on youtube I watched a British reality show about airports and (mostly foreign) passengers being searched for anything illegal.

What I find troubling is that many of these passengers speak very little English and find it difficult to articulate an answer to what officers ask in English. I remember an Indian national who didn’t speak any English that though he had the right visa to work in the UK, only to find he had been duped by an Indian scammer and was refused entry. He started crying and the crew filmed the whole scene.

This is humiliating to say the least and I wouldn’t want this to happen to me if I visit the UK. My questions:

  • Should a reality crew start recording me, do I have a right to my image and can I tell them to stop recording me? Do tv crews respect that?

  • What about the police? Can they record my face, even if I don’t consent?

  • I also have a cultural question: If an officer at a British airport asks you if he can search your luggage and you say no and you ask him if you are under arrest, what happens then?

  • snacks@feddit.ukEnglish
    26·
    11 months ago

    the rule is, the production company has to have your express permission if you directly talk to the camera or are featured in the footage. If you are in public and part of the crowd you cant ask for removal unless theres a good reason like court cases or something. You have to sign a form if you are more than just a person passing.

    heathrow in particular is interesting because nearly all large airports are public owned and heathrow is private. This is important because the production company has permission to film from the owners, and so as a customer you are on their premises and subject to their terms of entry, one of which is being filmed as a member of the public. If the production company does interview you or features you (not just a passing person) and do not have permission there have been many cases where the program has been held from broadcast until the matter is resolved. If you think you need to ask them the company and names of production staff are on the credits of the show.

    I know of one case with a prank tv show where the company pranked an estate agent by blowing up the house, and he got PTSD. The episode was never broadcast because he refused to sign the release, and sued the company for a serious amount of money. But the basic release form meant the company couldnt pass through the broadcast regulations.

    In public there are a few restrictions but basically its public land like a street and not expected to be empty of people. You cant film wembley arch because its licenced to the FA rather than the local council.

      • snacks@feddit.ukEnglish
        4·
        11 months ago

        i can expand a little but you dont know who’s reading this now or in the future, so cant give many more details. The idea was, as the ‘mark’ leaves the building with the couple who are in on the gag the house collapses behind him. Unfortunately the company used explosives and fire rigs to make the thing fall to bits so it looked like it just blew up and just missed him. There’s more to it as well but the upshot is, its a terrible thing and ruined a guys life for some stupid tv show.

      • voracitude@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        I note there are no details as to whether the property was structurally sound. It seems like it would be a lot for a prank show to buy a house someone could live in just to blow it up, rather than buying a condemned property and cleaning/fixing it up just enough to look livable to anyone not inspecting it too closely. Especially with housing prices the way they have been in the UK for the last 30-odd years.

    • adam_y@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      11 months ago

      Spot on answer and really well articulated.

      I think a lot of folk assume privacy, similar to the French model, but in the UK that really doesn’t exist.

      One of the clearest examples is how the press operates. Doorstepping politicians and celebrities. They wouldn’t be able to do that if they required permission from the individual.

            • adam_y@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              11 months ago

              Legally, the default is that you need to ask permission of all subjects to shoot the photo. And again for each publication of that image.

              In practice this is relaxed for public shots and street photography where the intent is not to make someone the subject of the photograph (people walking by in the background of a shot) or when “treating people with respect” (so yeah, no predatory homeless shots, or getting up in people’s faces). That said, this is for personal use and publishing them means you still might need to seek permission or risk being prosecuted later.

              Finally there is a caveat that is “the right for information” which is how the paparazzi are able to photograph celebrities and the like. Under the heading of journalism.

              Even so, you can only use those photographs in context. So, say you catch a shot Madonna flouting the law, you can’t later use that same photograph to illustrate an article of her being nice to cats. Furthermore they can also claim you are intruding on their private life. Which might still get you into trouble.

              • khannie@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                11 months ago

                That’s really clear. I appreciate you taking the time to fill me in so thank you!

                • adam_y@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  You’re more than welcome. It’s a fascinating subject area. Especially given the history of street photography and its roots in France.

                  • khannie@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    11 months ago

                    It surely is fascinating. I like the nuance tbh, especially the subject owning copyright part.