Being arrested and the right to privacy (TV)

mikemac

There are loads of these programs around, particularly on Channel 4 or Sky One.
America’s Dumbest Criminals, Road Wars and plenty of others though I don’t know their names.
Most basically involve following a police team around on their shift where they could be dealing with every sort of situation.

Watching it last night, they filmed a women being arrested for drink driving. They showed her face, when she broke into tears and then her being taken to a cell for the night. Plenty of footage of drunk people being picked up off the street as they slurred and made fools of themselves.

One segment had a gurrier was asking about the film crew and the policeman responding that it was a public place and they were entitled to film what they wanted.

That’s my legal question:
Suppose you are falling down the street drunk, kicking mirrors off cars, singing, urinating and generally being a hooligan.
The garda arrest you and RTE/TV3 film this and shame you on national TV. “Irelands dumbest criminals” or something like that.

Have you a right to privacy? Have you the right to deny permission to the TV producers to use your footage?
Would this be a great crime reduction tactic to name and shame thugs, thieves and fools on TV? They already do this in the UK, have British citizens no right to privacy?

pirelli

There was an urgent tone to that OP. If my road wars viewing experience is any use to you, I think we can clear a few matters up right now.

As far as I am aware from viewing the roads wars on sky, there are a few faces that are blurred out. The fact that these faces are blurred out would mean that there is either an exception to being filmed and broadcast or their is a choice. I'd imagine that if you don't make an official objection then they will go ahead and broadcast the footage. I would imagine the same still holds for whether your tresspassing or breaking the law, then you still might be entitled to hide your identity.

The likely scenario is "Chavis Charvero" is unhappy with being filmed
(and is girlfriend might see that he was around that tart "Kappa Slappa" who lived in the town) and chavis happens to be due in court on a criminal trial.
He asks the solicitor/counsel that is representing him to get the sky channel people to not Broadcast his image. The solicitor thinks about it and realises that this could compromise the fairness of chavis's trial and writes to sky explaining and makes a case for them not to broadcast chavis's image, or blur it. He might say that chavis was arrested for cannabis on tv, but was not found guilty in a court and should sky broadcast this before he goes to court on his more serious charge that this would compromise chavis's right to a fair trial.

Hopefully it isnt this complicated and you can object to your image being broadcast simply by sending a letter.

NUTLEY BOY

Surely you forgoe your right to privacy - such as that might be - if you put on such a performance in a public place. Put another way, you are fair game for this "invasion" in a public place.

I think that there have been some cases in the UK involving celebs and their privacy that follow the "public place / fair game" notion. That said I also think that the celeb types may still enjoy some restricted measure of public privacy if you will excuse the oxymoron.

As far as Chavis is concerned I would imagine that he is fair game. In fact, this is probably more likely to enhance the image of that type than to damage it...:)

pirelli

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Surely you forgoe your right to privacy - such as that might be - if you put on such a performance in a public place. Put another way, you are fair game for this "invasion" in a public place.

I think that there have been some cases in the UK involving celebs and their privacy that follow the "public place / fair game" notion. That said I also think that the celeb types may still enjoy some restricted measure of public privacy if you will excuse the oxymoron.

As far as Chavis is concerned I would imagine that he is fair game. In fact, this is probably more likely to enhance the image of that type than to damage it...:)

A fair point, but also not really a fair point. If Sally a librarian kind and decent person, has her drink spiked and acts the fool in public, why should she have her right to privacy taken away from her.

If chavis acts the fool in public he just gets his solicitor to have the image blurred because Chavis is always up in court and can always use this excuse.

Our man in Havana

Do the TV companies not have to seek consent to use images of persons filmed? Or is consent implied until Mr. Chav sets his solicitor on the producers?

pirelli

Bond-007 wrote: »

Do the TV companies not have to seek consent to use images of persons filmed? Or is consent implied until Mr. Chav sets his solicitor on the producers?

Apparently it is an infringment of privacy in UK, but the producers deem it newsworthy and are prepared to take the risk of using it.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/privacy/

In the latest court battle in America, twentieth century fox were sued over the BORAT movie where a random newyorker was chased around the street.
I think the judge must have been a real film buff, because he/she describes the Borat movie:

“Borat” attempts an ironic commentary of “modern” American culture, contrasting the backwardness of its protagonist with the social ills [that] afflict supposedly sophisticated society....... Indeed, its message lies in that juxtaposition and the implicit accusation that “the time will come when it will disgust you to look in a mirror.” Such clearly falls within the wide scope of what New York courts have held to be a matter of public interest

Borat was just cheap comedy at it's worst making a mockery of a poor third world country, typical, the english used to come over to the west of ireland in the forties and fifties with a safari like camera crew ( quite modern i suppose for the forties) carrying with them modern mod cons (like tv's) that the british took for granted and would stop the irish islanders - while they were on there way to mass or the harbour - and produce televison set and merrily ask the islanders; What they thought it was. The irish would not know at all, and this was much to the merriment of the english televison crew. This was all recorded and broadcast across modern post war britain. What difference is there.


I cannot believe the judge's intrepretation of the Borat movie:

Link here:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/federal-judge-dismisses-suit-over-borat/

Our man in Havana

Ofcom wrote:

8.8 When filming or recording in institutions, organisations or other agencies, permission should be obtained from the relevant authority or management, unless it is warranted to film or record without permission. Individual consent of employees or others whose appearance is incidental or where they are essentially anonymous members of the general public will not normally be required.

* However, in potentially sensitive places such as ambulances, hospitals, schools, prisons or police stations, separate consent should normally be obtained before filming or recording and for broadcast from those in sensitive situations (unless not obtaining consent is warranted). If the individual will not be identifiable in the programme then separate consent for broadcast will not be required.

From that I would conclude that they need consent to identify persons in custody and those being filmed whilst being dealt with by police.

Johnny Utah

I'd imagine that if a person's face appears in a programme like Road Wars then they probably have signed a consent form. The above exemption refers to people who are videoed but their presence is incidental/anonymous, obviously not the case for the chav who likes to take centre stage in the sky one show. The exemption for incidental presence refers to filming in a public area where an anonymous passer-by may be seen in the background.

Therefore, I think the faces of the people in Road Wars who are blacked out have obviously refused to sign a consent form.

Also, I'm not sure if there's an issue re prejudice to fair trial, as some of these shows seem to have been filmed 1 or 2 years ago, so presumably the trial would be long over. In any event, a lot of the incidents are never even brought to court.

pirelli

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I'd imagine that if a person's face appears in a programme like Road Wars then they probably have signed a consent form. The above exemption refers to people who are videoed but their presence is incidental/anonymous, obviously not the case for the chav who likes to take centre stage in the sky one show. The exemption for incidental presence refers to filming in a public area where an anonymous passer-by may be seen in the background.

Therefore, I think the faces of the people in Road Wars who are blacked out have obviously refused to sign a consent form.

Also, I'm not sure if there's an issue re prejudice to fair trial, as some of these shows seem to have been filmed 1 or 2 years ago, so presumably the trial would be long over. In any event, a lot of the incidents are never even brought to court.

I have heard that they sign consent forms for the show COPS, Although I don't know this for a fact.

The incidents that we see on road wars are incidental to the fact that Chavis could have (--at the time the road wars was filmed --) had a date for a trial for a more serious offence that has nothing to do with road wars.Hence the solicitor gets it blurred by a letter to programs editor. The repeats are shown several years later, but the program is edited and broadcast within a short time after filming, months even. The British courts might be alot faster.

pirelli

Some might argue that complete creeps have not right to privacy. By virtue of their behaviour in public the should have their rights temporarily suspended. I am not so sure that we should be the judge, jury and excutioner.






whats your opinion?