When I worked in film/tv production we were perpetually getting signed releases from people who were in the shot. Is this just not a thing now? Or is the downside so low that nobody cares?
The downside is proportional to pocket size. If you’re a rando Tik Toker or YouTuber, you have nothing to take (or so little, you can round down to zero). A production company has assets or capitalization at risk, hence the legal dance around releases.
With the current anti TikTok feeling in the US, I wonder how hard it would be to push for laws requiring TikTok to delete accounts of users who do this kind of content?
TikTok assholes may not have any assets to make them worth suing (or even any identities you can point your lawyer at), but one thing that they do value is their following, if we can make this sort of shitty behaviour an existential risk to their TikTok clout, perhaps the behaviour will go away. Humiliating people in public for lulz should be a bankable offence on all social media platforms, with the only defence being pre-existing model releases if you're doing it with informed and paid actors.
Different shades from a release for being in the shot versus recording someone’s conversation, but an important call out nonetheless. Interestingly, I haven’t heard of any criminal cases where social media folks have recorded and shared public conversations on platforms (TikTok, r/PublicFreakout, etc). Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, so if you’ve got case law to share, drop it here. I presume (Not a lawyer! Not legal advice!) that depending on jurisdiction, you may record anything in public assuming there is no expectation of privacy in the situation.
A Maryland case where a motorcyclist, using a helmet cam, video & audio records a cop brandishing a gun. Motorcyclist posts the video online only to be arrested and charged with a felony for having made the recording. The court threw out the charges.
In general, that's true. However there are exceptions. Things like upskirt shots, recording in courtrooms, recording full or partial nudity (ie filming sunbathers), etc.
I don't think GP said anything about intent. If you "accidentally" upskirt someone and release it on TikTok, the victim and the court isn't going to be too impressed with "I didn't mean to and didn't notice it before uploading". Of course, there is some expectation of "within reason". Like, if you have to look at the reflection in the window, it is entirely reasonable to think someone may not have noticed before uploading.
What can be a crime? If you’re in a public space (and not the legal definition of public —- a mall is considered a public space despite being privately owned) you have no legal expectation of privacy. Period. End of story. There are very good reasons for this, despite the fact in creative tiktokers are definitely exercising the bounds of the law.
Of course if the content somehow slanders or misrepresents someone, that’s another issue.
I tend to agree with your POV but as a counterpoint, in Japan it's against the law to film people in public without their permission. A shot of a crowd is unlikely to get you in trouble, and in fact, a shot taken without permission but that the person you took it of never finds out is unlikely to get you in trouble (although that's the same for shoplifting)
But, it is the law there and it is often enforced. As an example you can find public exhibitions with signs up "no photography". You'll even find these signs at trade shows at many booths where you'd expect the entire point is to show off to the public.
The point is, different cultures have different feelings about this.
IIUC, it was Japan that made Google Maps remove faces from streetview.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it’s correct for the U.S. Reminds me of the famous “Photographer’s Rights” pamphlet http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf and there definitely are people out there making confrontation videos with security guards and police for YouTube based on knowing they can’t legally be stopped for shooting in public. It might be lame, but it is legal.
> Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it’s correct for the U.S.
That's the problem: A US-centric "end of story, period" generalization. In general, you are not allowed to take pictures of other people in public without their consent in Germany and many other countries.
I didn't want to get into details, but in general: no, photographing a person in public without consent is not allowed in Germany. It's called "Recht am eigenen Bild" = rights for my own picture. Now there are many exceptions of course: crowds, prominent people, journalism, etc. Also, if someone looks into your camera and smiles, this is considered a consent. All this is about taking a picture, publishing is a separate matter.
What if you go to the roof of a building and take a photo of a crowd on the street below? Do you need to get everyone's permission to publish that? What if you can't even recognize their faces from that distance? This law seems impractical, unless there's exceptions noted in the text of the law itself.
Crowds and persons insignificant/incidental to the image composition, as well as "newsworthy events" (e.g. a politician speaking in their function) are mostly exempt, so all of these examples are not a problem, practically.
Given that the parent was claiming that you're not even allowed to take a photo of somebody in public in Germany, I think the salient point here is "you actually can, unless you publish it", and it's less relevant that you can also publish it in many of these cases.
If you’re in a public space (and not the legal definition of public [...] you have no legal expectation of privacy. Period. End of story.
Wrong (as so often with people who assert things like 'period. end of story.')
*photography is permitted in public spaces, you don't have a right to not be photographed in public. but in many jurisdictions, including California, recording other people's conversations requires consent from all participants in the conversation. Doing so covertly is treated as equivalent to wiretapping and is a crime, as well as exposing you to civil liability.
We must also distinguish between recording and publicizing. At least in Norway, it is legal to take photos of strangers (as long as you don't harass or scare anyone), but you dare not free to share them publicly without consent. There are exceptions, of course, such as noteworthy events, crowds, and things that it is in the public's benefit to see, but otherwise, you must be careful
For example, street photography is kind of a grey area, I don't think it has ever been brought to court
Try filming in a courtroom. There are also laws against filming upskirt, full or partial nudity even if in a public setting, etc in my state and in similar states. Since you brought up privately owned but open to the public spaces, owners can set their own rules and ask you to leave if you violate them.
The point is, circumstances matter. This isn't an absolute right and has some restrictions to it (as do pretty much all rights it seems).
How about some respect for the strangers that also have a right to use the shared public space. Is it really too much to get consent before they start recording?
Signing the releases isn't in the videos you make right? Institutional knowledge isn't transferred to people on tiktok. They replicate what they see, which is the walking up to people part. All the stuff behind the scenes is only known by people working in the industry.
The legal situation is different if the intended use of the footage is commercial (film/tv in your case) or not. Getting releases is still very much a thing in all the shoots I've been on recently.
The US national parks service considers recording and then uploading the recording to youtube to be commercial. It requires permits to do so for many national parks.
Did the release signing come after the intrusiveness? Or do all the “man on the street” segments feature people who were asked off-camera for permission?
in my experience growing up in LA in the 90s, hanging around where "reality" tv was being shot on the street, you usually get approached with a release by producers after they've already gotten you in a shot.
In documentaries I worked on we would tell people what we were doing and ask them if we could talk to them and then get a release afterwards. Not sure about other types of shows.
It's my understanding that tv and film people do the signed releases because they don't want to be sued, not because they necessarily wouldn't eventually win an expensive legal battle if they were sued.
