Opinion It should be legal to whack anyone's phones away if they're recording you without your consent

[Strychnine]

State laws cannot supercede the Constitution. States can be sued, will have to go to Federal court and will lose and have their laws changed.

But because most states are bitches, they settle and pay after someone's rights have been violated to keep their illegal laws on the books. They don't want to get destroyed and exposed.

Well I'm going off what I've seen here in Ga. The released recording of then Pres. Trump talking to the Ga. Sec. of State comes to mind.

Now, I know that it's not someone physically hitting a phone from someone's hand, but I think it's in the wheelhouse.

Sorry if derail.

 

[Ruprecht]

But it should count on YT and TT. Those are the same thing and just an evolution of commercial production. Those videos are often highly edited with high production value.

It's the same with news, where they will make money off their content through advertising, but they typically aren't actually selling their stories as a product in the same way as a television show or film.
I think there's a specific provision here for "journalism" anyway.
I mean obviously private individuals filming or photographing people without their permission and then publicly publishing it is bad manners at least, but I think that almost never falls under our privacy act.
Even here the specifics vary state to state, so I'm sure the international variation is much larger. In itself that makes online enforcement challenging to say the least.

 

[Dan O]

When in public, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you're out and about, anyone can film you for any reason.

Smacking their phones out of their hands would be considered to be assault and would subject you to arrest.

I did see one video of a concerned dad making a guy delete the pics he took of his young son randomly. Guy was a pedo.

But you’re not wrong

 

[oldshadow]

I know here it wouldn't count unless they introduce an amendment to the privacy act. The sort of indirect income that news broadcasters get from advertising revenue for instance, doesn't count.

You may be right on that.

 

[Seano]

I understand it being legal to film you when you're in a public place but that should go out the window when people start posting you on social media, especially when people profit from it.

 

[lifelessheap]

I understand it being legal to film you when you're in a public place but that should go out the window when people start posting you on social media, especially when people profit from it.

Does ABC need permission to show crowds from a county fair? No. Every citizen is a member of the press. It's fair game.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

TS you idiot. I couldn’t record women’s asses at the gym if that were true

 

[MicroBrew]

It seems to be a trend (?) for Tik tok assholes to record you without your consent and uploading it on social media. Everyone's worst nightmare! So whacking their phones/cameras away with brute force should be legalized to discourage them from doing it to you and your family members. Thoughts?


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/tiktok-video-maree-melbourne-flowers/101228418

TLDR; Poor lady was offered free flowers by an asshole to show how "nice" he is and didn't realize his friends were recording them from distance. Then, she discovered it later when it went "viral" on Tik Tok.

If you are in a public place you can't expect privacy. Limiting the photographing or recording of people will undermine transparency and accountability. We shouldn't do away with our right because some assholes abuse the right. It's like asking to ban guns because some people abuse the right to bear arms.

 

[moreorless87]

Yeah, I think it's typically that they aren't allowed to profit off your image without your permission. Variation from nation to nation of course, but usually strictly defined as commercial use. So they can't use it in an advertising campaign or sell it in a commercial production, but youtube/tiktok views and news wouldn't count. At least not in any developed nation that I'm aware of.

Not in the UK, provided its not harassment then only issue is misrepresentation, for example if you use a picture of someone to advertise a product lhey could sue you or if you for claiming they endorse something they don't or take a picture that makes it look like(or you claim is evidence of them) doing something there not like say breaking into a car.

I'm a landscape photographer personally but this kind of thing is killing the potential for street photography in many other countries and for me honestly just comes across as fear mongering and arrogance most of the time. In France, the country that pretty much invented street photography with Henri Carter Breson, Brassai, etc the medium is now mostly dead due to this.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

The windup on that kick will never not be funny

 

[Contempt]

It was a woman he kicked in the face, and the silly little fella attacking women in public was a salon.com employee

Yet another far leftist assaulting women... to the surprise of no-one

 

[jrams]

Yeah, I think it's typically that they aren't allowed to profit off your image without your permission. Variation from nation to nation of course, but usually strictly defined as commercial use. So they can't use it in an advertising campaign or sell it in a commercial production, but youtube/tiktok views and news wouldn't count. At least not in any developed nation that I'm aware of.

What makes youtube/tiktok different? This case is in Australia, so I am pretty ignorant to the laws there, but in the US it generally boils down to commercials vs informational (or just pure slander/libel). In this case this woman was used as a prop, there was no informational aspect to it and her participation in it wasn't incidental. Unless she consented, it would be a case of unauthorized use of likeness and she could theoretically make a civil suit if she wanted.

 

[dittohead84]

I'm no groundhog expert but maybe there is something that could be done about publishing/distributing the content without your consent, by someone somewhere I dunno.

It could be seen as a safety risk if you're exposed to millions of people and some of them harass you

 

[Ruprecht]

What makes youtube/tiktok different? This case is in Australia, so I am pretty ignorant to the laws there, but in the US it generally boils down to commercials vs informational (or just pure slander/libel). In this case this woman was used as a prop, there was no informational aspect to it and her participation in it wasn't incidental. Unless she consented, it would be a case of unauthorized use of likeness and she could theoretically make a civil suit if she wanted.

Well there's no bill of rights of any sort here in Australia, and no equivalent to the EUs Article 8.
The Privacy Act only applies to companies with an annual turnover above 3 million.
There's also an exemption for "journalism".
However there is precedent for companies getting successfully prosecuted for using a persons likeness in an advertisement without their consent.
So even though there's no explicit legislation, it's usually commercial use and identification (use of your name) that'll win in court.

 

[MTT]

Some cops enjoy escalating public photography into violence. You are on camera from the moment you leave your home until you return. Who cares?

 

[panamaican]

In the U.S. you can try to sue them under the right to publicity. It short, it grants you the right to control how your image is published for profit. Not every state has it though so it's not a guarantee. Probably the easiest way to get around the state issue is to find a state where the right to publicity is protected and sue the individual in that state since the image can be seen there. Then contact the social media site and ask them to take the image/video down until your litigation is finished.

Of course, that's a lot of time and possibly money so pretty much no one ever does it.

My wife did some earring modelling for a company once and we later found that affiliated companies were using the same images for promotion on their social media. Tracking down and removing everything turned out to be a major hassle. We ended up just asking for credit on the pictures which led to some additional work requests. But random people randomly doing this is going to be a major headache to deal with.

Definitely an area where stronger legal protections should exist.

 

[Simple Southerner]

{<Mcgoat}

 

[Queen B]

 

[Fluffernutter]

It's a grey area.

I am sure everyone here that is a parent has had to fill out forms for their public school within public space that allows them to take photos/videos of their kids.

Some of my students have noncustodial parents. Therefore, we work hard to ensure we keep information private. Our school has a FB page. When someone stops by to take photos, I tell them not to take photos/videos of my stundents' faces. No one has pushed back on my request.

 

[Fluffernutter]

A few weeks after moving to the US, I went to my kid's school to walk him home.

This particual day was "Crazy Hat Day" at school. My kid made a hat out of khakis and coat hangers. It was better than I could have done as a 5th grader.

As we walked home, I asked him if he would wear his hat so that I could take a photo to send to the gradparents. He agreed and put the hat on and walked along the bike path home. After a few yards, he stopped and looked upset. I asked him what was wrong. He stated that the woman up ahead walking her dog took a photo of him and he felt bothered by it. After all, he stated "It's illegal to take someone's photo without their permission." I replied that that was only true when we lived in the middle east; in America we don't have that law. Not to put words in his mouth, but he seemed violated.