4 ms·

Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own

by deepsun 4mo ago

Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own purposes including commercial. I objected, but their position was that no one is going to involve legal department for me, and I am free to go away.

bsder 4mo ago
> and I am free to go away. This is the crux of the problem when landlords are allowed to form or join an "association" that gets too pervasive. This was at the heart of the RealPage lawsuits.
smcleod 4mo ago
Pretty sure that's a violation of fundamental human rights as it's your place of living. Surely that can't be legal, even in the US can it?
- monkpit 4mo ago
  It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.
  - bigiain 4mo ago
    That sounds a lot like a rationalization desperately grasping at "surely it's not as insane as it sounds, what it _must_ mean is ... " I would want to read and perhaps get legal advice before relying on that interpretation - and before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants.
    - computerdork 4mo ago
      Am pretty sure he's right. I rent out my house, and it is very illegal for the landlord to record video inside the house (or even of the driveway). You are infringing the privacy of your tenants and is a huge no-no. Yeah, if you accidentally recorded families walking through their homes unclothed, this could land a landlord in jail.
      - wtallis 4mo ago
        The contract terms could very well have actually had a meaning that included filming inside the apartment. The existence of other laws overriding the contract isn't actually the same thing as the contract not having that invasive meaning.
        monkpit 4mo ago
        You can’t make a contract that breaks the law, it doesn’t work that way. It’s unenforceable and doesn’t hold up in court. Otherwise, you could just make contracts anytime you wanted to break the law for any reason.
    - somenameforme 4mo ago
      Contracts don't and can't override laws.
      - rurban 4mo ago
        In normal states not. But there you have the very popular political system called fascism, where contracts override laws.
        somenameforme 4mo ago
        That doesn't even make any sense. Fascism is generally about top-down enforced control, whereas contracts are heavily decentralized. The world where you'd have contracts override laws would be some sort of extreme anarcho-libertarian society, which is rather the opposite of fascism.
        rurban 4mo ago
        That's what you heard in school, defending the US style of fascism as "democratic". Fascism was a scheme to keep the old aristocrats turning industrialists to keep control of the state, whilst still keeping it under the democratic name. This was devised in the US in the 30ies and then in the old states also. Heavily supported by the US industrialists. Without them the fascism movement had no chance. The US scheme of fascism came up with cooperate contracts overriding state laws, also pleasing the Chicago crowd, with decentralized control. At the will of the cooperations, who know better than the government of course. That's why Rockefeller could gun down strikers without any repercussions. That's why the Railroad Commission could call state military to gun down independent oil cooperations which undercut prizes of the industrialists. That's not liberalism, that's pure fascism/cooperatism/aristocratism.
        rightbyte 4mo ago
        "Corporatism" not "cooperatism" though, right? Nothing wrong with cooperatism I think.
    - hvb2 4mo ago
      > before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants. If the law says you cannot do XYZ, your landlord can state otherwise in whatever verbiage but that's all void. This is why good consumer protection laws exist, in a well functioning society there things you sign are to protect the landlord from bad renters (don't pay, cause a nuisance etc). The law in general should protect you as the tenant from a bad landlord.
  - smcleod 4mo ago
    Oh right, that's not so bad. Isn't that just being part of modern society? It would be nice to opt to never be recorded but also, it's outside.
  - nkrisc 4mo ago
    If it didn’t say it, it doesn’t mean it.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - gerdesj 4mo ago
    Thank goodness you read the contract they signed and provided competent legal expertise throughout the process.
  - thayne 4mo ago
    That is probably why it is in there, and probably how it would be used in practice. But these types of documents are almost written to be as broad and ask you to give up as many rights as possible.
  - aesh2Xa1 4mo ago
    It does mean on the property and including inside facilities. Maybe that's at the gym or by the pool, and maybe you're actually not comfortable becoming a swimsuit model.
  - deepsun 4mo ago
    Well the document didn't say "public spaces". I also think they meant public spaces, but it wasn't in the documents. Even then, I do not consent to work as an unpaid actor even in public spaces. I'm ok to be it at conferences, organized coworking parties -- no problem. But my living space when I don't suspect it -- hell no.
    - LorenPechtel 4mo ago
      It isn't really that onerous, they aren't expecting you to do anything. Rather, they want the right to film commercially on their own property without getting consent of everyone walking by. Many years ago a local casino was being used for a movie shoot, there were signs at the door saying that they're shooting a movie in here, if you're inside the casino it's possible you'll show up in the background of a shot. By entering you agree to this. An apartment can't do something like that because not entering is not a realistic option, so they're putting it in the rental agreement instead.
      - cwmoore 4mo ago
        This is about the landlords free use of video surveillance, not the cinema.
      - deepsun 4mo ago
        In that case they might just not film everyone passing by, it's not hard, it's an apartment complex, just max 1-2 people in a frame. Not hard to ask them. Or work as actors themselves. It's not like there's hundred of tenants all at the same time outside to make it hard (and if there's an event just ask everyone coming).
  - gib444 4mo ago
    > It doesn’t mean Oh man if I had a pound for every time I've had a corporate dogsbody try to invent meanings of legal wording that doesn't actually exist and gaslight me... They are usually so passionate about it too. A simple "ah ok cool so you can add that word to the document" really annoys them. The other classic is just "it's just standard wording". Well yeah McDonald's is also "standard" food for many people but I massively disagree with that too
  - geon 4mo ago
    That is already allowed.
m0llusk 4mo ago
This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.
- collingreen 4mo ago
  There is no version of basic security that extends to commercial use of your likeness in their marketing. Be reasonable.
- deepsun 4mo ago
  If it said so in the contract I would not have any issues, something like "recordings of you are available only to authorized security personnel, can be provided to you upon request for a reasonable price covering filtering and other paperwork, and can be shared solely for security and legal purposes".
plagiarist 4mo ago
I found some shit like that in a gym contract, which I then declined.
abawany 4mo ago
I've also read reviews of Greystar properties where the reviewers expressed shock at being forced to consent to such abuse.
engeljohnb 4mo ago
Rentals are exactly what I was talking about. Supposedly you can always go to someone else, but we all know in practice we can't just go without housing and if everyone decides you're "difficult," you're SOL. Earlier this week a potential landlord offered me a lease saying I had already inspected the property and found no issues with it. I asked for a chance to actually inspect before signing, and even said I would settle for a good quality video walkthrough. They told me the unit was "not available for viewing" because it wasn't finished yet, and by the time it was finished it would likely be taken. So why did you ask me to sign a contract saying I inspected a property that it's conceptually impossible to inspect?? I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property." Of course, still not as insane as your story.
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  Sounds like typical high pressure salesmanship.
- kmoser 4mo ago
  > I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property." Was it a paper lease? Because you could always cross out that section before signing, not to mention write in your own addendum. They would probably still balk, but you'd be within your rights to do so.
  - goosejuice 4mo ago
    Good luck finding a landlord that would agree to your terms.
    - filoeleven 4mo ago
      Much easier to find one that won't notice the markup, though. You think they read the contracts any more carefully than most people?
  - voakbasda 4mo ago

by deepsun 4mo ago

bsder 4mo ago

> and I am free to go away. This is the crux of the problem when landlords are allowed to form or join an "association" that gets too pervasive. This was at the heart of the RealPage lawsuits.

smcleod 4mo ago

Pretty sure that's a violation of fundamental human rights as it's your place of living. Surely that can't be legal, even in the US can it?

monkpit 4mo ago
It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.
- bigiain 4mo ago
  That sounds a lot like a rationalization desperately grasping at "surely it's not as insane as it sounds, what it _must_ mean is ... " I would want to read and perhaps get legal advice before relying on that interpretation - and before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants.
  - computerdork 4mo ago
    Am pretty sure he's right. I rent out my house, and it is very illegal for the landlord to record video inside the house (or even of the driveway). You are infringing the privacy of your tenants and is a huge no-no. Yeah, if you accidentally recorded families walking through their homes unclothed, this could land a landlord in jail.
    - wtallis 4mo ago
      The contract terms could very well have actually had a meaning that included filming inside the apartment. The existence of other laws overriding the contract isn't actually the same thing as the contract not having that invasive meaning.
      - monkpit 4mo ago
        You can’t make a contract that breaks the law, it doesn’t work that way. It’s unenforceable and doesn’t hold up in court. Otherwise, you could just make contracts anytime you wanted to break the law for any reason.
  - somenameforme 4mo ago
    Contracts don't and can't override laws.
    - rurban 4mo ago
      In normal states not. But there you have the very popular political system called fascism, where contracts override laws.
      - somenameforme 4mo ago
        That doesn't even make any sense. Fascism is generally about top-down enforced control, whereas contracts are heavily decentralized. The world where you'd have contracts override laws would be some sort of extreme anarcho-libertarian society, which is rather the opposite of fascism.
        rurban 4mo ago
        That's what you heard in school, defending the US style of fascism as "democratic". Fascism was a scheme to keep the old aristocrats turning industrialists to keep control of the state, whilst still keeping it under the democratic name. This was devised in the US in the 30ies and then in the old states also. Heavily supported by the US industrialists. Without them the fascism movement had no chance. The US scheme of fascism came up with cooperate contracts overriding state laws, also pleasing the Chicago crowd, with decentralized control. At the will of the cooperations, who know better than the government of course. That's why Rockefeller could gun down strikers without any repercussions. That's why the Railroad Commission could call state military to gun down independent oil cooperations which undercut prizes of the industrialists. That's not liberalism, that's pure fascism/cooperatism/aristocratism.
        rightbyte 4mo ago
        "Corporatism" not "cooperatism" though, right? Nothing wrong with cooperatism I think.
  - hvb2 4mo ago
    > before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants. If the law says you cannot do XYZ, your landlord can state otherwise in whatever verbiage but that's all void. This is why good consumer protection laws exist, in a well functioning society there things you sign are to protect the landlord from bad renters (don't pay, cause a nuisance etc). The law in general should protect you as the tenant from a bad landlord.
- smcleod 4mo ago
  Oh right, that's not so bad. Isn't that just being part of modern society? It would be nice to opt to never be recorded but also, it's outside.
- nkrisc 4mo ago
  If it didn’t say it, it doesn’t mean it.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- gerdesj 4mo ago
  Thank goodness you read the contract they signed and provided competent legal expertise throughout the process.
- thayne 4mo ago
  That is probably why it is in there, and probably how it would be used in practice. But these types of documents are almost written to be as broad and ask you to give up as many rights as possible.
- aesh2Xa1 4mo ago
  It does mean on the property and including inside facilities. Maybe that's at the gym or by the pool, and maybe you're actually not comfortable becoming a swimsuit model.
- deepsun 4mo ago
  Well the document didn't say "public spaces". I also think they meant public spaces, but it wasn't in the documents. Even then, I do not consent to work as an unpaid actor even in public spaces. I'm ok to be it at conferences, organized coworking parties -- no problem. But my living space when I don't suspect it -- hell no.
  - LorenPechtel 4mo ago
    It isn't really that onerous, they aren't expecting you to do anything. Rather, they want the right to film commercially on their own property without getting consent of everyone walking by. Many years ago a local casino was being used for a movie shoot, there were signs at the door saying that they're shooting a movie in here, if you're inside the casino it's possible you'll show up in the background of a shot. By entering you agree to this. An apartment can't do something like that because not entering is not a realistic option, so they're putting it in the rental agreement instead.
    - cwmoore 4mo ago
      This is about the landlords free use of video surveillance, not the cinema.
    - deepsun 4mo ago
      In that case they might just not film everyone passing by, it's not hard, it's an apartment complex, just max 1-2 people in a frame. Not hard to ask them. Or work as actors themselves. It's not like there's hundred of tenants all at the same time outside to make it hard (and if there's an event just ask everyone coming).
- gib444 4mo ago
  > It doesn’t mean Oh man if I had a pound for every time I've had a corporate dogsbody try to invent meanings of legal wording that doesn't actually exist and gaslight me... They are usually so passionate about it too. A simple "ah ok cool so you can add that word to the document" really annoys them. The other classic is just "it's just standard wording". Well yeah McDonald's is also "standard" food for many people but I massively disagree with that too
- geon 4mo ago
  That is already allowed.

m0llusk 4mo ago

This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.

collingreen 4mo ago
There is no version of basic security that extends to commercial use of your likeness in their marketing. Be reasonable.
deepsun 4mo ago
If it said so in the contract I would not have any issues, something like "recordings of you are available only to authorized security personnel, can be provided to you upon request for a reasonable price covering filtering and other paperwork, and can be shared solely for security and legal purposes".

plagiarist 4mo ago

I found some shit like that in a gym contract, which I then declined.

abawany 4mo ago

I've also read reviews of Greystar properties where the reviewers expressed shock at being forced to consent to such abuse.

engeljohnb 4mo ago

Rentals are exactly what I was talking about. Supposedly you can always go to someone else, but we all know in practice we can't just go without housing and if everyone decides you're "difficult," you're SOL. Earlier this week a potential landlord offered me a lease saying I had already inspected the property and found no issues with it. I asked for a chance to actually inspect before signing, and even said I would settle for a good quality video walkthrough. They told me the unit was "not available for viewing" because it wasn't finished yet, and by the time it was finished it would likely be taken. So why did you ask me to sign a contract saying I inspected a property that it's conceptually impossible to inspect?? I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property." Of course, still not as insane as your story.

fluoridation 4mo ago
Sounds like typical high pressure salesmanship.
kmoser 4mo ago
> I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property." Was it a paper lease? Because you could always cross out that section before signing, not to mention write in your own addendum. They would probably still balk, but you'd be within your rights to do so.
- goosejuice 4mo ago
  Good luck finding a landlord that would agree to your terms.
  - filoeleven 4mo ago
    Much easier to find one that won't notice the markup, though. You think they read the contracts any more carefully than most people?
- voakbasda 4mo ago