I sort of see their side. First you have to put aside whether they should have been there, and whether they committed crimes while on his property. Basically s

I sort of see their side. First you have to put aside whether they should have been there, and whether they committed crimes while on his property. Basically start by assuming the police in this situation are unsympathetic criminals. What rights do they still have even if they’re the bad guys here? They don’t have a right to privacy. It’s fine to publish videos of them stealing his money. It’s fine to make fun of them. But do you have the right to use their image in a video, for profit? Where’s the line between being allowed to make, own, and publish a video of someone, and being allowed to profit from it? If Tom Hanks visits your restaurant and is on your security camera, that’s legal. You can own that, and even publish it as a fact. But can you make a commercial showing him eating in your restaurant? No. You’d need a model release for that. You don’t get to use a video for commercial reasons, even if it’s ok to use it for editorial reasons.