Is It Time to Stop Filming Strangers in Public?

https://petapixel.com/2024/06/04/is-it-time-to-stop-filming-strangers-in-public/

by bookofjoe • 2 years ago

50 91 2 years ago

JKCalhoun2• 2 years ago

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• 2 years ago

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

Suzuran3• 2 years 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.

JKCalhoun2• 2 years 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

pfdietz• 2 years 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.

jsjohnst• 2 years ago

I think a reasonable outcome would be to make a distinction between incidental recording (I have a camera recording Times Square and happen to pass you) as opposed to direct recording (as in you are the subject of what I’m recording). It’s definitely a grey area still, but would help if we want to apply limits on this type of content.

ryandrake5• 2 years ago

It would be really hard to prove in court that someone's picture of you was direct vs incidental, especially with how good cameras are. In a few years time, if I wanted to illegally take a "direct" picture of someone I was creeping on or stalking, or just film something that would embarrass someone, I'll be able to whip out my 100 gigapixel camera and take a benign picture/video of the overall area and simply crop the subject later.

eqvinox12• 2 years ago

Just for reference, what they're describing is already illegal in Germany, and by the first two articles of the constitution no less. (DE: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutsch... - no english version of this wikipedia article sadly)

(You are not allowed to publish¹ photos or film specific/individual people without their consent. This is only abated when individual people are not the focus of photographing/recording, i.e. crowds or random stragglers in photos of other things.)

¹ edit/correction: this originally said "take" rather than "publish". The legal limits relevant here are on publishing, not taking photos/filming.

Rinzler893• 2 years ago

Same in Austria. You aren't allowed to film people in public without their consent.

This is overall a positive but it comes with many downsides as well like if you want to get evidence on someone doing something wrong or screwing you over.

ghaff5• 2 years ago

And how many photos of clearly-identifiable people in those countries do you suppose get published to the internet every hour?

vetinari2• 2 years ago

It has also lot of consequences, which are not obvious to people from other countries.

For example, no dashcams in D-A-CH.

boffinAudio8• 2 years ago

You aren't allowed to film people in public without their consent.

This is incorrect. You are allowed to film anything you can see and hear in public - you are not allowed to publish those pictures, or use them for any commercial purpose, without consent.

boffinAudio8• 2 years ago

It must be understood that its not illegal in Germany to take someones picture in a public place, but to _publish_ it or make it available to the public, or use it for commercial purposes, without their permission.

That is a very distinct line that is often confused. If you are in public in Germany, I can take your picture - I cannot publish it, however, without your involvement. I can take your picture if you are in the middle of committing a crime, for the purposes of providing evidence to the police.

The fact is, it is a fundamental human right to be able to record ones environment, and this right is just as important as the right to be free from ridicule through a publication of ones image.

eqvinox12• 2 years ago

Thanks for the correction, I do keep fuzzying up taking vs. publishing. I've edited a note into the parent post.

(for completeness: taking photos is only restricted by §201a StGB, which makes illegal taking photos in someone's home or areas specifically secluded from public view, or if a person's helplessness is exposed)

djoldman• 2 years ago

Are there exceptions for police, fire fighters, elected officials, or other governmental employees? Are you allowed to do so for these people if they are acting in their official capacity?

wongarsu2• 2 years ago

Originally that was the case, but the current situation is better summarized as "it's complicated". Or in the words of the federal court of justice "Whether and to what extent the production of such images is illegal and impermissible or must be accepted by the person concerned can only be determined by taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and by carrying out a balancing of interests and interests that takes into account all the legal, and in particular constitutionally protected, positions of the parties involved."

Though as a private person you are generally right if you assume that in "normal" situations (so not filming a public bathroom or trying to take upskirt pictures or something like that) you are allowed to take pictures you don't want to publish, as long as you are willing to delete the pictures if the subject specifically asks for it.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutsch...

wongarsu2• 2 years ago

There is a short section in the English Wikipedia [1]. It however lacks all the nuance and interesting interactions listed in the German article. Not only are you allowed to photograph people if they are not the focus of the image, the expectation of privacy is also loosened for famous or exceptional people (though still stricter than in US law). In the case of artistic pieces there can also be a weighing of interests where the interest of art can take precedence over the interests of the person. Also you are for example allowed to photograph or film police in the execution of their duties, but you aren't allowed to write their name next to it.

The principle is easy to sum up, but applying it in practice on a nationwide scale opens up a lot of cases that have to be dealt with (and have been dealt with in German law)

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany

deng• 2 years ago

Illegal is one thing, but more importantly: many people will not at all appreciate you filming them, though it's probably very much depending on where you are (it's probably more accepted in tourist areas). Germany is actually relaxed regarding this compared to France, where you might really get into trouble for filming people without their consent.

josephg2• 2 years ago

France, too. I attended a clowning course over there last year and they reminded us constantly that we couldn’t photograph or film other students without their express permission - even out of class. It’s illegal under French law and they also consider it a gross violation of the person’s right to privacy.

Rinzler893• 2 years ago

I attended a clowning course

A WHAT now?

Would you say you are now fit to run a tech company?

jfengel2• 2 years ago

I've always admired the German Constitution for that.

The US Constitution was an extraordinary achievement in its time, but that time was two and a half centuries ago. A lot has changed, and the various patches applied to fix the obvious failings can't change the fundamental failings locked in at the beginning. Including the fact that it is practically impossible to fix, and has not been meaningfully amended in a half-century.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise to imagine how it might be written if excluded voices had some real say -- not just the rich, not just men, not just white people, not just the healthy, etc. The first article of the German constitution is an interesting take on benefitting from the world's increasing belief in the necessity of human dignity -- something noticeably missing from the US Constitution.

ryandrake5• 2 years ago

I agree with your overall point that the concept of innate "human dignity" is missing from the US Constitution. But, I'm not sure it's simply because of something missing from the time period, like the exclusion of various minorities from the process. The idea of human dignity is not a recent invention, and white male landowners are/were capable of valuing or not valuing it. One could argue that if the US's Founding Fathers valued human dignity, they would have enshrined it in the constitution along side of the things they did value, like Freedom Of This and Freedom Of That. Its omission could very well have been deliberate.

Turing_Machine8• 2 years ago

Including the fact that it is practically impossible to fix, and has not been meaningfully amended in a half-century.

Many would argue that it doesn't need to be "fixed".

I note in passing that Germany was controlled by Nazis (real Nazis, not just "disagrees with a communist" Nazis) within living memory, and until 1990, half of it was a communist slave state that sucked so bad that it needed armed guards to keep people from leaving.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise to imagine how it might be written if excluded voices had some real say

What exactly do you think the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments were about?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_...

matsemann2• 2 years ago

I bicycle with a camera to protect myself. I'd prefer the rules to be around publishing (which they already are where I live).

mobiuscog• 2 years ago

That's a good compromise, until you consider stalkers and/or Scientologists.

matsemann2• 2 years ago

But that would go under other laws already.

jraph2• 2 years ago

Okay but include "storing on someone else's computer" in the definition of "publishing" in this case.

I don't want to be recorded and uploaded to Google or Dropbox without my consent.

Although it's not totally satisfying: a record can leak. No record is the only guarantee for no leak.

boffinAudio8• 2 years ago

"Publishing" means making something available to the public.

It does not mean making my own copy of something.

rendall• 2 years ago

The article headline is about filming people in public but most of the video examples are not in public, but private spaces like gyms, pubs or work places. These are not the same thing.

eqvinox12• 2 years ago

Depends on the country/legal system, but most would consider at least pubs a public place. Gyms possibly as well, sometimes even more so than workplaces (because it's much harder to become an employee somewhere than it is to sign up for a gym.)

ghaff5• 2 years ago

Gyms feel more problematic--even outside of locker rooms. And companies tendnot to be too big on photographs of workplaces generally.

Pubs, music festivals, neighborhood BBQs, etc. seem a lot more natural as long as you aren't being obnoxious or someone asks you to stop.

giantg23• 2 years ago

This is pretty much covered by civil law. You can sue for commercial use of your image. After all, influencer is now a desired job and you can make money doing it. There may be some scenarios we're the person doesn't make money from sponsors and seeing could be more difficult, but technically goodwill is listed on balance sheets, so if theyre generating public goodwill towards their brand, there's still a basis. If you're a focus of the content, you can sue.

Someone1234• 2 years ago

You CAN sue, but you won't, because no lawyer will take the case and the potential gains in most cases don't pay for the filing fees let alone discourage the behavior. So with a few exceptions, videos like this go largely unchecked because the current system we have is too inefficient at these low financial levels.

giantg23• 2 years ago

You can always find a lawyer willing to take the case, as long as you're paying money and not on contingency.

Even if you make the recording or publishing illegal the cops aren't really going to do anything for such a low level offense, especially with such high volumes.

In either scenario, it's mostly a function of selective enforcement and intimidation.

Suzuran3• 2 years ago

I think the line should be drawn when there is a commercial interest - If the footage is monetized, the subject should have a veto. Other than that, it should not be prohibited for members of the public to make a recording of anyone's conduct in a public space, because to prohibit that would enable bad actors to harm others without possibility of being held responsible.

For example, imagine if it were illegal to make recordings of the Proud Boys in places where law enforcement actively encouraged them to commit criminal acts...

smnrg• 2 years ago

No, it's not time to stop taking photos of strangers because capturing a public moment is called documentary, reportage, and also is an art practiced for a century or more by the likes of Cartier-Bresson and Martin Parr. And it's a journalist's ethical duty, or even a citizen's, important in case of abuse of power, such as murdering by law enforcement forces in certain countries. However, it's important to dismantle platforms that reward engagement based on voyeurism and cruelty towards strangers for the purpose of advertising, such as the cases described in the article. So no, unless stop taking film and photos of strangers means disabling all the security cameras that constantly intrude in our lives in public spaces to analyze data unilaterally. Which is what would remain.

exabrial• 2 years ago

yes, absolutely.

rurban2• 2 years ago

Like with every other film/photo professional they need signed releases from all people on their images, to be used later. Or they will be taken to court by someone sooner or later. Nothing to worry about too much.

Same as using Beatles songs in videos. Which will cost you about $20.000 - $80.000

Biggest problem is that "influencers" have no formal education in publishing and copyright law. This is what we learned in film class in the very first week. But staying a free, not-regulated occupation is more important imho.

eqvinox12• 2 years ago

Do you have any context what legal framework the "release" mechanism is coming from? Is it copyright? Trademark (to your own likeness)? General right to photos showing you?

ghaff5• 2 years ago

In the US, "commercial use" specifically--as in marketing, advertising, etc.--typically requires a model release from of a person (and stock agencies tend to err on the side of caution in this regard). As I understand it, it's basically a right not to have your image commercially exploited.

As I also understand it though, it doesn't keep me from making money as a fine art poster or selling it to a newspaper for editorial use. Obviously there are gray areas. But it's not copyright. As the photographer I hold the copyright in any case.

rurban2• 2 years ago

UniverseHacker3• 2 years ago

As a dad that does a lot of outdoor adventures with my young son... apparently there is something cute or interesting looking about us, and strangers literally crowd around us snapping photos almost everytime we go out. Maybe half ask first, but when I say no they often try to argue "it's just a picture!" I am a very private person and don't put photos of myself or my family online at all, in any capacity, but there are tons of photos of us posted online by strangers against our will- I confirmed this via an AI facial recognition search engine.

My son is also often the only non-white kid in schools, summer camps, etc. so they want to use his photo on all of the advertising, billboards, newsletters, etc. usually without permission, and they act indignant when I stop them from doing so. Apparently it's all the rage to brag that your overpriced summercamp once had a non-white person enroll, and prominently use photos of them on everything forever.

Leave us alone!

bluefirebrand2• 2 years ago

I've found that people who are serious about photography tend to behave in a way that is exactly legal but still extremely annoying. They're relatively harmless (after all "it's just a picture!") but the behavior is still a public nuisance

A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. This was in Alberta, for those who care

It really made me think we need different laws about consent in photography. Surely we can carve out exceptions for photographing notable events, documenting crimes, crowd shots and other such valid reasons for photographing someone without consent, without allowing a rando with a camera to pester (and arguably intimidate) people just going about their day

Edit: There was also a case a few years ago of a guy going around taking creepshots of women, their butts and cleavage and such and publishing them. That was clearly illegal so we already do have some rules about public photography that is allowed and some that isn't.

ryandrake5• 2 years ago

A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal.

I think there's a line somewhere between "being annoying/rude/obnoxious" and "politely refusing to stop recording."

You can see this when you look at a few different "First Amendment Auditor" content creators. Some of them are obviously obnoxious, belligerent, and clearly looking for conflict. Others just quietly keep recording, politely but firmly ignoring the subject's (often themselves annoying) demands for them to stop. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the latter behavior. The former is kind of cheap and trashy, even if it's still legal.

seoulmetro2• 2 years ago

Why is taking photos with butts and cleavage in the picture illegal but not taking photos of someone?

"Clearly illegal"? How? What's the difference?

seoulmetro2• 2 years ago

I confirmed this via an AI facial recognition search engine.

Lol! You just put the more information of yourselves online by that one action than 1,000 happy snaps on Facebook would have.

There is some irony in knowing enough not to put your photos online but not knowing enough as to feed it the most key information for your identity possible.

"But they won't use this information!", nope. They will. "But it can't be tied back to me.", yep. It can.

mellosouls• 2 years ago

There are at least two different issues here, and it is a shame that they often seem conflated:

1. Filming without consent in public.

2. Uploading the media without consent of the subjects to social media or other public platform, or private channels with multiple participants.

I have no problem with the former - as others have pointed out, there is a long history of doing this in the name of art, documentation etc. Asking for consent just isn't often feasible in advance.

The latter though seems to me to be deeply unethical in principle, though there may be exceptions. It is the exposure to the view of others (often with intent to ridicule or shame) that seems to be the invasion of privacy and the aspect with significant potential to hurt.

Workaccount2• 2 years ago

My seemingly controversial take on this:

No one cares that you appear in a video on tiktok. No one. Content saturation is so intense than anyone who witnesses your generic human self for 6 seconds in a video short is going to have completely forgotten about it in the next 6 seconds.

Yes, for you the main character, it might feel like an egregious transgression. A victim of the ruthless paparazzi. But you are not that important, and are indistinguishable from the tens of thousands of other public wanderers who crop up in these videos.

Besides, they are supposed to have you sign a release form anyway.

underseacables• 2 years ago

Would this not also include filming people committing violence and crime? Police? Politicians? It's kind of impossible to draw the line between "illegal photography" and legitimate citizen journalism.

reify• 2 years ago

The brain dead single cell mulluscs of Airstrip One love it.

CCTV everywhere, the most CCTV surveilled country in the world.

If its not on their phones its on their doorbells

I dont do it and I dont tolerate it.

I love Germany.

No CCTV allowed in public places or by the general public.

This is how privacy should be enacted

naveen99• 2 years ago

Aren’t self driving cars necessarily filming everything in front of them all the time ?

Is It Time to Stop Filming Strangers in Public?

Related Stories