Often, I’ve heard it said that the general public, while going about their daily lives in a public place, can have no expectation of privacy from filming, particularly if a documentary programme is being shot around them. However, a new ruling by Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulator, has upheld a complaint of intrusion of privacy made by a worker, filmed in a public place, who asked a programme maker not to include his footage; and yet it was still shown.<\/p>\n
The full ruling is here<\/a>\u00a0(search for ‘David Gemmell’ in the text). It would be sensible for film-makers to take the greatest care to keep records of requests made by their subjects, whether featured or not, and to abide by commitments made in correspondence with them.<\/p>\n Note that this was not a case of a consent\/clearance form not being obtained: it was a particular objection to broadcast, which the programme-maker stated, in writing, would be respected. This ruling, also, does not raise the spectre of UK regulations mirroring the French concept of droit d’image<\/a><\/em>\u00a0which is shared by some other jurisdictions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Often, I’ve heard it said that the general public, while going about their daily lives in a public place, can have no expectation of privacy from filming, particularly if a documentary programme is being shot around them. However, a new ruling by Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulator, has upheld a complaint of intrusion of privacy … Continue reading Privacy in a Public Place: “Droit d’image”?<\/span>