6 ms·

Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the person filming. Could reall

Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the person filming. Could really use some new laws here.

hef19898 4y ago
If a person is the main subject of a picture, the photographer (or videographer) needa consent of the model to use that image or vidoe. Already under current law in most places. And most legitimate publishers ask for proof of consent when buying, before publishing such pictures. That social media firms don't care is not a big surprise. Edit: And that influencers think they are above existing laws when it comes to consent ain't a big surprise neither. I agree with the woman here, handing stuff to people that don't want it, lying to them about being filmed and using the footage for petty self promotion and monetary gain is the opposite of kindness. In fact it is borderline abbusive.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  "Just enforce the existing laws in a reasonable manner" seems to be the solution to a lot of problems these days.
  - mysterydip 4y ago
    "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does In most systems, legislators have smaller constituencies than the executives. No President or Prime Minister will swing meaningful votes by prioritizing enforcement of consent-to-be-photographed laws. But an MP or Congressperson with an off-year primary projected to be within a 1,000-vote margin might find those 50 or 60 extra votes helpful. That said, the ordinary course would be for said legislator to compel the executive to enforce. Not to write more laws. (The latter being easier to do, easier to message and less prone to backfiring.)
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  I can't speak for Australia, but in the United States, there is generally no right to privacy in a public area. The model consent forms are more of a CYA than a legal requirement. It's useful as evidence to dismiss charges rather than go through the hassle and expense of a full trial. In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement. The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      > The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. And those laws are running up against the 1st Amendment. https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/ https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/ While the issue has not yet been delegated to the US Supreme Court, recording laws have been or are being struck down in more states on 1st Amendment grounds. > You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed. IANAL, but such legislation would be a content-based restriction and, as a result, would be subject to strict scrutiny. Frankly, any such requirement is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny unless it seeks to prohibit currently unprotected expressions (obscenity, incitement to imminent lawless action, etc.). Recording an individual in public isn't one of them.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    You need consent, in the US (I recebtly read an article from an US blog about that and it is similar to the situation I know in Europe) if the oerson is the main subject. If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required. A particular person as the main subject, yes, consent is absolutely necessary. E.g. newspapers don't buy or publish pictures of people without gwtting consent of the model / person from the seller. Persons of public interest, read promis and paparazzis, are different in the details of the interpretation of that law. And those are litigated often enough.
docdeek 4y ago
It depends on the country. Filming someone in public where they are the subject of the video (or photo) without their consent is illegal in France. If this had been recorded in France instead of Australia, the rights of the subject (the woman) to her image would trump any right to film in a public place of a Tiktok creator.
- hirundo 4y ago
  Derek Chauvin would appreciate that.
  - makoto12 4y ago
    I don't think the solution to police brutality is to sacrifice the the privacy of an entire nation.
  - brokenodometer 4y ago
    This law does not apply to filming the police. See the authoritative French government interpretation here: http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotospolice.pdf http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotosp... And see here where the French Constitutional Council struck down a law that would have criminalized filming with the intent to cause harassment of officers: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-blocks-police-filming-ban-in-macron-security-law https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-...
    - hirundo 4y ago
      What would the legal status of the video be if it also contained images of George Floyd?
- shikoba 4y ago
  I have recently checked and it's absolutely legal to film someone in public. You're just not allowed to diffuse it.
jeroenhd 4y ago
In the Netherlands there's such a thing as "portretrecht" that gives people the right to not be depicted in public. Recording in public areas is usually allowed, but you can't just distribute your recordings centered around people without their consent or making them unrecognisable. More often than not, though, this law is only applied after the damage has already been done. Adding some hefty fines to these cases might convince the Tiktok/YouTube crowd to stay clear of the risk, though. It's far from a clear cut law, if you just appear in the corner of a frame or in the background you'd have a hard time winning any lawsuits, but in this case I think the deck would be stacked against the Tiktoker pretty unfavourably. Personally, I think it's offensive how often these social media posters will use other people for their profits. Doing tricks in front of the camera is a fine way to make some cash or get famous, but when you start filming interactions with other people just for social media clout it's disgusting, narcissistic behaviour. This isn't some fun event that happend spontaneously, this is a planned, well thought out video shoot that puts a stranger in the center of attention in world where any moderate amount of attention can result in death threats from strangers across the globe.

Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the person filming. Could really use some new laws here.

hef19898 4y ago

If a person is the main subject of a picture, the photographer (or videographer) needa consent of the model to use that image or vidoe. Already under current law in most places. And most legitimate publishers ask for proof of consent when buying, before publishing such pictures. That social media firms don't care is not a big surprise. Edit: And that influencers think they are above existing laws when it comes to consent ain't a big surprise neither. I agree with the woman here, handing stuff to people that don't want it, lying to them about being filmed and using the footage for petty self promotion and monetary gain is the opposite of kindness. In fact it is borderline abbusive.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
"Just enforce the existing laws in a reasonable manner" seems to be the solution to a lot of problems these days.
- mysterydip 4y ago
  "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does In most systems, legislators have smaller constituencies than the executives. No President or Prime Minister will swing meaningful votes by prioritizing enforcement of consent-to-be-photographed laws. But an MP or Congressperson with an off-year primary projected to be within a 1,000-vote margin might find those 50 or 60 extra votes helpful. That said, the ordinary course would be for said legislator to compel the executive to enforce. Not to write more laws. (The latter being easier to do, easier to message and less prone to backfiring.)
Dracophoenix 4y ago
I can't speak for Australia, but in the United States, there is generally no right to privacy in a public area. The model consent forms are more of a CYA than a legal requirement. It's useful as evidence to dismiss charges rather than go through the hassle and expense of a full trial. In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement. The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. And those laws are running up against the 1st Amendment. https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/ https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/ While the issue has not yet been delegated to the US Supreme Court, recording laws have been or are being struck down in more states on 1st Amendment grounds. > You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed. IANAL, but such legislation would be a content-based restriction and, as a result, would be subject to strict scrutiny. Frankly, any such requirement is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny unless it seeks to prohibit currently unprotected expressions (obscenity, incitement to imminent lawless action, etc.). Recording an individual in public isn't one of them.
- hef19898 4y ago
  You need consent, in the US (I recebtly read an article from an US blog about that and it is similar to the situation I know in Europe) if the oerson is the main subject. If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required. A particular person as the main subject, yes, consent is absolutely necessary. E.g. newspapers don't buy or publish pictures of people without gwtting consent of the model / person from the seller. Persons of public interest, read promis and paparazzis, are different in the details of the interpretation of that law. And those are litigated often enough.

docdeek 4y ago

It depends on the country. Filming someone in public where they are the subject of the video (or photo) without their consent is illegal in France. If this had been recorded in France instead of Australia, the rights of the subject (the woman) to her image would trump any right to film in a public place of a Tiktok creator.

hirundo 4y ago
Derek Chauvin would appreciate that.
- makoto12 4y ago
  I don't think the solution to police brutality is to sacrifice the the privacy of an entire nation.
- brokenodometer 4y ago
  This law does not apply to filming the police. See the authoritative French government interpretation here: http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotospolice.pdf http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotosp... And see here where the French Constitutional Council struck down a law that would have criminalized filming with the intent to cause harassment of officers: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-blocks-police-filming-ban-in-macron-security-law https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-...
  - hirundo 4y ago
    What would the legal status of the video be if it also contained images of George Floyd?
shikoba 4y ago
I have recently checked and it's absolutely legal to film someone in public. You're just not allowed to diffuse it.

jeroenhd 4y ago

In the Netherlands there's such a thing as "portretrecht" that gives people the right to not be depicted in public. Recording in public areas is usually allowed, but you can't just distribute your recordings centered around people without their consent or making them unrecognisable. More often than not, though, this law is only applied after the damage has already been done. Adding some hefty fines to these cases might convince the Tiktok/YouTube crowd to stay clear of the risk, though. It's far from a clear cut law, if you just appear in the corner of a frame or in the background you'd have a hard time winning any lawsuits, but in this case I think the deck would be stacked against the Tiktoker pretty unfavourably. Personally, I think it's offensive how often these social media posters will use other people for their profits. Doing tricks in front of the camera is a fine way to make some cash or get famous, but when you start filming interactions with other people just for social media clout it's disgusting, narcissistic behaviour. This isn't some fun event that happend spontaneously, this is a planned, well thought out video shoot that puts a stranger in the center of attention in world where any moderate amount of attention can result in death threats from strangers across the globe.