Tommikka

Very little, they are effectively the same thing. The winner being governed by the bonus ball number drawn on TV in the national lottery, from a random number generator or pulling a ticket out. All of these are a form of gambling with winner as a result of chance. The other factor is how people are able to enter: Is it a restricted audience due to the workplace, members club etc? Is it open to the general public, but only within a specific event (location and date etc)? What is the scale? What legislation is applicable? (Even within the UK there are different acts on gambling depending on the constituent country. Are the organisers licenced or registered? Are entries / tickets sold? Are they free but another cost is required, such as door entry? A bonus ball/raffle on an Internet forum is unlikely to qualify.

This would be seen as gambling and unless licenced or within specific criteria is likely to be illegal. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Organising-small-lotteries.pdf A prize competition would be legal, but it would be up to the forum admins/moderators as to whether it complied with forum rules Bonus ball lotteries don’t comply with prize competition requirements https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Safer-gambling/Consumer-guides/Running-prize-competitions-and-free-draws.aspx

You therefore don’t have a defence under the VCRA as you are purchasing without the intent to skirmish On an administrative basis, retailers would believe you do have an intent to skirmish if you provide your UKARA details Alternatively ..... what @SgtTalbert said

I sometimes judge people from videos ..... but it’s not the player in front of the camera that I judge .....

If it ‘adversely’ affects your reputation, then you could

It would not be copyright, as you can’t copyright your face. However you don’t actually need to be a copyright holder to instigate a copyright breach !!! How they generate their income may vary, if YouTube monetisation then a breach claim will put a hold on it, if they are ‘giving a message from our sponsor’ then they have had that paid .... but want the next videos money to come, if they are promoting their website / products then it’s the potential sales or clicks that follow There is a whole subject of discussion though. My face has appeared on TV, and I did not sign an explicit release. On the day of filming our main ‘face’ did need to sign all the legal papers granting permissions - he was all over the programme, I was in a scene, he was a subject expert, named & spoke, I was a random character, uncredited and silent. He gave legally documented consent, I gave implied consent. I’ve been the subject of ‘modelling’ shoots with my sponsor - and not signed papers - but consent was there and our faces weren't shown. Both sponsor and team have copies of the pictures - used both by them and also us in event promos etc I could be called the face of a particular merchandise, due to drinking from my new mug straight away. (It may have been my suggestion that the photo be used so I can’t claim back on that!) An advertising agency will want to see model releases to protect themselves, but the lack of paperwork doesn’t mean the consent didn’t exist

From my experience, as an image, then the sale of the image isn’t commercial, but the use of one of my images in advertising would be (and I received some nice compensation for a copyright breach which did so!) (I can sell an image containing you, if it is on the basis that the sale is my ‘artwork’ taken from my camera) Commercial use means that the imageis used directly in the marketing and promotion of a product that results in monetary gain. YouTube however can include monetarisation ..... With a quick google, this is a result dating to 2017: Good question, and one which YouTube does not answer. Paragraph 4.D. and 4.E. describes a few examples of what do and do not constitute "commercial uses." ... It's okay to embed a YouTube video on a website with advertising, but only if your "primary purpose" in posting the video isn't to gain advertising revenue. With monetarisation being based on YouTubes advertisers then would consider a content providers click bait headline to be primarily based on more clicks and more advertising revenue

Photography & videos have legal implications but are not widely understood A blanket waiver giving permission would not help - but including information in the waiver that photography may take place is a start (though may not be read) and a mention in briefs etc They give the option for individuals to object - for piss taking defences, just because you don’t want it, or you may have protection issues. Legally I can take your photo in a public place, I can publish it online (social media, general internet etc), I can sell the photo - but I cannot make “commercial use” of the photo without your permission. (If you sign off permission then I can use it commercially in many ways that you may not have thought of) A site is a private place rather than a public place, so I need some form of permission to take photos - I could just take photos unless I’m told not to, I could be representing the site, I could be official/recognised media, I could be just some bloke taking photos of a fun day out

Laser tag is dangerous.... Swynnerton, North vs South, circa 2009? Pre event laser tag ...

Battle Ground Airsoft, and he describes it as in the East of England So Battle Ground Norfolk?

Now having watched what is probably the offending video ..... The start seems to show him having to be told he had been hit. That kind of screws the subject of his “cheaters” video from the outset (and it’s later shown in detail) When asked how many BBs are in the drum mag - “unlimited” Initial opinion is reinforced - Dick Then when he gets straight into his - one shot that gets ignored to the second in the face ...... he has a rant about needing to expect headshots, and that safety is personal responsibility. Both correct, but he’s blatantly ignored his personal responsibility by either not reading the site disclaimer or has read it and chosen to disregard it (I’m going to give him a slight benefit of the doubt that he didn’t hear the conversation during the game with the marshal about illegal headshots, and the cocky comment later ..... he of course was not deliberately ignoring the rule?????) There are also other reasons that may exist for rules that are either against headshots, or don’t count headshots - eg if you have full face protection but don’t count headshots then that’s usually for rental players to prevent blind firing Is he seriously commenting about a ‘small girl’ with a Desert Eagle, whilst carrying his sniper, pistol and SMG???But is that all fine because he’s a big strong man

Ooh Facebook dramas. There is a point from both sides: Full face protection - I’m in agreement with that. But there is no airsoft standard that requires full face protection for all players Restriction on deliberate headshots - I’m also in agreement with the site for having a policy to reduce the risk associated with just eye protection. Though disclaimers don’t sign away players rights to a safe environment, it shows a mitigation in place against a risk, and players should be reading what they are signing. Shooting cheats in the head: No matter how special someone thinks they are, unless they are site staff then they are not the ‘cheat police’

You have to get your own rugged phone case and modify to fit the MOLLE frame May as well get a factory moulded Hong Kong MOLLE frame then modify for your phone https://www.ebairsoft.com/mobile/product_info.php?products_id=7200&currency=GBP Under £8, but it looks like they will charge for postage. Back in the day they gave freepost, have a look around the usual Hong Kong outlets and you may find it cheaper / freepost ........ On a do as I say not as I do basis (For example this year at Paintfest / airfest I was called by one of our guys, couldn’t hear him speak so marshalls were ‘entertained’ by me with my iPhone held to my goggles saying “I can’t hear, I’m walking through a firefight, if you’ve arrived I’ll see you at checkin, otherwise I’ll ring you back”) I don’t recommend carrying smart phones exposed in game, leave it somewhere safe or use a rugged case, a pouch, pocket etc and ideally some layers

.... and a lot of people don’t realise what a beta is

At least they look something like guns “Our girl” last year had UKSF blowing the bloody doors off with eBay transmitters and inert dummy explosives

Section 21 of firearms legistaion covers convictions and firearms bans. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/21 This bans for life or for 5 years from release depending on the conviction, but addresses only firearms and ammunition. (Any type of firearm) It doesn’t mention “anything that looks like a firearm”, or water pistols Section 5 defines firearms https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5 Under section 57A an airsoft gun is not a firearm (this is to allow it to be treated as an imitation [IF or RIF] in the VCRA) ... provided it is within the power ratings https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57A With a general look I cannot see anything in the VCRA about a ban on RIFs/IFs to former convicts .... but there’s a lot of areas of that act, and along with drinking banning orders searches of ‘conviction’, ‘convicted’, ‘ban’ etc come up with a lot of results to look through, and ‘sentenced’ etc has no results. If correct then unless restrictions on release included other factors then airsoft could be exempt from the lifetime / 5 year restrictions. But it probably isn’t worth gambling your freedom on a technicality and seeing if a court will agree. Airguns are firearms under the act. A paintball gun is a firearm - “a low powered air weapon that discharges frangible ammunition” and falls in and out of various parts of legislation. However - before using people on the internet for advice and subsequently finding yourself back in prison for possessing a firearm get some proper clarification from your lawyer/probation officer/local police etc

The obvious response is that you shouldn’t have committed the crime in the first place

We’ll have to agree to disagree If the law gets involved it’ll be treated as a low power air weapon. Airsoft guns are enough of ‘not a toy’ to have their own statement added to firearms legislation to state that they are not considered firearms to enable them to be IFs or RIFs under the VCRA. Along with other restrictions on age etc ..... which aligns with air weapon legislation And actually I have not run around the woods shooting people with anything for 2 or 3 years. I have however run around and stood around getting shot by people in that time I plan to shoot a lot of people in 2019

Firearm and replica firearm were discussed in detail in the thread I linked to above Without the clause quoted in my link airsoft guns would have been low powered air weapons under the firearms act as we’ll as the VCRA which would have put them at risk of conflicting definitions or being exempt from the VCRA An air gun that is a replica of a full real steel firearm is treated as an unlicenced firearm in firearms legislation and not a replica in the VCRA (as long as it is within the legal limits) Paintball guns slot into various parts of firearms legislation and are generally considered low power air weapons with the additional factor of frangible projectiles. Shoot anything other than a frangible paintball or a first strike shaped projectile and you risk a firearms offence (First strikes were subject to recent testing which approved them but also resulted in anything else being stated as unrecognised. (Rubber reusable reballs have been dodgy for many years and are now considered unlawful, but are still in use) The status of paintball under the VCRA has been very grey with differing opinions among officials, the most recent statement being that recognition under firearms legislation renders them exempt from the VCRA as they are not Imitations ..... however the decision could be argued either way in court But coming down to the sale of a RIF airsoft gun, it’s up to the seller to be satisfied with the buyers ‘defence’ A firearms certificate is not one of the defences under the VCRA The judgement of my character recognises me as a fine upstanding member of the community and I am empowered to sign off peoples identity for passports and driving licences I have run airsoft events, but I have no need and no valid defence to buy an airsoft RIF myself

Something we play games with may not be a toy in the eyes of the law A browse around Smyths showed Very deliberate avoidance of the word ‘toy’ on Nerf Blasters & launchers, a few safety warnings and also the liability avoiding “This is not a protective device” on goggles The only “toy” guns I could find were non firing orange tipped cowboy guns to be used under adult supervision

It is not ‘special circumstances’ for the police dog handler requiring a letter, it is catered for within the VCRA: The purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty. To gain your firearms certificate you were required to justify your need for a firearm or firearms. I’m fairly certain that you didn’t include shooting people in that application

No, they are not toys A toy gun does not shoot If you look on the side it probably has “this is not a toy” written there

It wasn’t overlooked There are many different kinds of ‘firearms’ under the legislation, some require licenses and some don’t. e.g. Low powered air weapons (air guns) are firearms, and (for most of the UK) don’t require a firearms certificate Airsoft would sit there as part of the firearms legislation but I have a quote below which removes airsoft from that legislation (provided it meets the criteria) The VCRA is a separate piece of legislation which covers Imitation Firearms Under the VCRA there are IFs and RIFs. RIFs require a Defence under the act We have a detailed discussion on legislation here, and one of my posts quotes section 57A: Exception for airsoft guns (1)An “airsoft gun” is not to be regarded as a firearm for the purposes of this Act.