5 ms·
Depends in what country you are. Don't need your permission in the USA or the UK.
by techer 8y ago
Depends in what country you are. Don't need your permission in the USA or the UK.
- Avshalom 8y agoCommercial use of a photo or video with an identifiable person requires permission (model release forms and stuff). I'm sure that airlines would argue that any data they use for commercial purposes are anonymous (despite you know aving video and name/seat/camera correspondence).
- devinmrn 8y agoIt's my understanding that a release form is typically only used if the video is going to be made available publicly, used in marketing material, etc. If their commercial purpose was internal to the company then a release wouldn't be required. I'm an American. This likely isn't true in other countries with more stringent privacy laws.
- bdamm 8y agoIt would still be rude and violate widely held standards for personal space and privacy. Never forget that legal and appropriate are very different things.
- dclowd9901 8y agoThe point here is "recourse". A "victim" would have no recourse in the illustrated situation. The person said "they should have some say in it." That would be recourse.
- chooseaname 8y agoIf they get really offensive about filming me, I could call the police for harassment, at least.
- deathanatos 8y agoIANAL. In the USA, it depends on jurisdiction and the circumstances. For example, CA is a "two-party consent" state, meaning that to record another party requires their knowledge and consent in some circumstances. This case (a camera in the back of an airline seat) is a bit on the line: the space isn't terribly private (it's a row of seats on an airline), yet a private conversation might be had in a low voice between two people, who did not see, or do not recognize, and were not told that there is a camera pointed right at them. I do not know if this is a violation of two-party consent. It might not be.
- gruez 8y ago>For example, CA is a "two-party consent" state IANAL, but AFAIK one/two party consent only applies to private conversations (eg. phone calls). Public conversations are fair game in all jurisdictions.
- mnm1 8y agoSo surveillance cameras are illegal in California? I don't think so. I think your statement is incorrect and likely applies only to private voice conversations.
- mattlondon 8y agoIn the UK, this sort of thing (putting camera right in your face against your wishes, more than once) might be considered harassment, even in a public place.