3 comments

• 

  Shikoku88Henro

  3 years ago

  Proving what is being an idiot in my eyes yet again, here is a short thing about consent:
  
  A person's right to privacy is not absolute. Examples given by the court where a person's photo could be published without consent are where one is "engaged in a public activity, or has acquired a certain notoriety", or those whose professional success depends on public opinion or where "a previously unknown individual is called on to play a high-profile role in a matter within the public domain, such as an important trial, a major economic activity having an impact on the use of public funds, or an activity involving public safety."
  
  Pretty much you would have to damage someone's image and cause harm by that action in order to deem it unlawful or wrong. Small price you pay to live in America's society.
  reply
• 

  hnovus

  3 years ago

  you know, in matters of publicity, if you don't want to be in a video clearly being made in the place you want to be, either suck it up, or move along.
  
  Just like in Golf 'Fore' is a courtesy; not a law. You assume the risks of being in the presence of a video feed, and therefore if you don't want to be included, use the mouth you have and speak up prior.
  
  It's usually called responsibility; and it's best handled before a situation; not after. That's the best time for asking forgiveness.
  reply
• 

  domen savic

  3 years ago

  Technically, yes. When in public place, a journalist must inform everyone present that they are going to be filmed for a public TV show. If there are individuals that do not want to appear on the show, even if the piece will feature them sitting behind a table, drinking beer, they have to remove themselves from the "camera`s eyesight".
  
  That`s the way we do it in Slovenia. Can`t speak for the rest of the world.
  reply