3 ms·

> These videos often rack up millions of views which is proof that there is “clearly an appetite to watch as strangers are shamed, ridiculed, gawked, or general

> These videos often rack up millions of views which is proof that there is “clearly an appetite to watch as strangers are shamed, ridiculed, gawked, or generally caught off-guard, even when we know it isn’t exactly morally sound.” This is has been a pretty hot topic since Allen Funt kicked off his little gig in 1948. As much as I personally like to people-watch, I don't think it's cool to share but I also don't think you can rein it in. I suppose I tell myself that the more people do it, the less embarrassing it becomes. Yeah, yeah, people of Walmart, ha, ha ... okay moving on....

mariodiana 2y ago
"Candid Camera" required people to sign a release for the scene to be aired, no?
- Suzuran 2y ago
  Yes, but only because the footage was being used commercially for broadcast. Depending on who was doing the filming they may also have been required to pay the subject; For example, a person who accidentally entered an active shoot of a Hollywood movie encountered the actors and had a short conversation with them. The footage turned out to work well with the scene, and the director wanted to keep it. In order to do so, not only did they have to pay this person and give them credit for a speaking role, they had to be given membership in the Screen Actors' Guild.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    And of course, at the time, publishing was pretty much synonymous with commercial publishing. (Though newspapers, magazines, news broadcasts, etc. have had broad exemptions for editorial publication in the US.)
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "but only because the footage was being used commercially for broadcast." Influencer is now a job. They make money off of sponsorship. Even if they aren't currently making money or taking sponsors they are generating goodwill towards their brand, which does have monetary value as denoted on balance sheets and can be used to future commercial value.
  - pimlottc 2y ago
    > For example, a person who accidentally entered an active shoot of a Hollywood movie encountered the actors and had a short conversation with them. The footage turned out to work well with the scene, and the director wanted to keep it. In order to do so, not only did they have to pay this person and give them credit for a speaking role, they had to be given membership in the Screen Actors' Guild. Did this actually happen or are you speaking hypothetically?
    - Suzuran 2y ago
      It happened but I don't remember which movie. It's not the often-quoted Star Trek instance - In that case, the woman was a first-time extra who was not aware that extras are not supposed to speak, even when directed to "act natural". In the case I am thinking of, they forgot to rope off a park entrance or something like that, and someone who regularly went there just did their usual thing and blundered into an active shoot.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  My recollection (and I'm old but not that old) is there was nonetheless a lot of uneasiness by the viewing public as to whether watching, regardless of whether the person later signed a release, was in itself a bit of guilty voyeurism. That the whole concept of the show was in poor taste— catching people off guard and vulnerable. EDIT: and because I can't not share, this funny clip of Woody Allen on the show: https://youtu.be/LGb_jzaUWOg https://youtu.be/LGb_jzaUWOg
pfdietz 2y ago
Oh, it was a big issue since the invention of still photography that was sufficiently fast to capture moving people in public. In practice, controls on photography or filming in public would be used to suppress recording of those in power, such as police. It's quite proper that the right to take such images be protected. Attempting to exempt commercial efforts from these protections would be like exempting commercial news organizations from protection under the 1st amendment.

mariodiana 2y ago

"Candid Camera" required people to sign a release for the scene to be aired, no?

Suzuran 2y ago
Yes, but only because the footage was being used commercially for broadcast. Depending on who was doing the filming they may also have been required to pay the subject; For example, a person who accidentally entered an active shoot of a Hollywood movie encountered the actors and had a short conversation with them. The footage turned out to work well with the scene, and the director wanted to keep it. In order to do so, not only did they have to pay this person and give them credit for a speaking role, they had to be given membership in the Screen Actors' Guild.
- ghaff 2y ago
  And of course, at the time, publishing was pretty much synonymous with commercial publishing. (Though newspapers, magazines, news broadcasts, etc. have had broad exemptions for editorial publication in the US.)
- giantg2 2y ago
  "but only because the footage was being used commercially for broadcast." Influencer is now a job. They make money off of sponsorship. Even if they aren't currently making money or taking sponsors they are generating goodwill towards their brand, which does have monetary value as denoted on balance sheets and can be used to future commercial value.
- pimlottc 2y ago
  > For example, a person who accidentally entered an active shoot of a Hollywood movie encountered the actors and had a short conversation with them. The footage turned out to work well with the scene, and the director wanted to keep it. In order to do so, not only did they have to pay this person and give them credit for a speaking role, they had to be given membership in the Screen Actors' Guild. Did this actually happen or are you speaking hypothetically?
  - Suzuran 2y ago
    It happened but I don't remember which movie. It's not the often-quoted Star Trek instance - In that case, the woman was a first-time extra who was not aware that extras are not supposed to speak, even when directed to "act natural". In the case I am thinking of, they forgot to rope off a park entrance or something like that, and someone who regularly went there just did their usual thing and blundered into an active shoot.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
My recollection (and I'm old but not that old) is there was nonetheless a lot of uneasiness by the viewing public as to whether watching, regardless of whether the person later signed a release, was in itself a bit of guilty voyeurism. That the whole concept of the show was in poor taste— catching people off guard and vulnerable. EDIT: and because I can't not share, this funny clip of Woody Allen on the show: https://youtu.be/LGb_jzaUWOg https://youtu.be/LGb_jzaUWOg

pfdietz 2y ago

Oh, it was a big issue since the invention of still photography that was sufficiently fast to capture moving people in public. In practice, controls on photography or filming in public would be used to suppress recording of those in power, such as police. It's quite proper that the right to take such images be protected. Attempting to exempt commercial efforts from these protections would be like exempting commercial news organizations from protection under the 1st amendment.