Nobody wants to be filmed without their knowledge. Why do accounts like Influencers in the Wild and Joey Swoll make up so much of the content we watch?
I believe that’s not the law though. The law outlines the conditions under which a person has an “expectation of privacy.” If you’re inside your house, you have an expectation of privacy and so should not be filmed. If you’re on the sidewalk in public, you have no expectation of privacy. If you’re in a private establishment (restaurant or store for instance), the owner or their representatives can ask you not to record and you have to comply.
All of street photography depends on this kind of legal framework.
If you’re on the sidewalk in public, you have no expectation of privacy.
Under normal context, that’s correct.
But if you are purposely being filmed as part of a movie, project, “prank” or anything else that makes you the “talent”, it moves into a commercial licensing/permit/consent realm.
I’ve been to loads of public events where I’ve had to sign a release form acknowledging that my photo may be captured and that those images may be used in marketing/social media posts, etc. That’s because being at the event makes me the subject. While this wouldn’t be a concern if other people in the group are taking photos/video for their own personal use, the fact that those images may be used for commercial purposes changes the context.
If social media asshats want to use someone’s photos or video for their own commercial purposes, they should be following the same rules as any other professional.
For clarity, we aren’t talking about randos being filmed while on a walking tour of a city; we’re talking about specific people being targeted and recorded as the main subject without consent and with the explicit purpose to use their video for commercial content.
Nearly every country has laws protecting people from having their images used for commercial purposes without consent.
I believe that’s not the law though. The law outlines the conditions under which a person has an “expectation of privacy.” If you’re inside your house, you have an expectation of privacy and so should not be filmed. If you’re on the sidewalk in public, you have no expectation of privacy. If you’re in a private establishment (restaurant or store for instance), the owner or their representatives can ask you not to record and you have to comply.
All of street photography depends on this kind of legal framework.
Under normal context, that’s correct.
But if you are purposely being filmed as part of a movie, project, “prank” or anything else that makes you the “talent”, it moves into a commercial licensing/permit/consent realm.
I’ve been to loads of public events where I’ve had to sign a release form acknowledging that my photo may be captured and that those images may be used in marketing/social media posts, etc. That’s because being at the event makes me the subject. While this wouldn’t be a concern if other people in the group are taking photos/video for their own personal use, the fact that those images may be used for commercial purposes changes the context.
If social media asshats want to use someone’s photos or video for their own commercial purposes, they should be following the same rules as any other professional.
For clarity, we aren’t talking about randos being filmed while on a walking tour of a city; we’re talking about specific people being targeted and recorded as the main subject without consent and with the explicit purpose to use their video for commercial content.
Nearly every country has laws protecting people from having their images used for commercial purposes without consent.
Law and morality don’t always align, what’s legal is not always morally good and should not be treated as such