6 ms·
The answer seems pretty simple. Ask your teammates not to take videos, or find a different group or a different hobby. But since they genuinely enjoy posting t
by crazygringo 1y ago
The answer seems pretty simple.
Ask your teammates not to take videos, or find a different group or a different hobby. But since they genuinely enjoy posting the videos, and there's nothing wrong with that, you're probably the one who's going to have move on.
You're entitled to not want videos of you taken in public places showing up online. But you're not entitled to getting that outcome.
- brna-2 1y agoThink bigger - public spaces, streets, in general. Would be nice to solve this.
- paulcole 1y agoIt is solved. Videos and photos are allowed in public spaces. You just don’t like the solution.
- brna-2 1y agoHeh, you could be right on this one. But on the other hand, if I was the one filming and I knew a person in the frame wanted more privacy if possible I would be glad to omit them or cut them out.
- crazygringo 1y agoBut you can already do that. This discussion isn't about what's polite. It's about what you think ought to be against the law. And being fined or thrown in jail if you break the law.
- brna-2 1y agoI was really thinking of imposing a framework where people know someones preference even when looking at the videos later. I would be fine even if there is no fine, if someone found me on one of your photos and say - look a lanyard, what a jerk for putting that online, without any additional consequence. EU came into my mind because of the existing GDPR and as a platform where this could be propagated. No I would generally not want anyone to go to jail even it the footage wracks my life somehow, but I would want a mechanism to broadcast my preference to the recording world.
- paulcole 1y ago> if someone found me on one of your photos and say - look a lanyard, what a jerk for putting that online, without any additional consequence You can wear a lanyard today!
- op00to 1y agoSure. They could simply ask you nicely and accept whatever the result is. This is the case now.
- paulcole 1y agoBut what if you weren’t glad to omit them or cut them out? What happens then?
- crazygringo 1y agoI disagree. It wouldn't be nice to solve it, because it would mean nobody could ever take a picture of anything where there might be anyone recognizable in the background, without getting them to sign some kind of model release first. Is that what you want? For innocent photography in public to be essentially outlawed?
- ixsploit 1y agoOr you know, not making it public. And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.
- crazygringo 1y agoAnd your want to make that the law, so you get fined or go to jail if you don't blur everyone's face on every photo you post if you haven't gotten a signed consent from them?
- andersa 1y agoYes.
- crazygringo 1y agoWell, thanks for being honest. That's not a world I would want to live in, and I guess I'm thankful most other people don't either. The ability to photograph is important for accountability and truth in a democracy, it's important to families wanting to document and share their trips easily, and it's important for art, among many other things. Fundamentally, it feels like a kind of freedom to me. But it's interesting to see there are people who disagree.
- andersa 1y agoYou can do all of those things without creating a public record of me.
- op00to 1y agoIt’s solved. You can take pictures in public in the US. That’s part of our fundamental freedoms.
- ljm 1y agoI expect an airsoft venue is actually a private space, not a public one. Airsoft but-actually-in-public would have people concerned about a terrorist attack, not being recorded for insta. To that extent, the hobbyists who like to create content for the internet should be asking for consent since their footage, and arguably their clout, depends on the participation of everybody else in the group. Otherwise they're just traipsing around a private plot of land all kitted up but with nobody to shoot. If they're monetising that content then they are profiting from the OP's likeness. This is not far removed from the (fully understandable) blowback on influencers recording themselves (and often other people for rage-induced clout) inside gyms. These are also not public places.
- crazygringo 1y agoIf it's private then it's up to the owner. And they may very well have decided that more customers want to take and share videos, than there are customers who are bothered by it. And nobody is talking about monetizing content here. There's no profit. If there were, that would be a different conversation obviously. But the post did not bring that up.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago> There is no profit. We don't know that.
- hedora 1y agoAlso, the bar of “you have no privacy if you can’t figure out how the entity stealing your data is profiting off it” isn’t great. At the very least, these videos are being used to train models. That’s a good way to bypass the union contracts that prevent Hollywood from digitally cloning film extras.
- insertchatbot 1y agoAnd also, some people could suffer real damages. Imagine if someone is lying to their wife about what they do on the weekend or about who they've gone to a conference with. Or imagine if someone has found themselves with dangerous enemies who discover where they go, what they do and with whom. At the moment, these things are not the problem of the person taking the video
- hamjilkjr 1y agoThey could also blur the requester's face for the second or two it's likely in frame in the process they're very likely already editing the video before posting
- andersa 1y agoWe should be entitled to that.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- LtdJorge 1y agoYou can also ask for your face to be blurred.
- Tade0 1y agoThere's also the option of having a detailed image of a penis on your clothing so that any sort of social media app will R-rate a video featuring you.
- hedora 1y agoI wonder if this works if you use pictures of Disney characters instead (to generate copyright strikes, or mandatory relicensing fees). If the two tactics don’t work separately, would they work when combined?
- Tade0 1y agoI'm embarrassed I didn't think of Disney characters first. I would suggest Pokémon (fighting monsters after all), but apparently Nintendo lost its edge, considering that recent ICE debacle.
- crazygringo 1y agoOf course it doesn't. There aren't any social media sites that take down images of people wearing a Disney character on a shirt. That's not a thing. You have to upload actual extended direct footage of a Disney movie.
- discomrobertul8 1y agoDisney characters work too, from what I hear.
- HotHotLava 1y agoIf the problem starts to become big enough, I'd expect airsoft venues to offer special streaming or non-streaming times, depending on which group is bigger. Similar to how Saunas offer special clothed or women-only days.