No video cameras allowed so what about super 8?

[BK]

Once in a while I come across events with a sign in bold lettering saying: "No video cameras allowed".

Maybe in the future the sign should read" Use of moving image recording capable devices not allowed" considering nowdays not only video cameras can record moving images but still cameras as well ( In 720P HD too with the latest ones ), and some mobile phones with claimed dvd quality images.

Some people still don't get it though. Was at a recent concert and some guy was there with video camera believe it or not filming away. A polite verbal warning from security didn't do much good and of course he had his camera taken away soon after. I was surprised he wasn't thrown out.

Bill

[Angus]

I've certainly seen tickets for events that prohibit "all devices capable of recording or storing moving images no matter how the images are stored including but not limited to videotape, film, hard disc and flash media"

That is what a sensible promoter/organiser states if they wish to avoid all moving pictures.

OTOH they probably aren't worried about a few minutes of super 8...compared to a complete concert/event bootlegged on mini DV...complete with hi-fi sound...

[Angus]

Perhaps I can shed some light on the law in the UK. Basically there's no criminal offence at risk of being committed if you take a camera somewhere it says "no cameras" (unless it's government property.)

There are two things at play here.

If you enter a concert or other organised event with an entry ticket, the ticket usually makes it a condition of entry that you don't bring certain equipment...often video cameras.

The organisers of said event have the legal right to refuse you entry or eject you if you break their conditions of entry if there is a clause along the lines of "it is a condition of entry that..." or "by purchasing this ticket you enter into a contract with the promoter that..."

Having said that I have seen people openly using video cameras at concerts where the tickets state very clearly that they must not.

You're not strictly breaking the law by taking a camera, but they have a legal right to insist you don't....its part of the contract you make when you purchase your ticket.

Now....you *are* breaking the law if you refuse to comply with *reasonable* requests, such as "please stop using that camcorder" or "please leave that here with security, you can pick it up on the way out here's a reciept". Note that the ticket conditions don't give them the right to prise the camera out of your hands, it is still your camera - if they touch it then *they* are committing trespass against property...but they can remove you and your camera together from the premises.

The owner can decide randomly and arbitrarily that they don't want pictures taken, and if you don't comply there and then, that's trespass and you can be removed.

Well the situation is that the owner of private property can insist *anyone* leave for any reason....it is, after all, their property. The same law that protects you from unwanted people in your home (and incidentally allows you to tell salesmen, missionaries, police and bailifs to bugger off) also protects any privately owned tourist attraction you may visit.

I don't think any of this is actually written down in statute. In England we have this funny concept called the "common law" which is unwritten and is just stated by judges on a case-by-case basis. That's where these rules are found as far as I know.

I'm not sure common law actually exists any more in the UK, I remember reading an article last year about how most people believe it does...certainly common-law marriages don't actually exist.

But....if you wanted to argue the legal toss....if a ticket prohibits "video cameras"...you could contend that your super 8 is NOT a video camera....now...those who gabble about "I see"...go look up "video camera" in the OED.....and remember lawyers and legalaities are based around a pedantic system...

[Blue Audio Visual]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29

[MovieStuff]

and remember lawyers and legalaities are based around a pedantic system...

A sign might say "no handguns allowed" but that doesn't mean someone can walk in with a rifle, either. Intent is what courts are more interested in; not the technology being used. One can argue that, because a toy gun was used to threaten someone, then no law was broken. But if the person with the gun thought it was real, then they are guilty of assault because it was their intent to do harm, even if the toy gun would not allow them to follow through. The fact that someone would take a super 8 camera to an event specifically to get around the "no video camera" clause is an indication of forethought and intent, even if there wasn't enough light at the event to form an image on slow-poke super 8 emulsion. More to the point, that one would even choose an arcane format like Super 8 means they asked themselves, "How can I get away with recording imagery on something they wouldn't think of prohibiting?" That we are even discussing this means we equate super 8 to video, relative to capturing images of the event that we know we aren't supposed to. Pedantics aside, I believe a judge would consider super 8 and video to be one and the same because most people now think of them as one and the same, even if we don't. You might try to convince the judge that you know they aren't the same just as one might try to convince the judge thay they knew it was a toy gun. Not likely.

Roger

[super8man]

I'm tired of being the guy following the rules so I say take the camera and worry about it later. TOO many times I have followed the rules only to see them unenforceable at many events...

[Angus]

I'm tired of being the guy following the rules so I say take the camera and worry about it later. TOO many times I have followed the rules only to see them unenforceable at many events...

Yep. I was at the Genesis concert at Twickenham a 8 days ago, and we were warned that because of the attempted attacks around the UK there would be extra security, everyone would be searched and any prohibited items removed...my ticket clearly had any sort of camera as a "prohibited item".

So I took no camera.

Got there to find they were searching bags but anyone without a bag got through a "fast track" without being searched. There was a "camera deposit point" but frankly at least a quarter of the audience had cameras and were openly using them. Some even posing before the concert right next to security people to take family photos in the huge stadium...and there were plenty of flashes going off during the performance.

[super8man]

So I took no camera.

Got there to find they were searching bags but anyone without a bag got through a "fast track" without being searched. There was a "camera deposit point" but frankly at least a quarter of the audience had cameras and were openly using them. Some even posing before the concert right next to security people to take family photos in the huge stadium...and there were plenty of flashes going off during the performance.

Makes me think of Midnight Express (the airport scene, not the shower scene) in situations like this. Tape a flat Elmo super 8 camera loaded with fast film (generally some of the slimmest designs) to your side and you are set to rock n roll.

[Patrick]

Roger: "I believe a judge would consider super 8 and video to be one and the same because most people now think of them as one and the same, even if we don't."

Ive just had a not too pleasant thought in relation to the quote above. Ive bought a number of things from overseas through ebay, including still cameras, and with the majority of cases, the only thing that I have to pay extra for is the cost of postage. However, when I bought a 3ccd analogue video camera from an ebay seller in the US for a DIY telecine set up, I learned that I had to pay Customs a sum of money in order to receive the camera. I can't recall the exact amount but I think it was in the range of $50-$100, maybe even higher.

I can't really understand the logic or the reasoning behind this. Why is a video camera so different than any other item purchased overseas that you have to pay additional $$ for it? On top of that, you must pay a higher sum for a digital video camera than for an analogue video camera.

As Roger points out, many people in authority don't differentiate between super 8 cameras and video cameras. So this might mean that if I ever buy a super 8 camera from a seller overseas, I may be required by Customs to fork out extra $$ which would suck.

[audadvnc]

Just as long as your camera doesn't look like a 12 oz. bottle of shampoo, you're golden 8)

[Angus]

I think any half decent lawer would argue thus:

The dictionary definitions of "video camera" and "cine camera" or "motion picture camera" make the differences abundantly clear.

Furthermore, many events have a phrase on their tickets such as "it is a condition of entry that the holder of this ticket will not be admitted with any device for recording moving images, including but not limited to video, film and hard disc cameras/recorders"

Therefore, your honour, there was a widely used and well known way of preventing all moving images from being recorded at a ticketed event. I suggest that if the organisers of the event in question wish no moving images at all - rather than merely "no video cameras" - then they use the recognised wording to do so.

[Blue Audio Visual]

The dictionary definitions of "video camera" and "cine camera" or "motion picture camera" make the differences abundantly clear.

The dictionary definitions as you suggest above would carry no legal weight or standing per se, although they might (or might not) be accepted by a Judge as supporting certain arguments that lawyers might choose to present to the court. Whilst it is true that pedantry can sometimes seem to be the meat and potatoes of the legal system, the truth is that what the average person might recognise as being 'natural' or 'common sense' justice more commonly prevails. This is essentially the same point that has been reiterated over and over again in previous posts in this thread. There are of course always exceptions to this pattern, and it tends to be these sorts of cases that the gutter press seize upon when they are short of column inches.

If I were the bouncer at the gig confronted with someone trying to endlessly harangue me about the fact that a Super 8 camera wasn't a video camera, I would probably gesture knowingly to the other guys in my team to come over, whilst thwacking my supersized Maglite frenetically and menacingly in the palm of my hand. If the 'customer' hadn't got the message by then, I would probably be forced to 'invite him' to leave.

[MovieStuff]

I think any half decent lawer would argue thus...

But not successfully, since the judge is the one to make the logical connection between actions and intent. For instance, before digital cameras, there used to be a time when you were not allowed to shoot photos in cave tours. The reasoning was that all film stocks back then required bright light for exposure and the repeated flashes from thousands of tourists would eventually fade the coloration of the rock formations. While time exposures were possible, the tours were not leisurely enough for such practice. Now whether the tour guides understood what time exposures even were or how long they would take is academic. The intent of the owners was to protect the rock formations and keep the tour efficient; not to interfere with the tourist capturing memories for later years and, in fact, digital cameras without flash are now allowed. Since intent is what judges and courts are more interested in, the judge would ask why a super 8 camera should be accepted where a video camera is not. The intent of preventing unauthorized recording of moving images of the event should not be negated simply because the holder of the event does not understand the difference between film and video. Most any judge worth his salt would make that connection, I think. The lawyer's argument might be enough to keep the violater from getting sued or fined but not enough to allow him to keep his super 8 imagery that he captured illegally.

Roger

[Jim Carlile]

Roger: "I believe a judge would consider super 8 and video to be one and the same because most people now think of them as one and the same, even if we don't."

Ive just had a not too pleasant thought in relation to the quote above. Ive bought a number of things from overseas through ebay, including still cameras, and with the majority of cases, the only thing that I have to pay extra for is the cost of postage. However, when I bought a 3ccd analogue video camera from an ebay seller in the US for a DIY telecine set up, I learned that I had to pay Customs a sum of money in order to receive the camera. I can't recall the exact amount but I think it was in the range of $50-$100, maybe even higher.

I can't really understand the logic or the reasoning behind this. Why is a video camera so different than any other item purchased overseas that you have to pay additional $$ for it? On top of that, you must pay a higher sum for a digital video camera than for an analogue video camera.

Customs considers them to be new, and they charge duty on them. If they didn't do that, then any foreign dealer could just strip the boxes out and avoid duty.

They think of everything, and presume the worst.

[camera8mm]

A video camera has more resolution than a cell phone or digital still camera with built in video record.
you could record it on video and bootleg it. but bootlegging a video from a cell phone camera would be an absolute joke.
although there are some instances where cell phone video has been used in brodcasts, its not broadcast quality. (dont get into arguements over bootleg quality here)
I've broght in 8mm movie cameras cause security has no idea what they are. 3 1/2 minutes of personal use.