who wants to plan a rideout there?
lets go show her the video!
who wants to plan a rideout there?
lets go show her the video!
She was prob the first to see it
Bint: “I’ll say you assaulted me”…
Guy: “I’m filming this you realise”
Bint: “I don’t care, I’ll say it anyway”
Seriously, daft woman. Filming in a public place is absolutely 100% legal, threatening to have people incorrectly charged with assault through perjuring oneself is not.
I once had a policeman order me to turn my video camera off on a public road (complicated scenario that doesn’t need explaining here). I refused and explained that if he thought I was breaking the law he should arrest me, otherwise he should leave me alone. He went off and spoke to someone on his radio, then he came back and actually apologised. He told me that he didn’t realise that absent a specific legal prohibition it is legal to photograph/video anywhere in public, and that he would appreciate it if I didn’t publicise the recording of his mistake. He was so polite about it, and asking me rather than demanding, that I gladly deleted that bit of film (I wasn’t there to film him!).
-simon
Well her thinking twice in future before blocking all the traffic, for a start. And if this prevents an ambulance from being held up, and a life therefore gets saved, then more’s the better. Or perhaps a fire engine, on its way to save an entire family.
Idiots, especially dangerous ones, should be exposed for who they are. Otherwise they will never learn.
The woman is a tool, her husband is a tool - they obviously think themselves important enough to hold up a queue of traffic for no good reason.
They deserve all the piss taking they get, I wouldn’t have bothered filming it but it obviously drove the point home in a way that stuck traffic beeping at her wouldn’t. Her reaction is what made people pay attention, she could have just accepted that she was in the wrong (or just left) and gone about her day but she was so ignorant that she got on her high horse and threatened false assault charges
Anyone suggesting violent retribution is obviously mental but a bit of gentle piss taking might help her settle into the modern world a bit better in the long term.
Just so everyone on here is fully informed if this sort of thing was to happen to you, yes filming in public is completely legal HOWEVER, filming “OTHER PEOPLE” is at their discretion NOT yours unless there is a legimate public reason for filming someone, ie commtting a crime… just filming her walking along isn’t actually proof of a crime, so until she started behaving in a threatening way, it was actually 50/50 who was in the right and who was in the wrong…
Was he actually filming her before she came up to him? I thought he was just filming the traffic?
Presumably you’re allowed to film people in the background or it’d be impossible to film anything in a town without accidentally catching someone in shot?
Is there a definition of filming a person as opposed to catching them on film
e.g if i was wearing a helmet cam and someone happened to cross the road in front of me - is that OK? What if they came to talk to me and ‘accidentally’ filmed them.
Rubbish. Filming other people is at their discretion only when they can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being in a public place such as on a road, you have no expectation of privacy. Please cite any law or even guideline which states otherwise.
-simon
Are you sure?
How so/why so does video differ from still images?
As far as still images are concerned, if you’re in the public domain, then you’re fair game - and have no right to stop someone taking your photograph. In fact, I believe there is an entire profession built upon it (whether it is a moral way to make a living is an entirely different topic though )
shes definately a stupid cow but the death threats are a bit OTT. she
s probably regretting her actions and hating life at the moment anyway. but on the other hand you know what they say - any publicity is good publicity. i bet her shop`s doing a roaring trade.
You’re absolutely right about taking the images… but you publish them at your peril.
If someone makes it clear that you don’t have the right to publish their image (and in film terms its bloody easy to do that, you just say, I don’t want you filming me) then you are responsible for that footage, and if its published that’s your responsibility.
Look at how many “alleged criminals” whose crimes are blatantly filmed on cop shows, who still have their faces pixellated… why are we protecting crims if we can film anyone we like? Be careful with your camera, that’s all I’m saying…
YES, there is a definition… incidental capture, ie brief, and not really sufficient to identify someone is accpetable, but if someone can be identified, either by who they are, or by their actions… then you are repsonsible for getting their permission to both film and publish them (ie broadcast in the public domain)
That said, most filming is got away with without any permission sought or given… however, you film the wrong person, and they like using their lawyer, then you can have problems… just depends on the circumstance. This is why any TV/media lawyer worth his salt will err on the side of caution no matter how pissed off that makes the producer…
No. Simply filming someone and publishing the film is not illegal. However, there are a number of things which are illegal that filming may be a part of. For example, constantly following someone around and filming them could be considered harassment, which is illegal. Or another example - deliberately recording something intended to be private, even though it happens in a public place, could be considered an invasion of privacy (and a civil suit could well end up awarding damages).
Even Ofcom’s rules about filming for broadcast in public places only state that the broadcaster “should” obtain consent and that they “should” stop if asked - there is no legal requirement to do so (and if warranted the broadcaster shouldn’t stop even if asked!):
If the broadcast of a programme would infringe the privacy of a person or organisation, consent should be obtained before the relevant material is broadcast, unless the infringement of privacy is warranted.
If an individual or organisation's privacy is being infringed, and they ask that the filming, recording or live broadcast be stopped, the broadcaster should do so, unless it is warranted to continue.
(taken from their broadcast code at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/privacy/).
So I say again - cite me one single law or provide one single link which unambiguously states that the act of filming someone in public is illegal, or retract your false statements…
-simon
i’m confused.
Am I allowed to film over the door to the womens changing rooms at TK Maxx or not?
I must say, I still don’t agree with your argument.
I imagine (though am not 100% and have not looked it up) the criminals are censored because they were eventually found innocent in court/the CPS decided not to press charges … etc etc …
On the topic of the crims … how many of the same programmes have the lairy idiots screaming “get that effing camera out of my face” … just before the coppers bundle them onto the floor/throw them in the back of the van, yet aren’t pixellated.
Similarly … wouldn’t it be a simple case for the celebrities just to write a letter to all the red-tops/magazines saying “you do not have my permission to publish my photograph”?
No. But I’d love to watch your private collection of films
don’t care if it’s not allowed, just get on with it already and send a few videos over :w00t: