7 ms·

I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of

I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable? I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.) Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in her car and sees me. Winds the window down and starts on the you don't have the right to film me carry-on. I politely informed her that, I'm sorry, but I do. She's in public. That's the law (in Australia). Another fun one, while I'm here. C. 2010, we're shooting a music video in central Melbourne. We're on the public pavement. There's a bank ATM waaaay in the background. Bank security come out. Sorry mate, you can't film here. We told them, we can. We're on public land. So they call the cops. We politely wait for the cops. The cops turn up. "This sounded much more interesting on the radio", the cop says. They left us alone to finish the shoot.

mothballed 1y ago
... The bank was filming the ATM the whole time. There are a lot of '1A' auditors on youtube. They can be nasally and annoying but it's hilarious how often people go into a rage that they're being filmed despite the fact the people getting angry are doing the same to everyone else.
sharperguy 1y ago
The venues for these things are private and so they can set their own rules. The author proposes a rule: A simple purple lanyard indicating that you don't wish to be included in the published film. This doesn't necessarily need to be an article, because the author could have just handled it with each venue individually, but this just gets the conversation going about general sentiment and wider applicability. My guess is that early on this kind of youtuber was relatively rare and so being captured occasionally wasn't a big deal, but that now the trend is catching on, a it's happening regularly and becoming a concern for some people.
- pitt1980 1y ago
  Aren’t these venues small businesses that very much appreciate whatever publicity someone sharing their venue on social media gives them? I guess they can weigh that against their customers desire for privacy.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    In many hobbies, recording footage and reviewing it later is very valuable for improving. Think about football players reviewing game footage as a team to discuss what they did well and what went wrong. Many hobbies are like this. The majority of footage people record on their GoPros is for themself. It's rare for someone to edit it into a YouTube video. Even more rare for someone to go see it. The AirSoft example is interesting because players where so much protective gear and face masks that it would be very difficult to recognize anyone's likeness anyway.
- fuzzehchat 1y ago
  The author is a tech lawyer. I think the article is there to start discussion. I agree with him that if private venues allow people to record like this they should offer, at the very least, an opt out. "Purple lanyard" seems like a good way. It's also a pretty easy spot in post production where you can either blur or cut as appropriate.
  - wang_li 1y ago
    There is a super obvious opt out that doesn't require people to take special actions. Don't go to places that allow recording.
    - et-al 1y ago
      From the article: I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”. This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing. In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it is a private site, where people engage in private activity (a hobby).
alex77456 1y ago
Part of the issue is, big portion of the footage being recorded, is not worth recording, let alone publishing. (Except for personal value of the person recording, but that doesn't require public sharing) With the OP example, people getting recorded are not bystanders catching stray camera focus, they are the subject of the video. Without other participants, there would be little 'content'. Imagine going to an indoor climbing venue, recording someone else, and publishing just that.
- stuartjohnson12 1y ago
  Not to mention "auditors", whose goal is to use the ambiguous nature of feels-like-a-privacy-invasion-but-legally-isnt when you stick a camera in someone's face in a public place to try and get a rise out of people and prance around as victim. I think this is a case where the reasonable person test is excellent. Is this use of a camera reasonable for personal/professional purposes You should be expected to take reasonable steps not to victimise someone by use of a video camera, subject to public interest. That means filming strangers with intent to provoke them should be a crime but raging car park lady cannot reasonably claim to have been victimised. Consent affects what is reasonable without creating a duty-bound obligation not to film without consent. We already have "reasonable expectations of privacy", why not flip that?
  - hermannj314 1y ago
    The idea of public and private needs a similar distinction like libel and defamation. Ephemeral public has no expectation of ephemeral privacy, but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect that being recorded and having it broadcast to the entire human race, permanently, for eternity.
    - wang_li 1y ago
      >...but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect... You shouldn't have an expectation either way. If anything, the expectation that you will not be recorded is more of a violation of the social contract that the reverse. It's a public space that can be used for many purposes. If the effect on bystanders is minimal then attempting to exclude an activity is wrong. Can we say "I don't want you to see me, so look away whenever I am out." "I don't want to wait in traffic so everyone else has to pull over and clear the road when I am driving." "I didn't consent to this smell, so this restaurant has to turn off their stoves and ovens hours before I will be coming by." Reality is that you can't exclude others if they aren't doing something that excludes you.
abxyz 1y ago
Blur the people who didn’t give consent. The problem is cultural, not technical. Even YouTube has the native ability to blur out faces at the click of a button.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  Obviously isn't going to work for OP case. He's playing airsoft. No faces are visible.
dandellion 1y ago
Here in Spain if you don't get explicit consent you can get sued for publishing the video (it's fine if you only showed it to the shop owner and didn't publish it), but if someone tells you explicitly they don't want to be recorded you have to stop and delete the video (I assume if you refuse they can just call the police, but I've never seen it happen).
- randomtoast 1y ago
  Well, the first step is not being sued and taken to court, but receiving a cease-and-desist letter. But for that to happen, the person that has been videoed needs to be aware of that his face is on YouTube, which in most cases you won't even notice unless it's a video with a very high click count.
Hizonner 1y ago
> I get it, but the alternative is what? Stop taking video in public, or at least of the public. You just assume you should be able to do that and the whole world should adjust to your preference. Maybe it should be the other way around.
- shmel 1y ago
  Do you also support a blanket ban of CCTV in public spaces? I am pretty sure that the bank had a camera in the ATM recording a public pavement 24/7 and nobody bats an eye.
  - soiltype 1y ago
    Many people are actually quite uncomfortable with the prevalence of video surveillance, in fact. However, there are significant differences: 1. The camera is in a fixed position, 2. The footage is not typically shared let alone published online.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    > Do you also support a blanket ban of CCTV in public spaces? I'm not sure I support anything. I'm just pointing out that there is a path available if you don't just assume that you should be allowed to take video. But it wouldn't bother me at all to have, say, a rule that you couldn't have a surveillance camera covering any space you didn't own, and furthermore that if you had a camera covering a space that you did own that was open to the public, and recordings would be deleted after say 24 hours unless there was special justification to keep a specific one.
blindriver 1y ago
You can use AI to blur anyone that doesn't give permission. You can't use the excuse of "it's too much work!" It should be the law that you can't indiscriminately video everyone for your own financial gain.
- WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 1y ago
  Blur is boring, but swapping faces or other recognizable features to something similar but AI-generated sounds cool.
  - TehCorwiz 1y ago
    Sounds like the central idea of the "scramble suit" from A Scanner Darkly.
bravura 1y ago
As an American living in Europe, I have seen Europe do "no cameras by default" quite successfully.
- trelane 1y ago
  No private cameras (maybe)
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Are dash cams / bicycle cams not ubiquitous in Europe by now? I would have thought they would be very useful for adjudicating high cost events such as automobile collisions, or even police interactions.
  - gambiting 1y ago
    Like most things with "Europe" - it depends, because it isn't one state with universal laws or even cultural expectations. Go to somewhere like Poland and everyone will have a dashcam and it's almost expected at this point(imho). But in neighbouring Germany you are technically allowed to have a dashcam, but any recording is legally inadmissable in any court case. So even if you have a recording of someone crashing into you, it can't be used because the other person never agreed to be recorded. Meanwhile Austria and Portugal have banned them completely, even for personal use.
    - detaro 1y ago
      Germany specifically doesn't like dashcams that record continuously. Legal ones just keep a short buffer and when they detect a crash or a button is pressed (or a voice command in fancy ones) they'll write it to storage. Because if something happens you have a valid reason to have and use footage, you just can't record people without a reason.
threetonesun 1y ago
If I see someone filming me while driving I usually give them the finger. I suppose that's my consent for them to do whatever with it. I don't foolishly believe they can't do it, but I do suggest maybe they shouldn't.
callc 1y ago
Basic human decency. Just as the author says: “Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.” It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level. People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them deserve social consequences. Some things should only exist at the social norms level. IMO it would be hunky dory if societies considered what “privacy in public” looks like in the modern age, and came to the conclusions like “no dragnets pls”.
- everdrive 1y ago
  >Basic human decency. You've got a very large, diverse population without a strong social identity and ever-fraying trust. So you won't consistently get basic human decency any longer. That's something which is extended to the in-group with which you have real social ties and obligations. Most people don't have this any longer.
  - legacynl 1y ago
    let's not make grand conclusions from singular observations, especially if they align with your own opinions. That's a recipe for deluding yourself. Human decency still exists as it has always done. But perhaps not in a form that we all agree on.
  - presbyterian 1y ago
    Even if what you're saying is true, and I'm skeptical that it is, why is the solution to give up entirely on trying to preserve or promote it?
    - ilikecakeandpie 1y ago
      I agree. I understand that there's no expectation of privacy in a public area and this is amplified by people having cameras/video recording capabilities in their hands than ever before. I think it's different though when it's at a private event though, like a birthday party, funeral, etc and folks shouldn't default to livestreaming
footy 1y ago
The alternative is not uploading video of people doing a hobby. I don't think your situations are the same as someone appearing on some youtube channel without their consent every single week unless they opt out of participating at all.
orangebread 1y ago
What if there was some sort of middle layer escrow holdings platform for users to sign up to that has your identity, facial biometrics, and crypto wallet. The user can also specify how they want their likeness used, or if they do not want to appear, etc. Any user uploading to a video platform has to run their video through this integration user-facial detection layer at some point in their editing pipeline. Payments are made accordingly. Just brainstorming.
dahart 1y ago
> Do you feature? Yes, this is what the author is concerned about. There’s a big difference between being filmed incidentally, and being filmed on purpose for the activity you’re engaged in. Being accidentally in the background is one thing, while being the subject of a video and having the camera aimed at you is another. Even though public photography is also legal where I live, and I believe we should keep that right, if I filmed close-ups of people in the car park getting in and out of their cars, I’d expect most people would object and find it uncomfortable.
prmoustache 1y ago
>I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Not every thing has to be recorded. It is like all those runners and cyclists who log and share all their runs/rides on Strava without even taking the time to figure out if it really serves a purpose other than a vain attention seeking.
- TehCorwiz 1y ago
  This reminds me of that time secret US military bases were identified from serviceman's social fitness data? https://www.wired.com/story/strava-heat-map-military-bases-fitness-trackers-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/strava-heat-map-military-bases-f... Honestly, the older I get the more I cherish that I grew up in a time before the compulsion to post literally everything.
- scotty79 1y ago
  > vain attention seeking Why are you shaming people for seeking what they obviously lack and need for their psychological well being?
andiareso 1y ago
Yes? I'm not sure I understand here. If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then required to get release info? If it's for personal use, sure thing, but when you are making money on it then you should absolutely get releases and default to bluring non-released individuals. I think the bigger issue is that our laws (in the US at least) haven't really caught up with this gig/creator economy. It would be no different than a blockbuster film group filming a war/battle sequence and having to get permission ahead of time from the location and individuals. My work will have signs up or ask explicitly if they are filming and intend to publish. If you go to a private org with the intention of filming, you should follow the same rules for a full-budget production group.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then required to get release info? The model release laws are usually tied to commercial use where some endorsement is implied. That’s why your company must secure a model release when filming in your office: The material is being used in a manner related to the company and as an employee in the video you are implicitly part of that. If the AirSoft facility was filming customers and using that footage in an ad, they would probably require model release forms. There are freedom of speech protections covering the capture of likeness for artistic display, editorial use, and so on. If the YouTuber made some video in this case as an ad for some AirSoft product and included other people in it without model release forms in a way that implied they were part of the endorsement, they could be in trouble. If they’re just making videos reporting on their games then I doubt there’s an argument that you could make requiring a model release, even if the channel was monetized. This is also why news channels don't need to secure model release forms when reporting on public events. If we required everyone to do the model release form thing to show any video of them, you would never see any negative videos of politicians or criminals agin.
Aurornis 1y ago
> I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this topic. 5-10 years ago it was a hot topic in online tech spaces (HN, Reddit, Slashdot and adjacent sites) about preserving your rights to take photos and videos in public spaces. I can understand some people preferring not to be filmed in public or shared commercial spaces, but ultimately if you are truly in public then being photographed or recorded is just part of the deal. I don’t think some people have thought about the second-order effects of things like requiring model release forms for everyone who enters the frame. Imagine getting a ticket or being sued by your busybody neighbor because you took a video of your kids in the backyard and they walked past. Laws like this are frequently abused by people who want to wield power over others, not simply people who simply want to protect themselves. When you extend the thinking to topics like news reporting and journalism it becomes obvious why you don't want laws requiring everyone to give consent to have video shared of themselves in public: No politician would ever allow footage of themselves to be shared unless it's picture perfect and in line with what they want you to see.
- gameman144 1y ago
  I don't think the author was arguing at all that these things should be illegal, more just that there should be more consideration of other people's preferences where possible. It's also legal to play an annoying song on repeat all day on a quiet hiking trail, but people (rightfully) recognize that as improper socially.
- jMyles 1y ago
  > I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this topic. My very very strong gut feeling is that this is an influx of bots muddying the waters of discussion in concert with the unleashing of the secret police force that is ICE. It seems to me that every real person sees the crucial importance of public photography in peacefully maintaining accountability.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    Maybe our society has failed if publishing such photos is needed to maintain accountability... I really do not see that step for actually functioning society.
notatoad 1y ago
I think the context of the original article is important: at an airsoft range, you’re on private property. You’ve signed a waiver to be there, there’s already rules to follow. Having formal rules for filming would be a totally reasonable and practical thing to do. Just like some gyms are accommodating to people filming TikTok’s and some aren’t, an airsoft range could have camera or no camera days, if that was something their players wanted.
- chb 1y ago
  This. People should either be banned from filming at the private site, or be required to agree to some form of consent seeking.
  - scotty79 1y ago
    Or required to agree to be filmed.
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  It's always a possibility that the owners of the range have already considered this and found there is virtually no market for no-camera days. Excluding your most enthusiastic members to include a miniscule number of camera-shy weirdos is unlikely to pay off.
ibejoeb 1y ago
Well the majority of the facilities are private land, right, not public, right? Organize formal sessions during which photography is prohibited. If you don't get any takers, the sport might have left you behind.
- scotty79 1y ago
  > during which photography is prohibited or expressly allowed, so that this dude knows not to go there
philwelch 1y ago
> Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Either that or, if you can’t get a model release, make sure to blur their face in editing. This used to be standard practice.
ecshafer 1y ago
> I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? This seems reasonable to me. If its airsoft, how many people are involved? 10? 20? Just go around and ask people if they will allow you to post video of the game with them in it.
baobun 1y ago
Shooting video for yourself is one thing, sharing it to a third party like Google, MS, or Apple is another. Unfortunately many people have been brainwashed to not consider or even understand the difference. I'm fine with being recorded as long as you keep it private. Not with that video ending up on your Drive backups or OneDrive etc, let alone YT.
- __float 1y ago
  This is drawing a very different line from the majority of conversations in this thread, I imagine. "Sharing with a third party" because you have phone backups enabled is very different from streaming live or uploading to social media, like most are actually discussing here.
  - baobun 1y ago
    I'm replying to this > I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? The offline alternative exists even if your OS employs dark UX patterns to make that frustrating. GP is the one who is conflating things.
immibis 1y ago
In Germany it's generally illegal to film people apart from certain exceptions (mostly public events and public spaces). Even when filming something in public, you must be filming the event/space and not a person or group who happens to be occupying it, which is a fine distinction. Even surveillance cameras have strict requirements to be legal. You don't want to be the guy who goes to jail for having a surveillance camera, right? Tangentially, nightclubs put stickers over your phone cameras and that is a great idea.
thesuitonym 1y ago
The alternative is for the venue to have "recording time" and "non recording time." If you go during non recording time, you're not allowed to bring cameras into the space. And if you don't want to be recorded, you go then. And if you want to record, go during recording time. Think of it like a public pool. It is unreasonable to say that there should be public pools that children aren't allowed into, but it's also unreasonable to expect all adults to want to swim with children. This is why we have the concept of adult swim time.
andrewla 1y ago
I think there is at least something of a middle ground for almost-but-not-quite-public spaces and events. In this case the author is talking about airsoft games; it seems totally reasonable for the venue or organizer to enact policies, whether "no cameras allowed" or "purple helmet means don't show / blur this person". In fully public spaces I think we're pretty much out of luck, though I do think that laser/lidar-based countermeasures should be legal.
deepsun 1y ago
Filming and publishing is different things though legally. E.g. you can film public spaces as much as you want, but be careful of what you post to YouTube.
tonymet 1y ago
OP offers a reasonable idea of wearing a lanyard or badge to indicate you'd like to be censored out of the final video. that's practical and provides community enforcement -- for example if someone publishes a video with a subject like that, the community can shame them for it.
- SkyBelow 1y ago
  Shouldn't it be opt in, not opt out? Wear a badge if you are okay being in it. People who aren't wearing it are blurred out or otherwise removed.
  - tonymet 1y ago
    that's how I would do it. but we have to start somewhere and maybe zoomers really do enjoy being recorded? who knows?
collinstevens 1y ago
> I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? i think i would prefer this. i'd rather live in the world where no one can record or photograph you in public than the world where you're streamed or entombed in a vod for life.
lynx97 1y ago
Good to know you reside on the other side of the planet. I wouldnt want to meet you in public under any circumstances. So much entitlement and disregard for other people is sickening.
dfxm12 1y ago
The author suggests this was not a public space. Legal or not, it's more about not being a jerk. I think this is especially important in the context of a hobby, and the local community around that hobby. There are easy ways for everyone to get what they want in these situations. So, why not get a release? Why not perform some light video editing to cut/blur out people who don't want to be there? These are not high bars to clear. I've done similar things, you have every opportunity to talk to the group and sort this out, and explain why you're filming and where you're publishing. Then people can come to an informed decision...
Vrondi 1y ago
The the author of the article wasn't in a public area, but in a private area at a private event, perhaps model release forms are a really good idea for participants.
ShakataGaNai 1y ago
> Another fun one, while I'm here. C. 2010, we're shooting a music video in central Melbourne. We're on the public pavement. There's a bank ATM waaaay in the background. Bank security come out. Sorry mate, you can't film here. > We told them, we can. We're on public land. So they call the cops. We politely wait for the cops. The cops turn up. Heh. As a photog I've have plenty of similar run ins with people...but only when wielding an SLR (or similar). Was once standing on a sidewalk, saw a building that looked cool, took a picture. I'm more into architecture than people. Security comes out from the lobby to accost me. I very politely told them "Dude, I'm on the sidewalk, you can't do shit" I also had the local transit agency threaten to call the cops on me for taking photos. Literally of just the platform and rails (without people) when I was trying to document the system for Wikipedia. Even though on their website it EXPLICITLY states that what I was doing was within their rules. Ignoring the fact that it was totally legal regardless. That time I just (metaphorically) ran away rather than dealing with a belligerent station agent. Was what I was doing wrong? No. Was it legal? Yes. But did I want to deal with the transit police? Nope. The thing that drives me batshit nuts is no one seems to care if you're taking a picture with a phone. The latest iPhone have megapixel counts in excess of many DSLR and mirrorless cameras. I can be way more sneaky with my phone. By using a DSLR type camera I'm being very public that "Hey, I'm taking a picture here" that should assure people, rather than scare them.
eikenberry 1y ago
> I get it, but the alternative is what? If AI photo/video generation continues to improve then it shouldn't be a problem as the photo/video taking culture will most likely die off once people assume any photos/videos they see are generated.
onion2k 1y ago
I get it, but the alternative is what? Don't publish the videos unless you have a good reason to. There is no upside to just throwing everything you record on the internet. People don't watch the videos, your channel is degraded by having tons of garbage on it, and people in the videos don't want to be online like that. If you stop pretending that a random video is somehow going to 'go viral' or make you famous, the entire problem just evaporates. If you want to publish videos put the effort into making good ones that people will actually watch, which means raising the bar by (in part) finding people who want to be in them. Videos of random people doing pretty mundane things like their hobbies won't turn you into the next YouTube star.
NedF 1y ago
> I get it, but the alternative is what? Airsoft sites ban/allow videos in certain matches. Not rocket science. We manage in public spaces like toilets ok. They also point to purple lanyards in conferences and suggest an equivalent in Airsoft. Why is this comment going back to zero? Does Hacker News not have the ability to move forward? Is this a central tenant to the nihilism worship that is Hacker News?
PapstJL4U 1y ago
>I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Only if you publish the video, if there is indentifiable information or when the person is the center piece of your video. If you are professional company, you have profesional that do this for you. If you are not professional, you can make the time, because you are not doing it often.
escapedmoose 1y ago
One alternative is blurring the face of anyone who hasn’t given you permission to broadcast. This has been the accepted standard in Japan for a while.

mothballed 1y ago

... The bank was filming the ATM the whole time. There are a lot of '1A' auditors on youtube. They can be nasally and annoying but it's hilarious how often people go into a rage that they're being filmed despite the fact the people getting angry are doing the same to everyone else.

sharperguy 1y ago

The venues for these things are private and so they can set their own rules. The author proposes a rule: A simple purple lanyard indicating that you don't wish to be included in the published film. This doesn't necessarily need to be an article, because the author could have just handled it with each venue individually, but this just gets the conversation going about general sentiment and wider applicability. My guess is that early on this kind of youtuber was relatively rare and so being captured occasionally wasn't a big deal, but that now the trend is catching on, a it's happening regularly and becoming a concern for some people.

pitt1980 1y ago
Aren’t these venues small businesses that very much appreciate whatever publicity someone sharing their venue on social media gives them? I guess they can weigh that against their customers desire for privacy.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  In many hobbies, recording footage and reviewing it later is very valuable for improving. Think about football players reviewing game footage as a team to discuss what they did well and what went wrong. Many hobbies are like this. The majority of footage people record on their GoPros is for themself. It's rare for someone to edit it into a YouTube video. Even more rare for someone to go see it. The AirSoft example is interesting because players where so much protective gear and face masks that it would be very difficult to recognize anyone's likeness anyway.
fuzzehchat 1y ago
The author is a tech lawyer. I think the article is there to start discussion. I agree with him that if private venues allow people to record like this they should offer, at the very least, an opt out. "Purple lanyard" seems like a good way. It's also a pretty easy spot in post production where you can either blur or cut as appropriate.
- wang_li 1y ago
  There is a super obvious opt out that doesn't require people to take special actions. Don't go to places that allow recording.
  - et-al 1y ago
    From the article: I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”. This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing. In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it is a private site, where people engage in private activity (a hobby).

alex77456 1y ago

Part of the issue is, big portion of the footage being recorded, is not worth recording, let alone publishing. (Except for personal value of the person recording, but that doesn't require public sharing) With the OP example, people getting recorded are not bystanders catching stray camera focus, they are the subject of the video. Without other participants, there would be little 'content'. Imagine going to an indoor climbing venue, recording someone else, and publishing just that.

stuartjohnson12 1y ago
Not to mention "auditors", whose goal is to use the ambiguous nature of feels-like-a-privacy-invasion-but-legally-isnt when you stick a camera in someone's face in a public place to try and get a rise out of people and prance around as victim. I think this is a case where the reasonable person test is excellent. Is this use of a camera reasonable for personal/professional purposes You should be expected to take reasonable steps not to victimise someone by use of a video camera, subject to public interest. That means filming strangers with intent to provoke them should be a crime but raging car park lady cannot reasonably claim to have been victimised. Consent affects what is reasonable without creating a duty-bound obligation not to film without consent. We already have "reasonable expectations of privacy", why not flip that?
- hermannj314 1y ago
  The idea of public and private needs a similar distinction like libel and defamation. Ephemeral public has no expectation of ephemeral privacy, but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect that being recorded and having it broadcast to the entire human race, permanently, for eternity.
  - wang_li 1y ago
    >...but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect... You shouldn't have an expectation either way. If anything, the expectation that you will not be recorded is more of a violation of the social contract that the reverse. It's a public space that can be used for many purposes. If the effect on bystanders is minimal then attempting to exclude an activity is wrong. Can we say "I don't want you to see me, so look away whenever I am out." "I don't want to wait in traffic so everyone else has to pull over and clear the road when I am driving." "I didn't consent to this smell, so this restaurant has to turn off their stoves and ovens hours before I will be coming by." Reality is that you can't exclude others if they aren't doing something that excludes you.

abxyz 1y ago

Blur the people who didn’t give consent. The problem is cultural, not technical. Even YouTube has the native ability to blur out faces at the click of a button.

renewiltord 1y ago
Obviously isn't going to work for OP case. He's playing airsoft. No faces are visible.

dandellion 1y ago

Here in Spain if you don't get explicit consent you can get sued for publishing the video (it's fine if you only showed it to the shop owner and didn't publish it), but if someone tells you explicitly they don't want to be recorded you have to stop and delete the video (I assume if you refuse they can just call the police, but I've never seen it happen).

randomtoast 1y ago
Well, the first step is not being sued and taken to court, but receiving a cease-and-desist letter. But for that to happen, the person that has been videoed needs to be aware of that his face is on YouTube, which in most cases you won't even notice unless it's a video with a very high click count.

Hizonner 1y ago

> I get it, but the alternative is what? Stop taking video in public, or at least of the public. You just assume you should be able to do that and the whole world should adjust to your preference. Maybe it should be the other way around.

shmel 1y ago
Do you also support a blanket ban of CCTV in public spaces? I am pretty sure that the bank had a camera in the ATM recording a public pavement 24/7 and nobody bats an eye.
- soiltype 1y ago
  Many people are actually quite uncomfortable with the prevalence of video surveillance, in fact. However, there are significant differences: 1. The camera is in a fixed position, 2. The footage is not typically shared let alone published online.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > Do you also support a blanket ban of CCTV in public spaces? I'm not sure I support anything. I'm just pointing out that there is a path available if you don't just assume that you should be allowed to take video. But it wouldn't bother me at all to have, say, a rule that you couldn't have a surveillance camera covering any space you didn't own, and furthermore that if you had a camera covering a space that you did own that was open to the public, and recordings would be deleted after say 24 hours unless there was special justification to keep a specific one.

blindriver 1y ago

You can use AI to blur anyone that doesn't give permission. You can't use the excuse of "it's too much work!" It should be the law that you can't indiscriminately video everyone for your own financial gain.

WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 1y ago
Blur is boring, but swapping faces or other recognizable features to something similar but AI-generated sounds cool.
- TehCorwiz 1y ago
  Sounds like the central idea of the "scramble suit" from A Scanner Darkly.

bravura 1y ago

As an American living in Europe, I have seen Europe do "no cameras by default" quite successfully.

trelane 1y ago
No private cameras (maybe)
lotsofpulp 1y ago
Are dash cams / bicycle cams not ubiquitous in Europe by now? I would have thought they would be very useful for adjudicating high cost events such as automobile collisions, or even police interactions.
- gambiting 1y ago
  Like most things with "Europe" - it depends, because it isn't one state with universal laws or even cultural expectations. Go to somewhere like Poland and everyone will have a dashcam and it's almost expected at this point(imho). But in neighbouring Germany you are technically allowed to have a dashcam, but any recording is legally inadmissable in any court case. So even if you have a recording of someone crashing into you, it can't be used because the other person never agreed to be recorded. Meanwhile Austria and Portugal have banned them completely, even for personal use.
  - detaro 1y ago
    Germany specifically doesn't like dashcams that record continuously. Legal ones just keep a short buffer and when they detect a crash or a button is pressed (or a voice command in fancy ones) they'll write it to storage. Because if something happens you have a valid reason to have and use footage, you just can't record people without a reason.

threetonesun 1y ago

If I see someone filming me while driving I usually give them the finger. I suppose that's my consent for them to do whatever with it. I don't foolishly believe they can't do it, but I do suggest maybe they shouldn't.

callc 1y ago

Basic human decency. Just as the author says: “Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.” It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level. People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them deserve social consequences. Some things should only exist at the social norms level. IMO it would be hunky dory if societies considered what “privacy in public” looks like in the modern age, and came to the conclusions like “no dragnets pls”.

everdrive 1y ago
>Basic human decency. You've got a very large, diverse population without a strong social identity and ever-fraying trust. So you won't consistently get basic human decency any longer. That's something which is extended to the in-group with which you have real social ties and obligations. Most people don't have this any longer.
- legacynl 1y ago
  let's not make grand conclusions from singular observations, especially if they align with your own opinions. That's a recipe for deluding yourself. Human decency still exists as it has always done. But perhaps not in a form that we all agree on.
- presbyterian 1y ago
  Even if what you're saying is true, and I'm skeptical that it is, why is the solution to give up entirely on trying to preserve or promote it?
  - ilikecakeandpie 1y ago
    I agree. I understand that there's no expectation of privacy in a public area and this is amplified by people having cameras/video recording capabilities in their hands than ever before. I think it's different though when it's at a private event though, like a birthday party, funeral, etc and folks shouldn't default to livestreaming

footy 1y ago

The alternative is not uploading video of people doing a hobby. I don't think your situations are the same as someone appearing on some youtube channel without their consent every single week unless they opt out of participating at all.

orangebread 1y ago

What if there was some sort of middle layer escrow holdings platform for users to sign up to that has your identity, facial biometrics, and crypto wallet. The user can also specify how they want their likeness used, or if they do not want to appear, etc. Any user uploading to a video platform has to run their video through this integration user-facial detection layer at some point in their editing pipeline. Payments are made accordingly. Just brainstorming.

dahart 1y ago

> Do you feature? Yes, this is what the author is concerned about. There’s a big difference between being filmed incidentally, and being filmed on purpose for the activity you’re engaged in. Being accidentally in the background is one thing, while being the subject of a video and having the camera aimed at you is another. Even though public photography is also legal where I live, and I believe we should keep that right, if I filmed close-ups of people in the car park getting in and out of their cars, I’d expect most people would object and find it uncomfortable.

prmoustache 1y ago

>I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Not every thing has to be recorded. It is like all those runners and cyclists who log and share all their runs/rides on Strava without even taking the time to figure out if it really serves a purpose other than a vain attention seeking.

TehCorwiz 1y ago
This reminds me of that time secret US military bases were identified from serviceman's social fitness data? https://www.wired.com/story/strava-heat-map-military-bases-fitness-trackers-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/strava-heat-map-military-bases-f... Honestly, the older I get the more I cherish that I grew up in a time before the compulsion to post literally everything.
scotty79 1y ago
> vain attention seeking Why are you shaming people for seeking what they obviously lack and need for their psychological well being?

andiareso 1y ago

Yes? I'm not sure I understand here. If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then required to get release info? If it's for personal use, sure thing, but when you are making money on it then you should absolutely get releases and default to bluring non-released individuals. I think the bigger issue is that our laws (in the US at least) haven't really caught up with this gig/creator economy. It would be no different than a blockbuster film group filming a war/battle sequence and having to get permission ahead of time from the location and individuals. My work will have signs up or ask explicitly if they are filming and intend to publish. If you go to a private org with the intention of filming, you should follow the same rules for a full-budget production group.

Aurornis 1y ago
> If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then required to get release info? The model release laws are usually tied to commercial use where some endorsement is implied. That’s why your company must secure a model release when filming in your office: The material is being used in a manner related to the company and as an employee in the video you are implicitly part of that. If the AirSoft facility was filming customers and using that footage in an ad, they would probably require model release forms. There are freedom of speech protections covering the capture of likeness for artistic display, editorial use, and so on. If the YouTuber made some video in this case as an ad for some AirSoft product and included other people in it without model release forms in a way that implied they were part of the endorsement, they could be in trouble. If they’re just making videos reporting on their games then I doubt there’s an argument that you could make requiring a model release, even if the channel was monetized. This is also why news channels don't need to secure model release forms when reporting on public events. If we required everyone to do the model release form thing to show any video of them, you would never see any negative videos of politicians or criminals agin.

Aurornis 1y ago

> I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this topic. 5-10 years ago it was a hot topic in online tech spaces (HN, Reddit, Slashdot and adjacent sites) about preserving your rights to take photos and videos in public spaces. I can understand some people preferring not to be filmed in public or shared commercial spaces, but ultimately if you are truly in public then being photographed or recorded is just part of the deal. I don’t think some people have thought about the second-order effects of things like requiring model release forms for everyone who enters the frame. Imagine getting a ticket or being sued by your busybody neighbor because you took a video of your kids in the backyard and they walked past. Laws like this are frequently abused by people who want to wield power over others, not simply people who simply want to protect themselves. When you extend the thinking to topics like news reporting and journalism it becomes obvious why you don't want laws requiring everyone to give consent to have video shared of themselves in public: No politician would ever allow footage of themselves to be shared unless it's picture perfect and in line with what they want you to see.

gameman144 1y ago
I don't think the author was arguing at all that these things should be illegal, more just that there should be more consideration of other people's preferences where possible. It's also legal to play an annoying song on repeat all day on a quiet hiking trail, but people (rightfully) recognize that as improper socially.
jMyles 1y ago
> I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this topic. My very very strong gut feeling is that this is an influx of bots muddying the waters of discussion in concert with the unleashing of the secret police force that is ICE. It seems to me that every real person sees the crucial importance of public photography in peacefully maintaining accountability.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Maybe our society has failed if publishing such photos is needed to maintain accountability... I really do not see that step for actually functioning society.

notatoad 1y ago

I think the context of the original article is important: at an airsoft range, you’re on private property. You’ve signed a waiver to be there, there’s already rules to follow. Having formal rules for filming would be a totally reasonable and practical thing to do. Just like some gyms are accommodating to people filming TikTok’s and some aren’t, an airsoft range could have camera or no camera days, if that was something their players wanted.

chb 1y ago
This. People should either be banned from filming at the private site, or be required to agree to some form of consent seeking.
- scotty79 1y ago
  Or required to agree to be filmed.
mvdtnz 1y ago
It's always a possibility that the owners of the range have already considered this and found there is virtually no market for no-camera days. Excluding your most enthusiastic members to include a miniscule number of camera-shy weirdos is unlikely to pay off.

ibejoeb 1y ago

Well the majority of the facilities are private land, right, not public, right? Organize formal sessions during which photography is prohibited. If you don't get any takers, the sport might have left you behind.

scotty79 1y ago
> during which photography is prohibited or expressly allowed, so that this dude knows not to go there

philwelch 1y ago

> Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Either that or, if you can’t get a model release, make sure to blur their face in editing. This used to be standard practice.

ecshafer 1y ago

> I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? This seems reasonable to me. If its airsoft, how many people are involved? 10? 20? Just go around and ask people if they will allow you to post video of the game with them in it.

baobun 1y ago

Shooting video for yourself is one thing, sharing it to a third party like Google, MS, or Apple is another. Unfortunately many people have been brainwashed to not consider or even understand the difference. I'm fine with being recorded as long as you keep it private. Not with that video ending up on your Drive backups or OneDrive etc, let alone YT.

__float 1y ago
This is drawing a very different line from the majority of conversations in this thread, I imagine. "Sharing with a third party" because you have phone backups enabled is very different from streaming live or uploading to social media, like most are actually discussing here.
- baobun 1y ago
  I'm replying to this > I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? The offline alternative exists even if your OS employs dark UX patterns to make that frustrating. GP is the one who is conflating things.

immibis 1y ago

In Germany it's generally illegal to film people apart from certain exceptions (mostly public events and public spaces). Even when filming something in public, you must be filming the event/space and not a person or group who happens to be occupying it, which is a fine distinction. Even surveillance cameras have strict requirements to be legal. You don't want to be the guy who goes to jail for having a surveillance camera, right? Tangentially, nightclubs put stickers over your phone cameras and that is a great idea.

thesuitonym 1y ago

The alternative is for the venue to have "recording time" and "non recording time." If you go during non recording time, you're not allowed to bring cameras into the space. And if you don't want to be recorded, you go then. And if you want to record, go during recording time. Think of it like a public pool. It is unreasonable to say that there should be public pools that children aren't allowed into, but it's also unreasonable to expect all adults to want to swim with children. This is why we have the concept of adult swim time.

andrewla 1y ago

I think there is at least something of a middle ground for almost-but-not-quite-public spaces and events. In this case the author is talking about airsoft games; it seems totally reasonable for the venue or organizer to enact policies, whether "no cameras allowed" or "purple helmet means don't show / blur this person". In fully public spaces I think we're pretty much out of luck, though I do think that laser/lidar-based countermeasures should be legal.

deepsun 1y ago

Filming and publishing is different things though legally. E.g. you can film public spaces as much as you want, but be careful of what you post to YouTube.

tonymet 1y ago

OP offers a reasonable idea of wearing a lanyard or badge to indicate you'd like to be censored out of the final video. that's practical and provides community enforcement -- for example if someone publishes a video with a subject like that, the community can shame them for it.

SkyBelow 1y ago
Shouldn't it be opt in, not opt out? Wear a badge if you are okay being in it. People who aren't wearing it are blurred out or otherwise removed.
- tonymet 1y ago
  that's how I would do it. but we have to start somewhere and maybe zoomers really do enjoy being recorded? who knows?

collinstevens 1y ago

> I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? i think i would prefer this. i'd rather live in the world where no one can record or photograph you in public than the world where you're streamed or entombed in a vod for life.

lynx97 1y ago

Good to know you reside on the other side of the planet. I wouldnt want to meet you in public under any circumstances. So much entitlement and disregard for other people is sickening.

dfxm12 1y ago

The author suggests this was not a public space. Legal or not, it's more about not being a jerk. I think this is especially important in the context of a hobby, and the local community around that hobby. There are easy ways for everyone to get what they want in these situations. So, why not get a release? Why not perform some light video editing to cut/blur out people who don't want to be there? These are not high bars to clear. I've done similar things, you have every opportunity to talk to the group and sort this out, and explain why you're filming and where you're publishing. Then people can come to an informed decision...

Vrondi 1y ago

The the author of the article wasn't in a public area, but in a private area at a private event, perhaps model release forms are a really good idea for participants.

ShakataGaNai 1y ago

> Another fun one, while I'm here. C. 2010, we're shooting a music video in central Melbourne. We're on the public pavement. There's a bank ATM waaaay in the background. Bank security come out. Sorry mate, you can't film here. > We told them, we can. We're on public land. So they call the cops. We politely wait for the cops. The cops turn up. Heh. As a photog I've have plenty of similar run ins with people...but only when wielding an SLR (or similar). Was once standing on a sidewalk, saw a building that looked cool, took a picture. I'm more into architecture than people. Security comes out from the lobby to accost me. I very politely told them "Dude, I'm on the sidewalk, you can't do shit" I also had the local transit agency threaten to call the cops on me for taking photos. Literally of just the platform and rails (without people) when I was trying to document the system for Wikipedia. Even though on their website it EXPLICITLY states that what I was doing was within their rules. Ignoring the fact that it was totally legal regardless. That time I just (metaphorically) ran away rather than dealing with a belligerent station agent. Was what I was doing wrong? No. Was it legal? Yes. But did I want to deal with the transit police? Nope. The thing that drives me batshit nuts is no one seems to care if you're taking a picture with a phone. The latest iPhone have megapixel counts in excess of many DSLR and mirrorless cameras. I can be way more sneaky with my phone. By using a DSLR type camera I'm being very public that "Hey, I'm taking a picture here" that should assure people, rather than scare them.

eikenberry 1y ago

> I get it, but the alternative is what? If AI photo/video generation continues to improve then it shouldn't be a problem as the photo/video taking culture will most likely die off once people assume any photos/videos they see are generated.

onion2k 1y ago

I get it, but the alternative is what? Don't publish the videos unless you have a good reason to. There is no upside to just throwing everything you record on the internet. People don't watch the videos, your channel is degraded by having tons of garbage on it, and people in the videos don't want to be online like that. If you stop pretending that a random video is somehow going to 'go viral' or make you famous, the entire problem just evaporates. If you want to publish videos put the effort into making good ones that people will actually watch, which means raising the bar by (in part) finding people who want to be in them. Videos of random people doing pretty mundane things like their hobbies won't turn you into the next YouTube star.

NedF 1y ago

> I get it, but the alternative is what? Airsoft sites ban/allow videos in certain matches. Not rocket science. We manage in public spaces like toilets ok. They also point to purple lanyards in conferences and suggest an equivalent in Airsoft. Why is this comment going back to zero? Does Hacker News not have the ability to move forward? Is this a central tenant to the nihilism worship that is Hacker News?

PapstJL4U 1y ago

>I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Only if you publish the video, if there is indentifiable information or when the person is the center piece of your video. If you are professional company, you have profesional that do this for you. If you are not professional, you can make the time, because you are not doing it often.

escapedmoose 1y ago

One alternative is blurring the face of anyone who hasn’t given you permission to broadcast. This has been the accepted standard in Japan for a while.