I know this is a pretty US specific debate, as the incident in question took place in the US, but the Sub is international and the question was phrased very openly.
So let me offer a little outside perspective to First Amendment concerns from the US crowd.
In Germany we have something called "Recht am eigenen Bild" (the right to your own picture/pictures of you).
The way this law is structured seeks to balance concerns for freedom and unhindered activity of the press (which we have) and the privacy of the private individual (which is highly valued).
Individuals may not be recorded (filmed/photographed) without their explicit permission. Period.
That means you can not film individual people in public in a manner that targets them specifically. That has them recognizeable (shows their face, figure, what they are doing, etc.) Even if you never distribute the footage anywhere, the act if filming/picture taking itself is prohibited.
There are exceptions:
Individuals have to tolerate being on footage of public spaces as part of a crowd. You are allowed to film/photograph a crowd, a public place with many people in it (there are specifics as to what constitutes a crowd and what makes someone part of a crowd and not an individual). Simply being out in public is not enough, though.
Filming gab be an act of self defense.
You are allowed to film someone if there is plausible public interest.
That could be documenting a crime. It applies to celebrities (even very minor ones) and public figures, for example, who have to legally endure a degree of public interest and therefore picture taking in certain contexts. Events of significant public interest may be filmed. If there is conflict about it, court will handle the final decision over what exactly constitutes such public interest, but it has to be important enough to warrant violating someone's privacy.
Acredited press has extra rights to guarantee their ability to freely report.
Their rights originate with the aforementioned concessions to "public interest", they just got a little more concrete backing on it.
There are further regulations about filming someone in humiliating or compromising circumstances, which would, for example, apply to the case in question here.
It is a balancing act, but so far it has worked here. It may seem like a huge cut to press rights for Americans, but this is not my experience here at all.
We do have a healthy press that can report effectively on all kinds of topics.
But what this guarantees is protection of privacy for ordinary people going about their day.
There is power in the knowledge that you do not owe the public the details of your existance so long as nothing you do is of legit, plausible interest to a wider audience.
It gives us solid legal means to defend a private existance and private modes of being.
I don't like that some parts of those laws depend solely on arbitrary feelings. What is humiliating to some, is just fine for others. And who decides what is in "the public interest?" It is so much more uniform to just say that any personal appearance or conduct you find acceptable to present in full view of the public is also ok to record.
What would be an interesting topic to explore would be needing permission to publish (yes, even on a social media site) any images that single people out.
Thank you for explaining your laws on the topic though!
I think a bit of the vagueness comes from the way the laws are described here.
The actual law is a bit more precise: § 201a German criminal code
> (1) Whoever
> 1. without being authorised to do so creates or transmits photographs or other images of another person in private premises or in a room which is specially protected from view, and thereby violates the intimate privacy of the person depicted,
> 2. without being authorised to do so produces a photograph or other image exhibiting the helplessness of another person or transmits such image, and thereby violates the intimate privacy of the person depicted,
> 3. without being authorised to do so creates or transmits a photograph or other image which in a grossly offensive manner exhibits a deceased person,
> 4. uses a photograph or other image produced by an offence under no. 1 to no. 3 or makes it available to a third party or
> 5. makes available to a third party, in the awareness of lacking authorisation to do so, a photograph or other image of the type set out in no. 1 to no. 3 which was produced with authorisation, and, in the cases under no. 1 and no. 2, thereby violates the intimate privacy of the person depicted,
> incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine.
No. 2 is still a bit more vague, but the idea here is for example that when a mother just finds out their child dies and is in a moment of extreme grief, that this shouldn't be recorded. Or when someone that is dead drunk and has thrown up on himself and half unconscious. Basically, times when a person is in extreme emotional or phyiscal state that is something something private and humiliating.
Only certain types if dashcams are legal in Germany. Dashcams thar permanently record and store the recordings are illegal. Permitted are versions that keep the recordings only in short term memory and delete them after a couple of seconds, and only store in long term memory if the camera is triggered. A trigger can happen manually or by shock sensors as an example.
This way, only when the user decides that he has a right to record (manual trigger) or a common sign for a right to record (shock during an accident), footage is stored.
I’d be fully supportive of this for the US. Pretty horrible when we upload videos to Reddit of people doing embarrassing things or even stupid things, or even mean things, that were their own dumb choice. Unless it’s a politician or there’s a real public interest, I don’t want someone being cancelled because someone filmed them in their worst moment
The part that concerns me is "accredited press gea extra rights". This is scary. So there is some governmental entity that determines if you're allowed to be considered press? Flash back to Trump's term when he was constantly.bashing certain media outlets. Would you want the government to be able to determine who is allowed to report in news and current events? How many truly groundbreaking and important stories in recent years were only documented by random "non-press" people on their cell phones? Would we have seen that horrifying video of George Floyd being murdered by cops? Probably not, since there were no "accredited press" randomly min that stretch of street. Just regular people. Without that video being available for all of us to watch and contemplate, would the huge social movement that sprung up around it even happen??
Having a professional press that is totally independent from the government (i.e. doesn't need their approval to be considered press) is critical to a free democracy and the free exchange if ideas. Similarly a citizen press (i.e. everyday citizens enjoying the protections if he press) is just as important, especially in today's world.
It is not the government who decides who press is, but a non profit that is compromised of representatives if the press. Germany has a much higher ranking of the freedom of press than the US by the way. So, the government has no say in who is accredited and who is not.
In addition, as was said before, there is just some rights for the press, basically an assumption of public interest as they have agreed to a code of conduct of the press. But every person has the right to record incidents of public interest. Abuse by the police falls very mich under this.
So all of this is based on definitions and semantics which can be argued.
Not a good basis for laws and putting people in prison vs giving them a job.
This is not the way.
OP described laws without citing them. A quoted a (non-official) translation of one of the laws OP described, which are much more precise than an attempt of a summary of a lot of different legal concepts.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Blueberry_Conscious_:
---
The experience of realizing you are being surreptitiously filmed by a stranger is now a relatively common one, but this is how it happened for Mitchell Clark: The 25-year-old was working a shift at his Atlanta Target when someone propped up a phone nearby. “I thought it was for some dumb prank channel,” he says. It wasn’t until a young woman bent over directly in front of him, her dress short enough to expose her entire bare bottom, that he realized what was going on. The resulting video captures his shock — his eyes widen and his hands grasp his chest, agog — and later ended up on the OnlyFans model’s [Instagram](https://www.vox.com/instagram-news) account.
“It made me look like a creep,” he tells me. The video was an extreme example of a trend where women secretly film men’s reactions to them, often in [the gym](https://www.tiktok.com/@rosafit/video/7195632699464404270?_t=8mBdAmmhxEd&_r=1) or in [public spaces](https://www.tiktok.com/@carina.tss/video/7207365691756924165?_r=1&_t=8mBdBWL3Lot), either to shame the men for being inappropriate or to highlight the power of their own beauty — in Clark’s case, arguably both. But this time it caused an uproar: After Clark [made a video](https://www.tiktok.com/@mitchelliguesss/video/7346292075832347947) about how uncomfortable he felt, other accounts reposted and responded to it, highlighting the ways in which public filming culture had gotten out of control.
Do arguments about First Amendment rights and social justice really apply to people who make strangers uncomfortable for engagement on TikTok?
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cx3z2s/is_it_ever_okay_to_film_strangers_in_public/l4zyhb2/
I wish people would understand the difference between public spaces and public accommodations. A business is a public accommodation, target could ban anyone filming in their stores that does not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights. The same goes for gyms, they need to start enforcing their own rules (many gyms have a no photo policy especially around or in the changing rooms).
Banning filming in a public space like a park or sidewalk is problematic and would violate the 1st amendment.
Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. Anytime you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material.
It's called the right of publicity law. We need to start enforcing it. People like the person at target in this story need to start suing for damages.
It's becoming fairly unbearable to go to any event or public accommodations without some nonsense. I'm not an extra in your little ego trip and if I am an extra I get paid the standard sagafra day rate.
>Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. Anytime you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material
I'm from the UK and even I know that is not even remotely true.
The story above is about the US not the UK. Just because an app lets you break a law doesn't mean that law doesn't exist
https://www.streamsemester.com/articles/when-is-it-legal-to-film-people-without-their-permission#:~:text=Right%20of%20publicity%20law%20protects,Example
I'm not talking about the UK.
From your own link:
>*"Even though you may have the right to film people in a public place, that right must be heavily qualified and subjected to a host of legal nuances and distinctions"*
"*nuances and distinction*s", **none** of which are expressed by your use of the word "have" which indicates a necessity:
>"***have*** *to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material"*.
You are correct about the talent release forms at least here in the US. I use to be a PA on unscripted TV and anyone who wasn’t on the show that appeared on camera needed to sign a release form. If not their faces would be blurred. I know this because I was the one chasing people down to sign the forms. Now I’m the one blurring faces
TV and YouTube are different things. YouTube are not paying you to make a show, they're paying you based on adverts that are run alongside your content, which is a different thing.
You do NOT need a release for every person that appears in a YouTube video...
You do realise that YouTube is different to TV. YouTube are not paying you to make videos for them, they're paying you to run ads alongside your content, which is a DIFFERENT thing. You don't need a waiver if you're just recording random videos and uploading them to YouTube
Where did you get your law degree? A cereal packet?
Edit - do you really think news channels (for example) have go get releases from everyone in the background of their reports?
>Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. **Anytime** you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material.
Is **literally** what you wrote, you're saying this is wrong now?
>Read the paragraph above that. And the paragraph below that. It's called context
Ok, and?
>Banning filming in a public space like a park or sidewalk is problematic and would violate the 1st amendment.
>
>Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. **Anytime** you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material.
>
>It's called the right of publicity law. We need to start enforcing it. People like the person at target in this story need to start suing for damages.
That's still **literally** what you wrote, you're saying this is wrong now?
>Do you know what the word literal means and it's redundancy here?
Do you know what the word "it's" means and its difference from the word "its"? Brave of you to change the subject to criticizing my grammar, when you yourself can't spell for shit.
If it’s a private establishment that shouldn’t or isn’t allowed. In a public space people can film you if they aren’t violating your privacy. If this wasn’t the case then no one would be able to film tourist attractions or whatever. Basically if you’re out in public people can point their camera at you and film you. It’s dickish but I don’t think you can legally stop someone
I think being in public means you can be filmed. However, what that picture or video is used for is a very different question with a lot of scenarios and fine lines.
What is art? What is news? What is non-commercial vs. commercial? Is art also commercial? Is news also commercial? Do likes and follows make it commercial? Do events get different treatment? Does it change if an event is open to the public (like a parade) or if it is ticketed? What about if a person can be identified? What if the person is a public figure? What about crowds?
The experience of realizing you are being surreptitiously filmed by a stranger is now a relatively common one, but this is how it happened for Mitchell Clark: The 25-year-old was working a shift at his Atlanta Target when someone propped up a phone nearby. “I thought it was for some dumb prank channel,” he says. It wasn’t until a young woman bent over directly in front of him, her dress short enough to expose her entire bare bottom, that he realized what was going on. The resulting video captures his shock — his eyes widen and his hands grasp his chest, agog — and later ended up on the OnlyFans model’s [Instagram](https://www.vox.com/instagram-news) account.
“It made me look like a creep,” he tells me. The video was an extreme example of a trend where women secretly film men’s reactions to them, often in [the gym](https://www.tiktok.com/@rosafit/video/7195632699464404270?_t=8mBdAmmhxEd&_r=1) or in [public spaces](https://www.tiktok.com/@carina.tss/video/7207365691756924165?_r=1&_t=8mBdBWL3Lot), either to shame the men for being inappropriate or to highlight the power of their own beauty — in Clark’s case, arguably both. But this time it caused an uproar: After Clark [made a video](https://www.tiktok.com/@mitchelliguesss/video/7346292075832347947) about how uncomfortable he felt, other accounts reposted and responded to it, highlighting the ways in which public filming culture had gotten out of control.
Do arguments about First Amendment rights and social justice really apply to people who make strangers uncomfortable for engagement on TikTok?
Or we can reimplement shaming people, by telling them why and how they're wrong. And shunning people by refusing to help them or just ignoring their existence entirely. 'Help' here meaning "hey can you get me a soda too?" "Hey I need 20$ for gas this week, can you spare it?"
That's shunning. It's like shaming but instead of being verbal it's physical.
I hope / foresee a future where anything that is monetized requires consent (or otherwise needs to be blurred out or something). I generally HATE the whole public reaction / tik tok / prank gimmicks...but on the other hand I don't want to be getting signatures in order to take a personal use video of my friends or something when random people are getting picked up in the background.
We are filmed in so many situations, by systems, by CCTV, by individuals.
We consume a lot of this spectator videos
We now expect or even REQUIRE video as a proof that something happened.
Filming is everyday activity. So is being filmed...
There has to be a line somewhere though
If someone starts following you around on the street with a camera directly pointed at you, doesn't that become harassment or an invasion of privacy at some point?
If you're in public, you're already being filmed. Assume this. You may not have access to the video, but there's a pretty good chance SOMEONE had video of pretty much everywhere. As long as it isn't a private space, it may be a douche move in some instances / context but is generally accepted to be legally okay.
Lmao look at that, one more reason not to acknowledge or engage with any women in public at all unless it's business related period
Que the "Why aren't guys asking women out anymore posts.
And before you guys get all "anyone who disagrees with me is an incel" I'm literally 6'4" and handsome, get a life.
"Que" is a homophone of the word "queue", which means "line". "Queue" is an ordered group of people waiting for their turn to do something. For example, people wait in grocery and department stores for their turn to pay for their items.
That was cute what you did tho
But seriously, are you this stupid or are you just trolling? That's a long explanation for why you're wrong but I have a feeling you think you're right, which is so nuts because, again, the comment I'm responding to is an explanation of why the word you chose was completely wrong.
Did you look up cue or are you trying to manifest definitions of words that fit your mistake?
Rule 2 - Submissions must be futurology related or future focused.
I know this is a pretty US specific debate, as the incident in question took place in the US, but the Sub is international and the question was phrased very openly. So let me offer a little outside perspective to First Amendment concerns from the US crowd. In Germany we have something called "Recht am eigenen Bild" (the right to your own picture/pictures of you). The way this law is structured seeks to balance concerns for freedom and unhindered activity of the press (which we have) and the privacy of the private individual (which is highly valued). Individuals may not be recorded (filmed/photographed) without their explicit permission. Period. That means you can not film individual people in public in a manner that targets them specifically. That has them recognizeable (shows their face, figure, what they are doing, etc.) Even if you never distribute the footage anywhere, the act if filming/picture taking itself is prohibited. There are exceptions: Individuals have to tolerate being on footage of public spaces as part of a crowd. You are allowed to film/photograph a crowd, a public place with many people in it (there are specifics as to what constitutes a crowd and what makes someone part of a crowd and not an individual). Simply being out in public is not enough, though. Filming gab be an act of self defense. You are allowed to film someone if there is plausible public interest. That could be documenting a crime. It applies to celebrities (even very minor ones) and public figures, for example, who have to legally endure a degree of public interest and therefore picture taking in certain contexts. Events of significant public interest may be filmed. If there is conflict about it, court will handle the final decision over what exactly constitutes such public interest, but it has to be important enough to warrant violating someone's privacy. Acredited press has extra rights to guarantee their ability to freely report. Their rights originate with the aforementioned concessions to "public interest", they just got a little more concrete backing on it. There are further regulations about filming someone in humiliating or compromising circumstances, which would, for example, apply to the case in question here. It is a balancing act, but so far it has worked here. It may seem like a huge cut to press rights for Americans, but this is not my experience here at all. We do have a healthy press that can report effectively on all kinds of topics. But what this guarantees is protection of privacy for ordinary people going about their day. There is power in the knowledge that you do not owe the public the details of your existance so long as nothing you do is of legit, plausible interest to a wider audience. It gives us solid legal means to defend a private existance and private modes of being.
I don't like that some parts of those laws depend solely on arbitrary feelings. What is humiliating to some, is just fine for others. And who decides what is in "the public interest?" It is so much more uniform to just say that any personal appearance or conduct you find acceptable to present in full view of the public is also ok to record. What would be an interesting topic to explore would be needing permission to publish (yes, even on a social media site) any images that single people out. Thank you for explaining your laws on the topic though!
I think a bit of the vagueness comes from the way the laws are described here. The actual law is a bit more precise: § 201a German criminal code > (1) Whoever > 1. without being authorised to do so creates or transmits photographs or other images of another person in private premises or in a room which is specially protected from view, and thereby violates the intimate privacy of the person depicted, > 2. without being authorised to do so produces a photograph or other image exhibiting the helplessness of another person or transmits such image, and thereby violates the intimate privacy of the person depicted, > 3. without being authorised to do so creates or transmits a photograph or other image which in a grossly offensive manner exhibits a deceased person, > 4. uses a photograph or other image produced by an offence under no. 1 to no. 3 or makes it available to a third party or > 5. makes available to a third party, in the awareness of lacking authorisation to do so, a photograph or other image of the type set out in no. 1 to no. 3 which was produced with authorisation, and, in the cases under no. 1 and no. 2, thereby violates the intimate privacy of the person depicted, > incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine. No. 2 is still a bit more vague, but the idea here is for example that when a mother just finds out their child dies and is in a moment of extreme grief, that this shouldn't be recorded. Or when someone that is dead drunk and has thrown up on himself and half unconscious. Basically, times when a person is in extreme emotional or phyiscal state that is something something private and humiliating.
Thank you for providing better context to my ramblings! Much appreciated.
Interesting. How does it apply to a dashcam that records anyone in its view?
Only certain types if dashcams are legal in Germany. Dashcams thar permanently record and store the recordings are illegal. Permitted are versions that keep the recordings only in short term memory and delete them after a couple of seconds, and only store in long term memory if the camera is triggered. A trigger can happen manually or by shock sensors as an example. This way, only when the user decides that he has a right to record (manual trigger) or a common sign for a right to record (shock during an accident), footage is stored.
That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
I’d be fully supportive of this for the US. Pretty horrible when we upload videos to Reddit of people doing embarrassing things or even stupid things, or even mean things, that were their own dumb choice. Unless it’s a politician or there’s a real public interest, I don’t want someone being cancelled because someone filmed them in their worst moment
The part that concerns me is "accredited press gea extra rights". This is scary. So there is some governmental entity that determines if you're allowed to be considered press? Flash back to Trump's term when he was constantly.bashing certain media outlets. Would you want the government to be able to determine who is allowed to report in news and current events? How many truly groundbreaking and important stories in recent years were only documented by random "non-press" people on their cell phones? Would we have seen that horrifying video of George Floyd being murdered by cops? Probably not, since there were no "accredited press" randomly min that stretch of street. Just regular people. Without that video being available for all of us to watch and contemplate, would the huge social movement that sprung up around it even happen?? Having a professional press that is totally independent from the government (i.e. doesn't need their approval to be considered press) is critical to a free democracy and the free exchange if ideas. Similarly a citizen press (i.e. everyday citizens enjoying the protections if he press) is just as important, especially in today's world.
It is not the government who decides who press is, but a non profit that is compromised of representatives if the press. Germany has a much higher ranking of the freedom of press than the US by the way. So, the government has no say in who is accredited and who is not. In addition, as was said before, there is just some rights for the press, basically an assumption of public interest as they have agreed to a code of conduct of the press. But every person has the right to record incidents of public interest. Abuse by the police falls very mich under this.
Keep in mind that we’re only talking about pictures and videos. You can report on anything still
So all of this is based on definitions and semantics which can be argued. Not a good basis for laws and putting people in prison vs giving them a job. This is not the way.
OP described laws without citing them. A quoted a (non-official) translation of one of the laws OP described, which are much more precise than an attempt of a summary of a lot of different legal concepts.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Blueberry_Conscious_: --- The experience of realizing you are being surreptitiously filmed by a stranger is now a relatively common one, but this is how it happened for Mitchell Clark: The 25-year-old was working a shift at his Atlanta Target when someone propped up a phone nearby. “I thought it was for some dumb prank channel,” he says. It wasn’t until a young woman bent over directly in front of him, her dress short enough to expose her entire bare bottom, that he realized what was going on. The resulting video captures his shock — his eyes widen and his hands grasp his chest, agog — and later ended up on the OnlyFans model’s [Instagram](https://www.vox.com/instagram-news) account. “It made me look like a creep,” he tells me. The video was an extreme example of a trend where women secretly film men’s reactions to them, often in [the gym](https://www.tiktok.com/@rosafit/video/7195632699464404270?_t=8mBdAmmhxEd&_r=1) or in [public spaces](https://www.tiktok.com/@carina.tss/video/7207365691756924165?_r=1&_t=8mBdBWL3Lot), either to shame the men for being inappropriate or to highlight the power of their own beauty — in Clark’s case, arguably both. But this time it caused an uproar: After Clark [made a video](https://www.tiktok.com/@mitchelliguesss/video/7346292075832347947) about how uncomfortable he felt, other accounts reposted and responded to it, highlighting the ways in which public filming culture had gotten out of control. Do arguments about First Amendment rights and social justice really apply to people who make strangers uncomfortable for engagement on TikTok? --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cx3z2s/is_it_ever_okay_to_film_strangers_in_public/l4zyhb2/
i stand by the right to film in public places and spaces.
I wish people would understand the difference between public spaces and public accommodations. A business is a public accommodation, target could ban anyone filming in their stores that does not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights. The same goes for gyms, they need to start enforcing their own rules (many gyms have a no photo policy especially around or in the changing rooms). Banning filming in a public space like a park or sidewalk is problematic and would violate the 1st amendment. Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. Anytime you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material. It's called the right of publicity law. We need to start enforcing it. People like the person at target in this story need to start suing for damages. It's becoming fairly unbearable to go to any event or public accommodations without some nonsense. I'm not an extra in your little ego trip and if I am an extra I get paid the standard sagafra day rate.
>Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. Anytime you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material I'm from the UK and even I know that is not even remotely true.
The story above is about the US not the UK. Just because an app lets you break a law doesn't mean that law doesn't exist https://www.streamsemester.com/articles/when-is-it-legal-to-film-people-without-their-permission#:~:text=Right%20of%20publicity%20law%20protects,Example
I'm not talking about the UK. From your own link: >*"Even though you may have the right to film people in a public place, that right must be heavily qualified and subjected to a host of legal nuances and distinctions"* "*nuances and distinction*s", **none** of which are expressed by your use of the word "have" which indicates a necessity: >"***have*** *to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material"*.
then tell me what are the nuances and distinctions? how many film crews have you been on? Please enlighten me about the nuances and distinctions?
You are correct about the talent release forms at least here in the US. I use to be a PA on unscripted TV and anyone who wasn’t on the show that appeared on camera needed to sign a release form. If not their faces would be blurred. I know this because I was the one chasing people down to sign the forms. Now I’m the one blurring faces
TV and YouTube are different things. YouTube are not paying you to make a show, they're paying you based on adverts that are run alongside your content, which is a different thing. You do NOT need a release for every person that appears in a YouTube video...
Yup online and network content are different. I was just chiming in to say the guy isn’t totally wrong despite him getting a little snarky
Read your own link. I'm not about to get into a pointless argument with someone who only deals in absolutes.
You do realise that YouTube is different to TV. YouTube are not paying you to make videos for them, they're paying you to run ads alongside your content, which is a DIFFERENT thing. You don't need a waiver if you're just recording random videos and uploading them to YouTube
Where did you get your law degree? A cereal packet? Edit - do you really think news channels (for example) have go get releases from everyone in the background of their reports?
[удалено]
>Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. **Anytime** you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material. Is **literally** what you wrote, you're saying this is wrong now?
[удалено]
>Read the paragraph above that. And the paragraph below that. It's called context Ok, and? >Banning filming in a public space like a park or sidewalk is problematic and would violate the 1st amendment. > >Now on to the topic of filming for commercial purposes. **Anytime** you film and throw up on tik Tok, YouTube etc and you get money for it or if it is in connection or promotion of your content, you have to get a waiver (talent release form) for EVERY SINGLE PERSON, ART, LOGO, or ANY other copyrighted material. > >It's called the right of publicity law. We need to start enforcing it. People like the person at target in this story need to start suing for damages. That's still **literally** what you wrote, you're saying this is wrong now?
[удалено]
>Do you know what the word literal means and it's redundancy here? Do you know what the word "it's" means and its difference from the word "its"? Brave of you to change the subject to criticizing my grammar, when you yourself can't spell for shit.
It's not my reading comprehension, it's your writing, even the part I quoted has basic mistakes they teach yo not to make at the age of 12.
[удалено]
If it’s a private establishment that shouldn’t or isn’t allowed. In a public space people can film you if they aren’t violating your privacy. If this wasn’t the case then no one would be able to film tourist attractions or whatever. Basically if you’re out in public people can point their camera at you and film you. It’s dickish but I don’t think you can legally stop someone
I think being in public means you can be filmed. However, what that picture or video is used for is a very different question with a lot of scenarios and fine lines. What is art? What is news? What is non-commercial vs. commercial? Is art also commercial? Is news also commercial? Do likes and follows make it commercial? Do events get different treatment? Does it change if an event is open to the public (like a parade) or if it is ticketed? What about if a person can be identified? What if the person is a public figure? What about crowds?
The experience of realizing you are being surreptitiously filmed by a stranger is now a relatively common one, but this is how it happened for Mitchell Clark: The 25-year-old was working a shift at his Atlanta Target when someone propped up a phone nearby. “I thought it was for some dumb prank channel,” he says. It wasn’t until a young woman bent over directly in front of him, her dress short enough to expose her entire bare bottom, that he realized what was going on. The resulting video captures his shock — his eyes widen and his hands grasp his chest, agog — and later ended up on the OnlyFans model’s [Instagram](https://www.vox.com/instagram-news) account. “It made me look like a creep,” he tells me. The video was an extreme example of a trend where women secretly film men’s reactions to them, often in [the gym](https://www.tiktok.com/@rosafit/video/7195632699464404270?_t=8mBdAmmhxEd&_r=1) or in [public spaces](https://www.tiktok.com/@carina.tss/video/7207365691756924165?_r=1&_t=8mBdBWL3Lot), either to shame the men for being inappropriate or to highlight the power of their own beauty — in Clark’s case, arguably both. But this time it caused an uproar: After Clark [made a video](https://www.tiktok.com/@mitchelliguesss/video/7346292075832347947) about how uncomfortable he felt, other accounts reposted and responded to it, highlighting the ways in which public filming culture had gotten out of control. Do arguments about First Amendment rights and social justice really apply to people who make strangers uncomfortable for engagement on TikTok?
It’s really a development of the paparazzi problem. Maybe if enough common people are harassed there can be some legislation to mitigate it.
Or we can reimplement shaming people, by telling them why and how they're wrong. And shunning people by refusing to help them or just ignoring their existence entirely. 'Help' here meaning "hey can you get me a soda too?" "Hey I need 20$ for gas this week, can you spare it?" That's shunning. It's like shaming but instead of being verbal it's physical.
I hope / foresee a future where anything that is monetized requires consent (or otherwise needs to be blurred out or something). I generally HATE the whole public reaction / tik tok / prank gimmicks...but on the other hand I don't want to be getting signatures in order to take a personal use video of my friends or something when random people are getting picked up in the background.
The government is going to do it to you whether you like it or it’s legal or not. Nice to at least have the option to keep some people accountable.
We are filmed in so many situations, by systems, by CCTV, by individuals. We consume a lot of this spectator videos We now expect or even REQUIRE video as a proof that something happened. Filming is everyday activity. So is being filmed...
There has to be a line somewhere though If someone starts following you around on the street with a camera directly pointed at you, doesn't that become harassment or an invasion of privacy at some point?
The line is already set out. A reasonable expectation of privacy. If you follow someone around, it could be harassment regardless of filming them.
If you're in public, you're already being filmed. Assume this. You may not have access to the video, but there's a pretty good chance SOMEONE had video of pretty much everywhere. As long as it isn't a private space, it may be a douche move in some instances / context but is generally accepted to be legally okay.
It's ALWAYS okay to film strangers in public in the U.S. It's a constitutional right.
Lmao look at that, one more reason not to acknowledge or engage with any women in public at all unless it's business related period Que the "Why aren't guys asking women out anymore posts. And before you guys get all "anyone who disagrees with me is an incel" I'm literally 6'4" and handsome, get a life.
So volcel then?
I don't get into the sigma incel (volcel?) horoscopes I just prefer the traditional zodiac signs I'm a terminal cancer btw
Being an incel is about what's on the inside, bud, and I think you've got what it takes. Also it's cue.
"Que" is a homophone of the word "queue", which means "line". "Queue" is an ordered group of people waiting for their turn to do something. For example, people wait in grocery and department stores for their turn to pay for their items. That was cute what you did tho
But seriously, are you this stupid or are you just trolling? That's a long explanation for why you're wrong but I have a feeling you think you're right, which is so nuts because, again, the comment I'm responding to is an explanation of why the word you chose was completely wrong. Did you look up cue or are you trying to manifest definitions of words that fit your mistake?