4 ms·

> 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

> 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situation from "should you be allowed to film and post online (for profit no less) private citizens who have explicitly withdrawn their consent, just because you happen to be filming them in a public place?"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]

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]