这两天在网络上一个热闹的话题：
围绕伦敦街头拍摄而引发的争执
在英国和美国大部分州，在公共场合被拍摄的人可以表明自己不愿意被录后，被录的视频如果不被删除就可能会是非法的
美国
https://recordinglaw.com/can-i-sue-some ... -property/
It is unlawful to film anyone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy without consent in 34 states.
英国
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/21081632/ ... %20grounds.
This rule also applies to crowded places.
According to the internet law centre, filming an individual where they are expecting their experience to remain private, could be unlawful.
This also includes large events.
The law centre said: "The privacy element may be confined to the company of a selected group of people so you might attend an event, together with 500 people, and still expect your presence to remain private, among that group of people.
在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
版主： Caravel， TheMatrix， molen
#3 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
加州的情况
这是USC对学生记者提供的信息
https://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com ... he-basics/
Remember, even if you’re in public, you cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission. This includes conversations that you’re one of the parties to. If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies.
So if you ever are unclear, ask yourself whether you, in a similar scenario, would reasonably suppose that your conversation with someone else (or others) was private. There will always be gray areas, and “reasonableness” often depends upon the facts a particular situation.
You CAN however, record video OF two people interacting so long as
–your video does not capture the audio of their conversation
–the subject of the conversation is not apparent from the video
–the two people talking are in a public place
具体的条款
CA Penal Code § 632 (2022)
632. (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
。。。
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 855, Sec. 1. (AB 1671) Effective January 1, 2017.)
https://law.justia.com/codes/california ... s%20of%20a
在有些特殊情况下应该也不被允许，即使没有交谈/对话。
比如，穿裙子的女孩突然被自行车撞倒，从某个方向拍。。。
有个男的不慎掉了裤带。。。
这些情况在其它条款里会有覆盖。盯着看都不应该被允许，别说拍照。。。
这是USC对学生记者提供的信息
https://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com ... he-basics/
Remember, even if you’re in public, you cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission. This includes conversations that you’re one of the parties to. If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies.
So if you ever are unclear, ask yourself whether you, in a similar scenario, would reasonably suppose that your conversation with someone else (or others) was private. There will always be gray areas, and “reasonableness” often depends upon the facts a particular situation.
You CAN however, record video OF two people interacting so long as
–your video does not capture the audio of their conversation
–the subject of the conversation is not apparent from the video
–the two people talking are in a public place
具体的条款
CA Penal Code § 632 (2022)
632. (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
。。。
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 855, Sec. 1. (AB 1671) Effective January 1, 2017.)
https://law.justia.com/codes/california ... s%20of%20a
在有些特殊情况下应该也不被允许，即使没有交谈/对话。
比如，穿裙子的女孩突然被自行车撞倒，从某个方向拍。。。
有个男的不慎掉了裤带。。。
这些情况在其它条款里会有覆盖。盯着看都不应该被允许，别说拍照。。。
#4 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
加州与上述条款相关的在这个网页
一直到638
法律条款不一定完备。会出现新案例让它得以补充。
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 5.&article
一直到638
法律条款不一定完备。会出现新案例让它得以补充。
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 5.&article
#5 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
good but u r misleading
eg
Under state and federal law, it is legal to film anyone who does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In public spaces, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
eg
Under state and federal law, it is legal to film anyone who does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In public spaces, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
meiyoumajia 写了： 2024年 1月 24日 19:39 这两天在网络上一个热闹的话题：
围绕伦敦街头拍摄而引发的争执
在英国和美国大部分州，在公共场合被拍摄的人可以表明自己不愿意被录后，被录的视频如果不被删除就可能会是非法的
美国
https://recordinglaw.com/can-i-sue-some ... -property/
It is unlawful to film anyone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy without consent in 34 states.
英国
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/21081632/ ... %20grounds.
This rule also applies to crowded places.
According to the internet law centre, filming an individual where they are expecting their experience to remain private, could be unlawful.
This also includes large events.
The law centre said: "The privacy element may be confined to the company of a selected group of people so you might attend an event, together with 500 people, and still expect your presence to remain private, among that group of people.
#7 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
我用的是“可能会”。Wawa123 写了： 2024年 1月 24日 23:14 good but u r misleading
eg
Under state and federal law, it is legal to film anyone who does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In public spaces, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
不一定没有。比如在在加州等地，在公共场合的私人对话不可以被录下，除非对话双方都同意。这非常合理。
#11 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
英国虽然有
在公共场合（一般）没有隐私而可以拍，但这不是简单的可以完全覆盖所有公共场合情况的必行条款。（否则在有些情况下----不仅是前面那类极端下----可能会相当不合情理。）
有多条其它的约束/限制，也就是上面基本原则的“例外”
法律条款应该比较分散。但这个官方网页应该是个比较通俗的解释。 （基本情况应该很清楚了。我谈到美国是由于我最早看到的是1美国人发的评论视频。）
What to Consider when Filming People
Definition of “filming”
For the purposes of this note, filming is defined as any filming or photography that will be
used for either private or commercial purposes, including theatrical distribution and
broadcast.
Filming People
• Whilst there is no general “image right” or right to control one’s likeness under English law,
there is a patchwork of other rights which apply to the use of a person’s image which
filmmakers should consider. This is particularly the case when filming in the street as it might
be relatively easy to inadvertently capture passers-by on camera. Ideally, before exploiting
the film, you should obtain direct consent from anybody appearing on camera.
• Where consent has not been obtained, the filmmakers must decide if they can still include
the image or whether they will need to take steps to obscure the individual’s face. The
following is a brief summary of the key legal issues to consider:
- Privacy: by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights
Act 1998 everybody has a right to a respect for their private and family life, their home
and their correspondence. The Court has held that “wrongful disclosure of private
information” and “misuse of private information” would breach an individual’s right to
respect for their private life, and, in certain circumstances, publication of an image of the
relevant individual would amount to the misuse of private information.
Though it is unlikely that publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task
in a public place (i.e. going to the shops) would amount to misuse of private information,
the key question is whether the person in question had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in respect of the image. This needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis as
the assessment will vary depending on what the person is doing and who they are.
A different threshold applies to a politician or other public figure than to a person who
does not work in the public eye. A much higher threshold applies to children, so that it will
rarely be appropriate to publish any image of a child without the consent of the child
and/or its parents.
- Data Protection: the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to any person or company
“processing” anything within the definition of “personal data”. The Court has confirmed
that storing, developing and printing photographs amounts to “processing” so by
extension recording and exploiting video footage is also likely to be caught within the
definition. “Personal data” is defined as anything relating to living individuals who can be
identified from either that data itself or from that data and other information which the data
processor holds or could have access to.
These definitions are very wide and it is likely that even a simple image of a person would
amount to “personal data” if that person was or could be identifiable, even if there was no
other data included with the image. In this case the “data controller” (which is likely to be
the producer or broadcaster) would then need to comply with the Data Protection Act.
The simplest way to comply is to obtain the consent of the individual depicted, either
specifically through a signed agreement or by displaying sufficiently prominent and clear
notices warning the public that filming is taking place and they should avoid the
designated area if they do not want to be filmed. There is a defence for those processing
material for the purposes of publishing “journalistic, literary or artistic material” but the
data controller would need to show they had a reasonable belief that publication would be
in the public interest, having regard to upholding freedom of expression. Filmmakers are
unlikely to want to rely on the discretion of the Court in applying this test so obtaining
consent is always preferable. If in doubt, the image should be sufficiently obscured so
that the individual is not identifiable.
- Defamation: filmmakers must also take care not to defame any individuals depicted.
This would occur if the filmmaker made a “statement” which referred to the individual
concerned and lowered his/her reputation. A statement could be a direct spoken
statement (i.e. someone on film saying “Mr Smith claims to be a vegetarian but eats meat
every Friday”) or a statement that can be inferred from the way the person is depicted
(i.e. an image of Mr Smith holding a placard stating that he is a vegetarian next to an
image of him eating a beef burger). If the statement made is true then it will not be
defamation, but filmmakers should ensure they have evidence to support their
statements.
In the context of depicting images of individuals without consent, filmmakers should not
manipulate the image of an individual so that it is understandable meaning is altered. For
example, footage taken of an individual entering a generic building should not be shown
in a documentary about drug addiction in a way that would imply the person concerned
was entering a drug addiction facility or was addicted to drugs. Filmmakers should
carefully consider whether there are any defamatory meanings implicit in their footage. If
there are then identifiable personal images should not be used without consent.
• Those making broadcast television programmes should also remember the provisions of
the Ofcom Code which state that it is acceptable for broadcasters to film in a general manner
in a public place providing the footage is brief, incidental and an individual is not engaged in
a personal or private activity. Filmmakers should always comply with the Code, but that in
itself is not a guarantee that you are in compliance with privacy, data protection and
defamation laws.
• The information above summarises the legal considerations which apply when filmmakers
include a brief, incidental image of an identifiable individual in their production. If the
individual concerned is particularly famous or if they are particularly associated with a
specific organisation or entity there will be additional issues to be considered (such as
passing off and trade mark claims). If the individual concerned is wearing any identifiable
logos or brands you should also ensure that these are obscured or are only depicted
incidentally. If in doubt you should take separate advice in all of these circumstances.
Practical tips for filmmakers:
- Where possible, obtain written consent from anyone shown on camera. If an individual is the
focus of a particular shot or video then consent is essential. If you have captured an
individual in the background of a shot and they are clearly identifiable, you will also need
their consent. Remember that even if someone’s face is obscured, they could still be
identifiable in other ways (i.e. through their car number plate).
- Obtaining consent does not always entail a detailed rights agreement. It can be a short,
simple statement confirming the individual has granted his/her consent for their image to
appear in the production. Keep these in a safe place with all the key documents for the
production.
- If it is not possible to obtain specific consent, you should at the very least ensure that the
area in which you are filming is clearly marked and sufficient warning notices are visible
at the entry points. These should state in plain English and a legible font that filming is
taken place and that by entering the area individuals are granting consent for their image
to be used in a production. They should be informed that if they do not want to grant
consent they should inform a member of the production team or avoid the area in
question. If possible, take and keep photos of these signs in situ.
- You should not include any images of people in situations which might be regarded as
private (i.e. coming out of a fertility clinic) without their specific consent, ideally in writing.
You should not show any images of children without the consent of the child and/or a
parent.
- You should not use images of an individual in a manner that could be defamatory and lower
their reputation. Avoid all manipulation of an image that suggests a context or meaning
that was not part of the original image and do not associate an individual with a negative
or damaging story unless such association is accurate and truthful. Remember that what
you might think of as harmless could be very damaging to a different person’s reputation
(i.e. the head of a bank wrongly associated with a story about credit card companies
charging excessive fees).
- Where you cannot obtain consent, either specific or generic, you should carefully consider
whether the individual in question is actually identifiable and whether they have an
expectation of privacy. You should also contact your production’s Errors and Omissions
Insurance provider, as they should be able to provide experienced guidance.
- If in doubt, you should take specialist advice or take sufficient steps to disguise the
individual’s identity.
Note:
This note is intended to provide a general background on the way English law
approaches issues around filming people. It is not intended to be taken as legal
advice. The legal issues involved are complex and each situation is different,
requiring an individual analysis.
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7469/ ... people.pdf
在公共场合（一般）没有隐私而可以拍，但这不是简单的可以完全覆盖所有公共场合情况的必行条款。（否则在有些情况下----不仅是前面那类极端下----可能会相当不合情理。）
有多条其它的约束/限制，也就是上面基本原则的“例外”
法律条款应该比较分散。但这个官方网页应该是个比较通俗的解释。 （基本情况应该很清楚了。我谈到美国是由于我最早看到的是1美国人发的评论视频。）
What to Consider when Filming People
Definition of “filming”
For the purposes of this note, filming is defined as any filming or photography that will be
used for either private or commercial purposes, including theatrical distribution and
broadcast.
Filming People
• Whilst there is no general “image right” or right to control one’s likeness under English law,
there is a patchwork of other rights which apply to the use of a person’s image which
filmmakers should consider. This is particularly the case when filming in the street as it might
be relatively easy to inadvertently capture passers-by on camera. Ideally, before exploiting
the film, you should obtain direct consent from anybody appearing on camera.
• Where consent has not been obtained, the filmmakers must decide if they can still include
the image or whether they will need to take steps to obscure the individual’s face. The
following is a brief summary of the key legal issues to consider:
- Privacy: by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights
Act 1998 everybody has a right to a respect for their private and family life, their home
and their correspondence. The Court has held that “wrongful disclosure of private
information” and “misuse of private information” would breach an individual’s right to
respect for their private life, and, in certain circumstances, publication of an image of the
relevant individual would amount to the misuse of private information.
Though it is unlikely that publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task
in a public place (i.e. going to the shops) would amount to misuse of private information,
the key question is whether the person in question had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in respect of the image. This needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis as
the assessment will vary depending on what the person is doing and who they are.
A different threshold applies to a politician or other public figure than to a person who
does not work in the public eye. A much higher threshold applies to children, so that it will
rarely be appropriate to publish any image of a child without the consent of the child
and/or its parents.
- Data Protection: the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to any person or company
“processing” anything within the definition of “personal data”. The Court has confirmed
that storing, developing and printing photographs amounts to “processing” so by
extension recording and exploiting video footage is also likely to be caught within the
definition. “Personal data” is defined as anything relating to living individuals who can be
identified from either that data itself or from that data and other information which the data
processor holds or could have access to.
These definitions are very wide and it is likely that even a simple image of a person would
amount to “personal data” if that person was or could be identifiable, even if there was no
other data included with the image. In this case the “data controller” (which is likely to be
the producer or broadcaster) would then need to comply with the Data Protection Act.
The simplest way to comply is to obtain the consent of the individual depicted, either
specifically through a signed agreement or by displaying sufficiently prominent and clear
notices warning the public that filming is taking place and they should avoid the
designated area if they do not want to be filmed. There is a defence for those processing
material for the purposes of publishing “journalistic, literary or artistic material” but the
data controller would need to show they had a reasonable belief that publication would be
in the public interest, having regard to upholding freedom of expression. Filmmakers are
unlikely to want to rely on the discretion of the Court in applying this test so obtaining
consent is always preferable. If in doubt, the image should be sufficiently obscured so
that the individual is not identifiable.
- Defamation: filmmakers must also take care not to defame any individuals depicted.
This would occur if the filmmaker made a “statement” which referred to the individual
concerned and lowered his/her reputation. A statement could be a direct spoken
statement (i.e. someone on film saying “Mr Smith claims to be a vegetarian but eats meat
every Friday”) or a statement that can be inferred from the way the person is depicted
(i.e. an image of Mr Smith holding a placard stating that he is a vegetarian next to an
image of him eating a beef burger). If the statement made is true then it will not be
defamation, but filmmakers should ensure they have evidence to support their
statements.
In the context of depicting images of individuals without consent, filmmakers should not
manipulate the image of an individual so that it is understandable meaning is altered. For
example, footage taken of an individual entering a generic building should not be shown
in a documentary about drug addiction in a way that would imply the person concerned
was entering a drug addiction facility or was addicted to drugs. Filmmakers should
carefully consider whether there are any defamatory meanings implicit in their footage. If
there are then identifiable personal images should not be used without consent.
• Those making broadcast television programmes should also remember the provisions of
the Ofcom Code which state that it is acceptable for broadcasters to film in a general manner
in a public place providing the footage is brief, incidental and an individual is not engaged in
a personal or private activity. Filmmakers should always comply with the Code, but that in
itself is not a guarantee that you are in compliance with privacy, data protection and
defamation laws.
• The information above summarises the legal considerations which apply when filmmakers
include a brief, incidental image of an identifiable individual in their production. If the
individual concerned is particularly famous or if they are particularly associated with a
specific organisation or entity there will be additional issues to be considered (such as
passing off and trade mark claims). If the individual concerned is wearing any identifiable
logos or brands you should also ensure that these are obscured or are only depicted
incidentally. If in doubt you should take separate advice in all of these circumstances.
Practical tips for filmmakers:
- Where possible, obtain written consent from anyone shown on camera. If an individual is the
focus of a particular shot or video then consent is essential. If you have captured an
individual in the background of a shot and they are clearly identifiable, you will also need
their consent. Remember that even if someone’s face is obscured, they could still be
identifiable in other ways (i.e. through their car number plate).
- Obtaining consent does not always entail a detailed rights agreement. It can be a short,
simple statement confirming the individual has granted his/her consent for their image to
appear in the production. Keep these in a safe place with all the key documents for the
production.
- If it is not possible to obtain specific consent, you should at the very least ensure that the
area in which you are filming is clearly marked and sufficient warning notices are visible
at the entry points. These should state in plain English and a legible font that filming is
taken place and that by entering the area individuals are granting consent for their image
to be used in a production. They should be informed that if they do not want to grant
consent they should inform a member of the production team or avoid the area in
question. If possible, take and keep photos of these signs in situ.
- You should not include any images of people in situations which might be regarded as
private (i.e. coming out of a fertility clinic) without their specific consent, ideally in writing.
You should not show any images of children without the consent of the child and/or a
parent.
- You should not use images of an individual in a manner that could be defamatory and lower
their reputation. Avoid all manipulation of an image that suggests a context or meaning
that was not part of the original image and do not associate an individual with a negative
or damaging story unless such association is accurate and truthful. Remember that what
you might think of as harmless could be very damaging to a different person’s reputation
(i.e. the head of a bank wrongly associated with a story about credit card companies
charging excessive fees).
- Where you cannot obtain consent, either specific or generic, you should carefully consider
whether the individual in question is actually identifiable and whether they have an
expectation of privacy. You should also contact your production’s Errors and Omissions
Insurance provider, as they should be able to provide experienced guidance.
- If in doubt, you should take specialist advice or take sufficient steps to disguise the
individual’s identity.
Note:
This note is intended to provide a general background on the way English law
approaches issues around filming people. It is not intended to be taken as legal
advice. The legal issues involved are complex and each situation is different,
requiring an individual analysis.
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7469/ ... people.pdf
NC CHINESE AMERICANS FOR TRUMP 
#16 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
你们都是什么人啊？lol
在后面，英国的法律基本内容都被贴出来了。（里面甚至考虑了“image”的可能私密性。）具体的法律条款里很可能就没有那个term（reasonable expectation of privacy），会尽可能更具体。否则不同的人对它的解释会相差不小。
而且从前面看，美国两大类州之间的相关法律相差很大。
#17 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
一班SB，华人在英国等欧美生活不等于在中国生活，拿无民权的 中国当例子那你赶紧回中国就不要生活在国外了，生活在欧美就该以欧美法律为准则，为一个生活在于华人同属一国的仇华白人种族纳粹分子洗白而不讲公正，哪以后华人被纳粹分子乱找借口侵害时华人该跪着慢慢享受别叫屈
x1
#20 Re: 在英美，关于在公共场合拒绝被拍摄和录像的法律问题
说到点子上了
还我人权还我自由 写了： 2024年 1月 25日 03:48 一班SB，华人在英国等欧美生活不等于在中国生活，拿无民权的 中国当例子那你赶紧回中国就不要生活在国外了，生活在欧美就该以欧美法律为准则，为一个生活在于华人同属一国的仇华白人种族纳粹分子洗白而不讲公正，哪以后华人被纳粹分子乱找借口侵害时华人该跪着慢慢享受别叫屈
