4 ms·

I once read that France has some sort of law about photographing people who don’t want to be included in a picture in a public place. Does the UK have something

I once read that France has some sort of law about photographing people who don’t want to be included in a picture in a public place. Does the UK have something similar, or is this a “little wolf warrior” misunderstanding what he can demand or do abroad?

0xSNAFU 3y ago
> Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...
- markb139 3y ago
  I think the train station is private property.
  - gruez 3y ago
    IANAL but "public places" is orthogonal to "private property". A mall is private property but there's no expectation of privacy because it's a "public space".
- tpoacher 3y ago
  What's on that link describes a very different situation from "should you be allowed to film and post online (for profit no less) private citizens who have explicitly withdrawn their consent, just because you happen to be filming them in a public place?" The police are public officials. The law in question says it is not illegal for citizens to record public officials, including police officers. I would imagine this is partly to help citizens keep their police force accountable. So this person was well within their rights to 'not have a private conversation' with the police officer. But it's a very different situation from, say, filming someone who does not wish to be filmed, or harassing someone in public by filming them and then posting online publicly, and pretending it's fine just because you were in a 'public place'. The technical legality of the situation aside, given that these individuals politely (initially) requested their faces be not shown on public youtube videos (for profit no less), and this person made no effort to even blur at the very least, then I have a hard time finding right with him. We're not even talking about whether a private individual should have the right to film such that this might be presented as evidence in a court of law if required. So this is not a free speech issue. This person is simply putting it on youtube for money. Without reasonable consent. Yes not everyone in the video needs to give consent, as this can be implied if they walked through a scene and the recording was 'non-hidden'. But these people explicitly denied consent. There must be some sort of GDPR thing at play here at the very least.
  - hashtag-til 3y ago
    If the police doesn't have such rights to stop filming anyone. I guess we can imagine a CCP rando probably don't have more permission than police. Apart from that, it's sensible to understand if you're just background on somebody's recording in a public space and don't want to appear, just walk away.
    - foverzar 3y ago
      > if you're just background on somebody's recording in a public space and don't want to appear, just walk away. He approached them first. They declined participating and in about 3 minutes one woman approached him back and asked not to put their faces on TV - that's when the whole fuss had started.
      - evolvevia 3y ago
        > He approached them first. Watch the full livestream. The Chinese group approaches the piano first, and one woman even dances along to his playing. Later a few more people join the Chinese group, one of which appears to be a producer as he's handing out scripts. The piano player approaches the Chinese group to say hi to the new members, and suddenly they have a problem with him filming. The simplest explanation is the most likely - they're a Chinese TV crew who want to use the piano, but they don't have a commercial filming permit and/or UK working visas.
  - Shaolol 3y ago
    [dead]
em-bee 3y ago
in germany this applies only to people who are subject of the recording. as in this case the subject of the recording was the piano players, and other people were just background, the right does not apply. if they didn't want to be filmed they should have walked away.
maeln 3y ago
> I once read that France has some sort of law about photographing people who don’t want to be included in a picture in a public place. For more details, it is not about photographing people (it is perfectly legal in public places) but publishing (in any form, press or social media) the picture. The law apply if you single out a person or a group of person (so if someone is in the background and not the main focus of the picture/video, the law doesn't apply) and if a prejudice of any form can be attributed to the picture. This video would actually be an interesting case (if it was in France), because one could argue that the people asking not to be in the video where not the main focus and therefor would not be protected by law. But at the same time, the way it was published put a strong emphasis on the fact that they asked not to be in the video, therefore making them the main focus of the video, even though it is of their own volition.
- greatgib 3y ago
  But there is an exception to the law that would probably apply in this case: You can't restrict the right of publishing the video is it is in the context of a demonstration, a "manifestation" (that means more an event in French), or that it is news worthy or of public interest. As the Chinese were there demonstrating to support the Chinese CCP propaganda or something or that sort, anyone could have recorded them directly in isolation I think.
wuxb 3y ago
If I peed in my pant (or in a similar awkward situation) and someone happened to have filmed it. What kind of legal rights (if any) do I have to remove my shameful moment from the Internet?
- g-b-r 3y ago
  It depends if you're in a country that believes filming that is freedom :rolleyes:

0xSNAFU 3y ago

> Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...

markb139 3y ago
I think the train station is private property.
- gruez 3y ago
  IANAL but "public places" is orthogonal to "private property". A mall is private property but there's no expectation of privacy because it's a "public space".
tpoacher 3y ago
What's on that link describes a very different situation from "should you be allowed to film and post online (for profit no less) private citizens who have explicitly withdrawn their consent, just because you happen to be filming them in a public place?" The police are public officials. The law in question says it is not illegal for citizens to record public officials, including police officers. I would imagine this is partly to help citizens keep their police force accountable. So this person was well within their rights to 'not have a private conversation' with the police officer. But it's a very different situation from, say, filming someone who does not wish to be filmed, or harassing someone in public by filming them and then posting online publicly, and pretending it's fine just because you were in a 'public place'. The technical legality of the situation aside, given that these individuals politely (initially) requested their faces be not shown on public youtube videos (for profit no less), and this person made no effort to even blur at the very least, then I have a hard time finding right with him. We're not even talking about whether a private individual should have the right to film such that this might be presented as evidence in a court of law if required. So this is not a free speech issue. This person is simply putting it on youtube for money. Without reasonable consent. Yes not everyone in the video needs to give consent, as this can be implied if they walked through a scene and the recording was 'non-hidden'. But these people explicitly denied consent. There must be some sort of GDPR thing at play here at the very least.
- hashtag-til 3y ago
  If the police doesn't have such rights to stop filming anyone. I guess we can imagine a CCP rando probably don't have more permission than police. Apart from that, it's sensible to understand if you're just background on somebody's recording in a public space and don't want to appear, just walk away.
  - foverzar 3y ago
    > if you're just background on somebody's recording in a public space and don't want to appear, just walk away. He approached them first. They declined participating and in about 3 minutes one woman approached him back and asked not to put their faces on TV - that's when the whole fuss had started.
    - evolvevia 3y ago
      > He approached them first. Watch the full livestream. The Chinese group approaches the piano first, and one woman even dances along to his playing. Later a few more people join the Chinese group, one of which appears to be a producer as he's handing out scripts. The piano player approaches the Chinese group to say hi to the new members, and suddenly they have a problem with him filming. The simplest explanation is the most likely - they're a Chinese TV crew who want to use the piano, but they don't have a commercial filming permit and/or UK working visas.
- Shaolol 3y ago
  [dead]

em-bee 3y ago

in germany this applies only to people who are subject of the recording. as in this case the subject of the recording was the piano players, and other people were just background, the right does not apply. if they didn't want to be filmed they should have walked away.

maeln 3y ago

> I once read that France has some sort of law about photographing people who don’t want to be included in a picture in a public place. For more details, it is not about photographing people (it is perfectly legal in public places) but publishing (in any form, press or social media) the picture. The law apply if you single out a person or a group of person (so if someone is in the background and not the main focus of the picture/video, the law doesn't apply) and if a prejudice of any form can be attributed to the picture. This video would actually be an interesting case (if it was in France), because one could argue that the people asking not to be in the video where not the main focus and therefor would not be protected by law. But at the same time, the way it was published put a strong emphasis on the fact that they asked not to be in the video, therefore making them the main focus of the video, even though it is of their own volition.

greatgib 3y ago
But there is an exception to the law that would probably apply in this case: You can't restrict the right of publishing the video is it is in the context of a demonstration, a "manifestation" (that means more an event in French), or that it is news worthy or of public interest. As the Chinese were there demonstrating to support the Chinese CCP propaganda or something or that sort, anyone could have recorded them directly in isolation I think.

wuxb 3y ago

If I peed in my pant (or in a similar awkward situation) and someone happened to have filmed it. What kind of legal rights (if any) do I have to remove my shameful moment from the Internet?

g-b-r 3y ago
It depends if you're in a country that believes filming that is freedom :rolleyes: