Use of CCTV images

Paulw

Just curious about this - if a premises has CCTV, can they use images taken on that and then post photos of persons captured on the cameras to highlight issues - eg persons photographed shoplifting, people seen littering in private developments and such?

Notices are visible stating that CCTV is in operation.

IRISH RAIL

wouldnt there be a libel case there ive seen that in a few shops where they post a picture with shoplifting under it
the peron would have had to be convicted indefinitly

seamus

Defamation would require the publication of something that wasn't true. An video of a guy walking into a shop, picking up something and running out the door is pretty conclusive.

If you are in any public place that has CCTV, that footage can be shown. I'm not sure about workplaces, but I think that if the public has access and the cameras are obvious or there are signs, the same rule may apply.

I think more care needs to be taken not to actually identify anyone in the picture.

That is, if someone says, "Look at this person littering", to a video of someone littering, then the person in question has no real case - the video evidence is there.

However, if they say, "Look at John Murphy littering", John Murphy could very well have a case, unless they can prove that it actually is John Murphy in the video.

Paulw

Interesting replies. I expected as much.

So, as long as the person isn't named, it is fine (of course, if they are caught and convicted then naming is allowed?).

I was wondering about housing developments that use CCTV to monitor the place. Would they be able to use photos of people littering, or trespassing, even without naming people.

CCTV is an interesting area these days.

seamus

Not perhaps "as long as they aren't named". You would need to be very careful that what's being shown on the video is actually happening.

If someone showed a video of a "litterer" without mentioning names and it later turned out that the "litterer" was in fact spreading seeds in his own garden, he may have a defamation case. Defamation doesn't require a name, provided that the defamed can show that they were identifiable on the video. By the same token, you also couldn't show a video of someone walking down the road and then say, "As soon as they went out of camera shot, they beat up an old lady".

There's technically no real problem with naming someone, but the grainy nature of CCTV leaves a lot of error for doubt and mistake in regards to identifying someone. That is, it's much easier to see what someone is doing in CCTV footage than it is to conclusively say "That's Michael Murphy".
Even the defamed could show that it is possibly in fact his remotely similar looking brother in the video...