No video cameras allowed so what about super 8?

[Angus]

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.

Roger

Again there's another well used phrase...."no flash photography".

I've been at indoor jousting events where they say "no flash photography because it can frighten the horses and distract the jousters".

Clearly they know that with ultra fast film, safe photography is possible.

I've attended plenty of events where certain types of photography are allowed, and others restricted or 'banned'. Promoters and organisers do generally seem to know what's what...because at some point a keen photographer will have asked the pertinent questions.

[Patrick]

"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."

Yes, that would make sense when purchasing brand new goods through retail. Though the video camera in question that I bought was second hand.

[jpolzfuss]

Hi,

if they allow still photography they will most likely allow movie cameras as well as it's impossible to shoot the whole show (unless you're a millionaire and bring some 30 super8-carts to the circus) and as you don't record the sound.
On the other hand the circus most likely doesn't want e.g. one of their acrobatic performances captured. (Otherwise you could repeat that performance and copy their show.) This is possible on both Super8 and video. Hence it's most likely that they'll ban Super8, too.
Another argument for banning video cameras is that they run all the time and are most likely positioned on a tripod. This can be annoying for the other spectators as the tripod might block the view/way and as the camera produces some noise. As the same applies to movie-cameras, they'll most likely forbid super8-cameras as well...
... in other words: It depends a lot on their reasons for banning the video-cameras.

Nevertheless those "rules" are a hoax in most cases as they don't force you to leave your cell phone outside the circus. And most current cell phones are video cameras as well...

My experiences so far:
* If you ask them, they'll tell you to leave the super8-camera at home. (In most cases the ticket inspectors or the gals/guys at the customer-telephone haven't got a clue about their own rules. Hence -if asked- they will never allow anything as this might get them into trouble.)
* If you try to hide the camera under your clothes and if they notice this, they'll most likely even shoot you for hiding a weapon-like object ;) (Just kidding - but they'll ask you to leave the camera outside. And depending on their mood, you'll even be "asked" to remain outside as well.)
* If you hold the ticket in one hand and the camera visible in the other hand, you may pass in most cases and may even use the camera. Otherwise you'll be asked not to use the camera inside the circus/museum/whatever. In most cases it's okay for the ticket inspector if you put the camera in a bag. (And you'll have to leave it there as they'll most likely check you once or twice while being on their premises.) In very few cases you'll be asked to leave the camera at the ticket office or to bring it back into your car.

Jörg

[MovieStuff]

Promoters and organisers do generally seem to know what's what...because at some point a keen photographer will have asked the pertinent questions.

Fair enough. But how many times have you been told by a camera store clerk that "they don't make super 8 film any more", or how many times has someone looked at your super 8 camera and called it a video camera? How about the number of times that someone just looked at your super 8 camera and wondered what it even was? If the general consensus is that super 8 is a dead format and/or that you can't get film any more, then why would the event promoters need to ban an obsolete format? I mean, they don't specifically say "No Kodak Instant Cameras Allowed" either. Does that mean you could take one in if you could still find the out-of-manufacture film? How about Biograph cameras that punch their own movie film as they shoot? Those aren't on the "no fly" list either. To assume that the event organizers know what's what about a niche format like super 8 is a bit of a stretch since the general public seems to think that the format is long dead. And even those that have super 8 films taken by their parents call them "videos" or "tapes" more often than not.

Roger

[Angus]

No Roger, I wouldn't take an obsolete camera for which I had film to an event that stated...

"It is forbidden to record any form of moving pictures at this event including but not limited to video, film, hard disc and flash memory cameras"

[MovieStuff]

No Roger, I wouldn't take an obsolete camera for which I had film to an event that stated...

"It is forbidden to record any form of moving pictures at this event including but not limited to video, film, hard disc and flash memory cameras"

Of course not. But just because an event owner that isn't an expert on arcane formats doesn't post rules precluding any and all formats -obsolete or otherwise- doesn't mean it is open season to shoot said event with a format not specifically listed or thought of. While I agree a good lawyer might use specifics to get you out of Dutch for shooting something you weren't supposed to on a format you hoped they wouldn't care about, I am positive that a judge would see any format that records moving imagery as "video", since that is the common term used by the public at large. After all, the warning signs are meant for the public, not lawyers arguing semantics.

Roger

[Angus]

Actaully the common term used by the public at large is "film"...

[Blue Audio Visual]

Angus - If you saw a sign in a park saying "No Horse Riding", would you expect to be allowed to ride a donkey? Now that the smoking ban is in place in the UK, how do you think the staff in a Pub would react if you were to set light to a pile of tobacco in your hand (technically you would be burning it rather than smoking it)? If a shop sign said "No Dogs", would you expect to be able to bring in your pet sheep? If a sign in a park said "Do not walk on the grass" would you think that you could reasonably get away with riding a bike on it?

The answer to all these questions is an emphatic NO.

It reminds me tangentially of something I saw on the London Underground some 15 years or so ago. A man got onto the tube train I was on. He sat down, and bold as brass started chasing heroin off a piece of silver foil. No one confronted him, although there were a few nervous stares here and there. Once he had finished, he got out a cigarette and lit it up, at which point 3 or 4 people shouted out to him pointing out that smoking is banned on the tube. True story.

[MovieStuff]

Actaully the common term used by the public at large is "film"...

...especially when they mean "video", which is my entire point. The two are used to mean the same thing.

How many news reporters start out their report saying, "while we were filming this segment, blah, blah, blah....." Even experienced people in television still use the term "film" when they mean video and we get dozens of calls a week from consumers (which the signs in question are meant for) that say they have some old "videos" or "tapes" from the 60s and want to get them transferred.

The point is that, you may know the difference between film and video and hope to use that now uncommon distinction to get away with shooting Super 8 footage at a concert that doesn't allow video cameras, but a judge would not see the same distinction, I am quite sure. The argument may be enough to get you out of trouble but not enough to allow you to keep the unauthorized super 8 footage, since the intent was to prevent you from doing exactly what you did. Again, the very choice of Super 8 shows a level of intent to bypass what the sign prohibited. The signs are there for a reason and the reason is what the court would look at and the judge would ask himself what the interpretation of that sign really meant, as opposed to what you hoped to interpret it as to get away with something that you knew you weren't supposed to be doing. In short, the court looks at the intent of the sign as well as your intent to get around the rules on the sign.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Angus - If you saw a sign in a park saying "No Horse Riding", would you expect to be allowed to ride a donkey? Now that the smoking ban is in place in the UK, how do you think the staff in a Pub would react if you were to set light to a pile of tobacco in your hand (technically you would be burning it rather than smoking it)? If a shop sign said "No Dogs", would you expect to be able to bring in your pet sheep? If a sign in a park said "Do not walk on the grass" would you think that you could reasonably get away with riding a bike on it?

Excellent points.

Roger

[mr8mm]

Most cell phones can take photos and many can take videos. Even in technology backward Iraq, someone managed to video Saddam's hanging. Technology makes rules like this moot.

John S.

[audadvnc]

Angus - If you saw a sign in a park saying "No Horse Riding", would you expect to be allowed to ride a donkey?

Wha? You don't ride an ass your horse, do you? So how can you film on your video camera? :roll:

[timdrage]

What!?