the circuit, the involved team(s) or someone representing the marshalling/rescue organisations - would want or need this kind of footage. What other reasons are there for filming this kind of thing? I'm open to hearing other reasons - it's just that, as yet, none appear to have been offered.

In terms of people's reaction to the issue in general, I think Number Six's post is the best explanation of it that I've ever seen.

[skeee]

Whereas I whole heartedly agree that Number 6’s post is the most eloquent explanation of this subject I think the marshal does have a right to stop, or prevent somebody filming certain events because I struggle to understand the difference between using a tarp/standing in a photographers line of view and a (polite) request, albeit rhetorically, to stop filming.

As per in accordance with any training I have received (and common decency) I would not condone a marshal physically touching a cameraman or his equipment, (I think that’s called ‘common assault’) and regardless of how emotional the situation (as difficult as it sometimes is) there is never any excuse for profanity or any abusive tone to the ‘request.’ [Equally so as I disagree with the OP point of view and justifications for his argument I agree that it’s wrong to personally abuse him for what is actually a very good question although I do question his motives in this situation, but then I wasn’t there as I was marshalling elsewhere that day]

Obviously if the photographer was identified with a bib (as at Brands or a well known regular as at other circuits) then any failure to comply could (and would) be immediately passed to Race Control so the relevant circuit security staff could be summoned.

[Teletubby]

I have to say that, having been in the unfortunate situation of managing a number of serious incidents, my take on this is the following....

Do the marshals have the right to stop people filming? No, I don't believe they do unless they have been specifically asked to assist the venue staff in doing just that, I believe that the venue (represented by their staff) do have the right to dictate what happens on their land regardless of whether you have paid a fee to be there or not.

Do the marshals have the right to ask you to stop filming? Yes, of course they do, just the same as anybody can ask you to and I would expect that this is the crux of the question. It looks like the OP was asked to stop filming and is asking if he can be made to do so by the marshals at the scene. I believe that the answer is no, they cannot force somebody to stop filming.

That said, there are many ways to skin that particular feline.

The scene of a serious accident is inherently unsafe and bystanders should be kept at least 10m away, leaking fuel (and there is always some of that) indicates that the cordon should really be at least 20m in my opinion. Tarpaulins and blankets are useful as screens but if people want to film they will, albeit now from 20m away.

I have always found that when people who are filming are asked for their name and address so that the Police can contact them as potential witnesses they seem to vanish anyway.

[alfaman]

I've been reading the comments and views with interest over the past few days and wanted to clarify a few issues that have been raised.

It was very interesting what White Flag Man had to say. Although he definitely did not talk to me as I was not at the back of the car and I wasn't near any members of Andrei Bgatov's team or his friends.

Responding to other remarks - I did not impede any member of the rescue team or stick my camera in their faces or anyone's for that matter. I was already a discreet distance from the car before being asked to move further back.

The comments about 'proper journalists' always carrying ID are laughable. Outside work I never carry any ID and have never found that a problem in the 20+ years I've been a journalist. If I'm in a situation where a story is happening I explain to police/fire/officials etc who I am and who I work for and they take it at face value - no-one has ever questioned my motives and employment status.
The fact is I was at Brands Hatch on a day off - no media accreditation needed. I was filming for fun - I've been doing that for more than a decade. I don't think MSV or any other circuit is going to give me a bib and let me film trackside for my personal collection are they? If they would I'd be there like a shot.
But when Andrei Bgatov's car cleared the fence and landed in the spectator area that's where my journalistic instinct kicked because as I wrote in the previous post it could have been a major news story.
And no I would not have made any money from my film because I would have given it to my employers free of charge. They could have sorted out the picture rights issues if necessary.

I've been talking to my friends and colleagues in the newsroom and at our rivals about the way I was treated at the track and the comments on this forum and they are flabbergasted by the largely hostile reaction. Is it because we are all hard-nosed journalists de-sensitised by covering one disaster after another? I don't think so. I think the media has moved on very quickly and the days of reporting that the Queen has a sniffle are all but over.

One poster said about responsible photographers etc giving names to officials/police for further investigative purposes. I have no issue with that & I would always leave contact details if asked.

The general feeling here seems to be that I have acted without taste or decency and intruded on someone's pain. To be honest after reviewing what I actually filmed I still don't believe I have but the majority on this forum do think I've overstepped the mark.

The comments I really don't understand are from people questioning who I work for and assuming that I'm some inexperienced oik working for a tinpot firm without morals. The reality is far from that but because I choose to enjoy the anonymity on here there's little I can do about that.

[Taprobane]

Personally my understanding is that they do not have the right to stop you, although it's one for the lawyers. I think asking on 10tenths with a large number of involved people will always get this sort of reaction as the motorsport community like any other will generally attempt to look after its own. Anyone know privacy/freedom of the press laws so we can have a definitive answer.

[RPD Motorsport]

This is pretty simple. Read the back of you ticket. There it WILL either explisitly say or will direct you to some condtions of entry.

They will say (for all UK tracks) that the purchase of a ticket gives you no rights, and that the entire circuit is private property. You agree to follow the instructions of any circuit staff, officals or other authorised persons by the circuit.

In short if a marshal, offical, security gard or team personel ask you to stop filming- you DO haft to. There is no right to film at a track, but in most situations they just let you.

If you are a profesional then you will also have noticed that those 'condtions of entry' state all film or still footage remains the property of the circuit owners, and as such they can even require you to delete anything you did take. The only exceptions to this are if you are signed on as authorised media, with insurance, and have signed a contract at the start of the day, which still gives the circuit the last word on what you can keep or not, and if you must pay a fee for the footage.

So in a word, yes- they can ask you to stop.

I only know this so solidly as we have been involved in a case where exactly this came up- the family of a badly injured driver wanted footage and images of the crash removed from 'press'/spectators after continuing filming when asked to stop. Needless to say, the request was granted.

[bella]

Originally Posted by alfaman

I've been talking to my friends and colleagues in the newsroom and at our rivals about the way I was treated at the track and the comments on this forum and they are flabbergasted by the largely hostile reaction. Is it because we are all hard-nosed journalists de-sensitised by covering one disaster after another? I don't think so. I think the media has moved on very quickly and the days of reporting that the Queen has a sniffle are all but over.

no, i think it's because you're asking a group of people who are personally attached to competitors, teams, families, marshals etc and as a result are emotionally invested in the situation. asking a newsroom is removing the context really.

what people are really saying is their reactions if you were filming THEIR close relative, or filming an incident on THEIR patch. try going back to the newsroom and asking how they'd feel if you filmed their family member being extricated from a public road accident because you felt it was "newsworthy". they're not de-sensitised, they're just not involved. in the same way their coverage of a terrorist incident would be coloured in some way if their relative was involved, it's an unavoidable aspect of human life.

[Steve Milward]

Hubble - I can see why you and the other journalists or photographers see that the filming of a crash is newsworthy. Yes it's the sort of thing we see on the news all the time.

The aircraft landing on the Hudson River as an example was huge and opportunist photographers caught the moment to be shared worldwide.

What I can't understand is why you would want to film or photograph somebody clearly in a lot of pain or distress. That sort of film or photo wouldn't make the news screens as the aftermath rarely does due to it's sensitivity.

So please feel free to enlighten us as to what purpose this film would have had if the Marshal hadnt stopped Alfaman.

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by alfaman

It was very interesting what White Flag Man had to say. Although he definitely did not talk to me as I was not at the back of the car and I wasn't near any members of Andrei Bgatov's team or his friends.

Alfaman,
If it was not you I spoke to then I duly apologise.
The person I spoke to had a large video/t.v camera, who was standing behind where we were putting blankets up and was told several times to stop filming. Therefore I presumed it was you and I'm sorry for getting it wrong.
It does not, however change my view of whoever it was.

[The SpeCTator]

Although the specific question was about filming, I actually believe the wider picture is one of much more importance.

In this case when the car landed in a spectator area, the marshals and MSV staff did an excellent job of keeping onlookers back from 3 sides.

In incidents of this type, both parties should have total control on the entire situation to keep everyone back to a safe distance, a badly damaged inverted car with a trapped driver inside has huge potential to leak fluids as do people onlooking have a huge potential to light up a cigarette.

Marshals can save lives on both sides of the fence.

[Startline Ed]

Having checked a few of my programmes from various meetings the following is a frequently used excerpt from the Conditions of Admission section under the heading Programme and Copyright.

"It is a condition of admission to these premises that photography, cine-film, video, sound or any other visual or audio use, including making copies of the recording or reproduction, causing or permitting it to be seen or heard in public, broadcasting, diffusing, selling, renting, exchanging, lending, using for gain, or otherwise dealing with it in whole or in part is strictly forbidden.

Use of privately owned camcorders for private viewing purposes only is not permitted by the circuit owners without prior permission.

Furthermore, the Promoters reserve the right to confiscate and retain possession of any photographs or films made in breach of this condition and without its express consent in writing."

I shall leave you all to draw your own conclusions from that.

[Steve Milward]

Originally Posted by Startline Ed

"It is a condition of admission to these premises that photography, cine-film, video, sound or any other visual or audio use, including making copies of the recording or reproduction, causing or permitting it to be seen or heard in public, broadcasting, diffusing, selling, renting, exchanging, lending, using for gain, or otherwise dealing with it in whole or in part is strictly forbidden.

Use of privately owned camcorders for private viewing purposes only is not permitted by the circuit owners without prior permission.

Furthermore, the Promoters reserve the right to confiscate and retain possession of any photographs or films made in breach of this condition and without its express consent in writing."

I shall leave you all to draw your own conclusions from that.

Case Closed, thanks for clearing this up. I'm sure the media will want to appeal the decision though.

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by Mildrop

Hubble - I can see why you and the other journalists or photographers see that the filming of a crash is newsworthy. Yes it's the sort of thing we see on the news all the time.

The aircraft landing on the Hudson River as an example was huge and opportunist photographers caught the moment to be shared worldwide.

What I can't understand is why you would want to film or photograph somebody clearly in a lot of pain or distress. That sort of film or photo wouldn't make the news screens as the aftermath rarely does due to it's sensitivity.

So please feel free to enlighten us as to what purpose this film would have had if the Marshal hadnt stopped Alfaman.

Hi Mildrop.....

If you want to know what purpose this film would have you should ask Alfaman....perhaps do it privately though....

I would point out that nowhere in my post did I say I wanted to film people in distress - perhaps you could take the time to read things thoroughly before commenting in future....? The way in which your post is presented is only going to add fuel to the fire....remember - I'm not answerable to you....

As a responsible and considerate adult I do know where to draw the line for me from a moral standpoint - what I would consider good/bad taste, whether to take images/film to begin with, and also whether to make them public or not, but that isn't what this discussion is about.

The OP asked a simple question - do marshals have the right to stop people filming/taking photo's - the simple answer is no. As for the moral issue...that's one for each of us to deal with in our own way.

So far this debate has centred around a particular occasion where a trackside incident spilled over into a public area, however as I mentioned in an earlier post we could just as easily be talking about a person in a spectator area being taken ill, or being injured in some way. The same rules would apply, but I suspect it would be left for members of the public and circuit staff to deal with. As appointed officials of the venue the circuit staff would have the right to eject anyone behaving in a way they deemed inappropriate, and marshals MAY be asked to assist in this.

A question for you.....imagine an incident has already taken place when you arrive there.....
What would you do about the images/film already taken...? You cannot delete them...even the Police have no power to do that...

I can't find anything that confirms that marshals are officials of the venue - the organising club perhaps (is that not who you sign on with?), but not the venue. Think of Brands Hatch for example, where members of the public may be engaged in activities on the rally course or even the kart circuit while a meeting is taking place on the track.....BARC/BRSCC etc would have no say regarding issues there unless they impacted upon portions of the circuit/facilities allocated to them. This would be for circuit staff alone to deal with.

I want to state I'm not seeking to inflame things here, just present a balanced view - a number of those commenting are marshals, and clearly one or two have lost their objectivity in this debate.

Lets stick to the question at hand.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Startline Ed

"It is a condition of admission to these premises that photography, cine-film, video, sound or any other visual or audio use, including making copies of the recording or reproduction, causing or permitting it to be seen or heard in public, broadcasting, diffusing, selling, renting, exchanging, lending, using for gain, or otherwise dealing with it in whole or in part is strictly forbidden.

Use of privately owned camcorders for private viewing purposes only is not permitted by the circuit owners without prior permission.

Furthermore, the Promoters reserve the right to confiscate and retain possession of any photographs or films made in breach of this condition and without its express consent in writing."

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.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Hubble

I can't find anything that confirms that marshals are officials of the venue - the organising club perhaps (is that not who you sign on with?), but not the venue.

Very rarely are marshals "Officials" at an MSA recognised motor sport event. All officials need to be mentioned by name in the Supplementary Regulations or declared on the Notice Board and visible at signing on. So, commonly only the Chief Marshal is an Official of the Meeting.

Some or all marshals MAY be declared to be "Judges of Fact" (in the SRs or on the Official Notice Board) with regard to a limited range of issues that they may be resonably be expected to judge.

Marshals 'sign on' using the official MSA paperwork and as soon as they do so they are subject to the authority of the Clerk of the Course who, in the eyes of the MSA, represents them as well as the organising/promoting club and is ultimately responsible to the MSA for all matters relating to the event, other than those responsibilities which are covered by the circuit operator's or competitor's licences. Marshals do not sign-on to become temporary members of staff of the venue owners/operators and are not their "agents".

Marshals should have clear instructions provided by the organising club via the Clerk of the Course (possibly delegated to other members of the organising team such as the Chief Marshal/Safety Officer) covering all their duties, responsibilities and obligations. In my experience, nowhere in those instructions, whether written or verbal, will a marshall be expected, or given any authority, to "order" any member of the public to do, or not do, anything. They can only ask. And indeed, the Clerk of the Course - the ultimate authority for the "event" - can only ask Joe Public to do, or not do something. What the circuit owners/operators expect/empower their own staff to do is something else. Even asking for the name and address of a spectator or photographer can only be a request - what do you do if they answer "Mickey Mouse, Disneyland, Paris"? Not a lot you can do.

When it comes to matters of law - for example what anyone is permitted or not permitted to do by the terms of admission to the event - these are not of concern to Marshals and they have no authority in law - and certainly no enforcement powers are conferred on them - as they too are just members of the public, albeit with an important role to play in running the event. They may, however, make good witnesses should a prosecution be brought at a later time, though I have never heard of a breach of copywright case being brought against a motorsport snapper - has there ever been one? I don't think it likely that a 'bad taste' case has ever been brought either.

If a marshal were to get physically involved trying to enforce their opinion on a member of the public it is likely they would be more in trouble than the photographer/videographer recording a scene or a spectator in an unsafe area, as they would be breaching criminal rather than civil law. Getting as extreme as a smack in the mouth could end up with a charge of ABH or GBH rather than just common assault and is certainly something the Clerk of the Course and organising club would not condone under any circumstances as they might become liable to prosecution also.

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.