3 ms·

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

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.
- Dracophoenix 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. Perhaps you're referring to audio? If so, audio has different requirements as a result anti-wiretapping laws. > If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required. Permission may be required from the mall and/or storefront owners if you're filming on or inside the property.

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.

Dracophoenix 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. Perhaps you're referring to audio? If so, audio has different requirements as a result anti-wiretapping laws. > If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required. Permission may be required from the mall and/or storefront owners if you're filming on or inside the property.