On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:16:04 +0200, Dave Huth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, Pembroke himself says in this freedomforum.org article ( http:// > www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/privacyandthepress/part3.htm ) that > general > intrusion, apart from strictly commercial purposes, is on the rise and > in conflict with many > principles the legal istory has been concerned with. Most of this is > regarding law > enforcement, but i think it is analogous to other kinds of > non-commercial intrusion, such > as someone taking my pocture at a bus stop and sending it around the > world because it > looks funny or whatever. The article talks about journalists, so it's a bit different. You have priorities such as public interest and what's called 'day events' in Danish legislation (current events, something that's important today, but not a week from now), that isn't really all that interesting for videobloggers. If you want to do a grand exposé, you should seek out the protection of a larger organisation. :o) If I'm filming you while you stand at the bus stop with a funny look on your face, you have no measures to stop me from mailing that footage to every person in the world. In Denmark there are clauses about humiliating situations like if you were standing at the bus stop and someone ran up and pulled your pants down. In that case I would have to get permission for the release of the footage even though it was in a public place. When filming everyday life those clauses don't apply very often. Anyway, if you're just standing there, you have no protection. And nor should you have! When commercial interests are not in play privacy laws are the only thing to go by. The wording of the Danish and US laws are almost verbatim. They talk about the privacy laws coming into effect when the 'victim' has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Whenever someone is found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy you need to get permission to use your footage. The example most often used when talking privacy and media in Denmark is the garden fence scenario (actually garden hedge since no one would be caught dead using a fence in their front yard). When people are inside their homes they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but sitting behind your hedge enjoying a cold beer you don't enjoy the same expectation (or so the courts say). Standing *in* the garden would not fly without permission - the garden is not public property. Standing on the road filming the people over the hedge? Legally, it may or may not fly depending on what the people are doing in their garden, but the real issue is ethics. Same thing with the example of the paramedics and the camera crew in the article: "Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled in Shulman v. Group W Productions that a production company could be sued for videotaping a car-accident victim while she was being transported in a medical helicopter without her consent." Legally the crew might be correct. It's a newsworthy event, and she was in public until she was moved to the helicopter. Once inside the helicopter one could argue that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and more, but like the article says: "What happened in the ditch was public domain, but in terms of being inside the helicopter ... we could talk until we're blue in the face about that one." But we shouldn't have to. You'd never see that footage in a Danish news broadcast. Yesterday we had a similar case in the news. Five 16-17 year-olds had been sniffing lighter-gas and the small apartment they were in exploded. The five were transported to the hospital with severe burns. This is a newsworthy event, and of course it should be covered. But no station showed the faces of the youths. They showed them being moved, but it was filmed from angles were you couldn't identify the victims. The morals are different in the US, I know (boobs, not okay. Murder victims, fine). My point is just that some cases can be avoided by thinking about ethics. And before someone jumps at journalists here. No, I don't think journalists have lower morals than others. I think they have the same morals as society - otherwise there would be a public reaction when showing footage shot through the window of a rescue helicopter. - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
