Vloggers/influencers at parks and attractions- Is filming or photographing others without their permission ok?

[pluk]

Hmmm. I'm naturally very law focused, and the law is clear. If you are in public doing a thing that is by definition not private it can be recorded and shared. I struggle to understand why anyone cares much? Unless you are doing something you shouldn't? Then maybe don't do that thing you know is wrong I guess rather tha worry about being caught?

I'm also used to being recorded pretty much permanently by my own body worn video and by literally hundreds of cameras around my place of work, and accepting that those recordings can find themselves in the public domain by FOI release requests and by being presented at court. Again, I don’t care about that in the slightest, because I don't do things I would he embarrassed about anyway. ⁸q

There is a difference between courtesy and law though. What about the right to a private life?

Private being the key word here. What you do in public is not private.

It seems like what people really want is a right to forget

 

[rob666]

I struggle to understand why anyone cares much? Hmmm...

I'm also used to being recorded pretty much permanently by my own body worn video and by literally hundreds of cameras around my place of work,...

It seems like what people really want is a right to forget

Your point one, some people value their privacy much more than others.
Personal, individual values are permitted.
We are not all the same.
I have been asked to comment on events on thoosie videos by two "big" makers, and I politely declined both times.
Why?
Not because I am doing anything criminal, or embarrassing, or shamefull, I would just prefer not to contribute or be featured.
Nothing sinister, nothing to hide, just a personal preference...perfectly legal, decent, and honest.

Point two...you are clearly used to being recorded, repeatedly, and constantly...all fine.
Others aren't.
You have tolerance for constant recording in your work and workplace...others aren't as tolerant, or used to constant recording, they find it difficult and awkward...completely permitted and absolutely legal to feel that way.
You don't feel that way...congratulations, but let's not paint everyone with a broad brush because you personally are OK with heavy, needed surveillance.

Again, with your third point...a right to forget...
We all have that right, don't we?
Seems to be enshrined in law as well, a right to privacy, and a right to forget, has resulted in a lot of case law, particularly regarding ex offenders spent convictions being raised following internet searches.

We are all different pluk, just because some people aren't as tolerant of being recorded as you, does not make them criminals, with something to hide, at all.
The negative impact of your work experiences is not the same for the rest of the public...a lot of us get by fine, and legal, but still dislike constant big brother style supervision...even though they have absolutely nothing to hide.
Your individual perspective has been altered by your employment sir.
Very large numbers of the population are against constant supervision by cameras, it has been a regular feature of public debate and demonstration.

 

[Alix]

Hmmm. I'm naturally very law focused, and the law is clear. If you are in public doing a thing that is by definition not private it can be recorded and shared. I struggle to understand why anyone cares much? Unless you are doing something you shouldn't? Then maybe don't do that thing you know is wrong I guess rather tha worry about being caught?

I'm also used to being recorded pretty much permanently by my own body worn video and by literally hundreds of cameras around my place of work, and accepting that those recordings can find themselves in the public domain by FOI release requests and by being presented at court. Again, I don’t care about that in the slightest, because I don't do things I would he embarrassed about anyway. ⁸q



Private being the key word here. What you do in public is not private.

It seems like what people really want is a right to forget

Jeremy Hardy said it best and I will paraphrase it badly… do you shut the door on a public toilet cubicle when you go for a poo? You’re not doing anything wrong… but you probably don’t want people watching

 

[pluk]

Your point one, some people value their privacy much more than others.
Personal, individual values are permitted.
We are not all the same.
I have been asked to comment on events on thoosie videos by two "big" makers, and I politely declined both times.
Why?
Not because I am doing anything criminal, or embarrassing, or shamefull, I would just prefer not to contribute or be featured.
Nothing sinister, nothing to hide, just a personal preference...perfectly legal, decent, and honest.

Point two...you are clearly used to being recorded, repeatedly, and constantly...all fine.
Others aren't.
You have tolerance for constant recording in your work and workplace...others aren't as tolerant, or used to constant recording, they find it difficult and awkward...completely permitted and absolutely legal to feel that way.
You don't feel that way...congratulations, but let's not paint everyone with a broad brush because you personally are OK with heavy, needed surveillance.

Again, with your third point...a right to forget...
We all have that right, don't we?
Seems to be enshrined in law as well, a right to privacy, and a right to forget, has resulted in a lot of case law, particularly regarding ex offenders spent convictions being raised following internet searches.

We are all different pluk, just because some people aren't as tolerant of being recorded as you, does not make them criminals, with something to hide, at all.
The negative impact of your work experiences is not the same for the rest of the public...a lot of us get by fine, and legal, but still dislike constant big brother style supervision...even though they have absolutely nothing to hide.
Your individual perspective has been altered by your employment sir.
Very large numbers of the population are against constant supervision by cameras, it has been a regular feature of public debate and demonstration.

Oh, of course. Just my personal opinion, reasoning for that opinion, and I mention work because I know that has helped form that opinion. I'm not saying I'm right,

When you consider all.the ways in which your privacy and data are stored and used in actual harmful ways, fleeting glimpses of you on youtube videos that a miniscule amount of people are likely to see seems an odd one to get het up about.

 

[rob666]

Because image searches are out there...as others have already said...perfect for stalkers...
You know I wasn't just referring to youtube!
And some people are so concerned about big brother, they still don't have a mobile phone, for personal privacy, and a healthy work life balance.

 

[pluk]

Jeremy Hardy said it best and I will paraphrase it badly… do you shut the door on a public toilet cubicle when you go for a poo? You’re not doing anything wrong… but you probably don’t want people watching

I love Jeremy Hardy, but it's a bit of a silly point really, based on a joke deliberately shifting a different meaning of the word public.
If you turn it on its head it kind of conforms with the widely regarded social norms, expectations and law. When you are behind that locked cubical door you have a right to absolute privacy, wre you to chose to leave that door open you shouldn't be surprised if someone does see you but you'd have a continued expectation that noone would deliberately film you, but if you decide to curl one out on the lawns in front of Towers you should have zero expectation of that being a private event; it will be seen and will probably be filmed!

 

[pluk]

You know I wasn't just referring to youtube!

I was only really referring to the context of the original topic, bloggers and vloggers capturing you in a themepark video, of course there are other more sinister uses of video surveillance. The worst I can think that would come of it is Facebook/Google finds my face and in that crowd and targets some adds at me. I'm pretty comfortable with that!

If we are are talking about the wider use of cameras, of CCTV, video doorbells, general filming on the street etc, it's probably no surprise that I come down on the side of not caring about that much either. Properly controlled of course, and the current controls work pretty well for profesional systems. I know noone cares that I walked through the town yesterday, my dogwalk route last night, or that I'm about to go to the allotment. If when I get to the allotment I bury a body that footage becomes valuable, but I won't so it isn't.

It's always hard to prove a prevention but when you look at something like ANPR, which I know a lot of people hate as it collects data as you move about the country, it must have saved countless lives in finding offenders and preventing them from offending again, will have recovered millions of pounds of stolen vehicles etc. I simply don't see the downside; for everyone else your vehicle location sits on a spreadsheet for a while then drops off and noone looks or cares where you were or what you were doing. Why care about that data/image existing?

 

[Matt N]

For me, I think context is key.

If I’m just being filmed walking around in the background while a vlogger is doing their spiel, I couldn’t care less. I’m likely one of many people in that shot, and I don’t think you’d necessarily notice me unless you were specifically looking for me. Me and my parents actually appeared in the background of a TPW Blackpool vlog from a few years back. We were quite noticeable in the background of one shot, less so in another, but nothing about us specifically stood out. Well, maybe other than my dad not-so-subtly filming Shawn on his phone to send to my sister in a “look who we saw!” kind of text message…

Yes, we appeared in the background, but many other people did too; Shawn didn’t pan his camera towards us and specifically shout “Look, there’s Matt and his parents coming for their ride on The Big One!”. We were very much in the background, and as I say, I don’t think you’d have noticed us unless you were specifically looking for us.

If I appear more prominently in the video in any capacity, however (such as in the case of @Skyscraper and the video thumbnail from Paultons), I would want to be asked for consent or have the opportunity to give consent prior to this happening. I think being non-consensually featured in a prominent place such as a thumbnail is arguably more of a violation of privacy; that’s akin to someone random taking a picture of you specifically and putting it online. In most cases, people appearing prominently in vlogs do so consensually (for example, tons of people try and attract vloggers’ attention specifically while they’re filming so they can make a prominent appearance), but if this was not consensual, I think it does cross a line that simply appearing in the background doesn’t.

 

[Skyscraper]

For me, I think context is key.

If I’m just being filmed walking around in the background while a vlogger is doing their spiel, I couldn’t care less. I’m likely one of many people in that shot, and I don’t think you’d necessarily notice me unless you were specifically looking for me. Me and my parents actually appeared in the background of a TPW Blackpool vlog from a few years back. We were quite noticeable in the background of one shot, less so in another, but nothing about us specifically stood out. Well, maybe other than my dad not-so-subtly filming Shawn on his phone to send to my sister in a “look who we saw!” kind of text message…

Yes, we appeared in the background, but many other people did too; Shawn didn’t pan his camera towards us and specifically shout “Look, there’s Matt and his parents coming for their ride on The Big One!”. We were very much in the background, and as I say, I don’t think you’d have noticed us unless you were specifically looking for us.

If I appear more prominently in the video in any capacity, however (such as in the case of @Skyscraper and the video thumbnail from Paultons), I would want to be asked for consent or have the opportunity to give consent prior to this happening. I think being non-consensually featured in a prominent place such as a thumbnail is arguably more of a violation of privacy; that’s akin to someone random taking a picture of you specifically and putting it online. In most cases, people appearing prominently in vlogs do so consensually (for example, tons of people try and attract vloggers’ attention specifically while they’re filming so they can make a prominent appearance), but if this was not consensual, I think it does cross a line that simply appearing in the background doesn’t.

At first I found it quite cool that I was in the thumbnail, but the more I thought about it the more it felt a bit weird. And to add insult to injury so-to-speak, I actually spent most of the ERT with the vlogger in question (TPI, was a nice bloke I must say), and not once did he ask me if I'd be happy to feature in the thumbnail. It could well have been a spur of the moment decision during editing though, of course.

 

[pluk]

If I appear more prominently in the video in any capacity, however (such as in the case of @Skyscraper and the video thumbnail from Paultons), I would want to be asked for consent or have the opportunity to give consent prior to this happening. I think being non-consensually featured in a prominent place such as a thumbnail is arguably more of a violation of privacy; that’s akin to someone random taking a picture of you specifically and putting it online. In most cases, people appearing prominently in vlogs do so consensually (for example, tons of people try and attract vloggers’ attention specifically while they’re filming so they can make a prominent appearance), but if this was not consensual, I think it does cross a line that simply appearing in the background doesn’t.

Another thought on what started this conversation, the footage/image in question was taken at an event that was specifically for themepark fans, vloggers and bloggers. The event was designed to generate this kind of content to promote the park and in attending such an event surely there is an implied concent that you will captured in footage like this? Surely if you don't want to be on online content you don't attend an event for online content creators?

 

[Plastic Person]

It's always hard to prove a prevention but when you look at something like ANPR, which I know a lot of people hate as it collects data as you move about the country, it must have saved countless lives in finding offenders and preventing them from offending again, will have recovered millions of pounds of stolen vehicles etc. I simply don't see the downside; for everyone else your vehicle location sits on a spreadsheet for a while then drops off and noone looks or cares where you were or what you were doing. Why care about that data/image existing?

I'm no conspiracist, and have zero issues with some teenager filming the back (or front) of my head while I'm at Thorpe Park, but this lack of caution or intellectual curiosity when it comes to the mass collection of personal data in the digital age proves a little chilling to me. However, as you've already acknowledged, nobody could ever accuse you of being in the wrong job!

 

[pluk]

I'm no conspiracist, and have zero issues with some teenager filming the back (or front) of my head while I'm at Thorpe Park, but this lack of caution or intellectual curiosity when it comes to the mass collection of personal data in the digital age proves a little chilling to me. However, as you've already acknowledged, nobody could ever accuse you of being in the wrong job!

In relation specifically to ANPR as quoted? What lack of caution or intellectual curiosity? There is an absolute tonne of caution built into the system, access to the data is very tightly controlled and monitored and full disclosures are made if ANPR data is entered in evidence. Abuses are incredibly difficult, certainly detectable, and an absolute job loser so simply not worth it, whereas the benefits are massive.

 

[Skyscraper]

Another thought on what started this conversation, the footage/image in question was taken at an event that was specifically for themepark fans, vloggers and bloggers. The event was designed to generate this kind of content to promote the park and in attending such an event surely there is an implied concent that you will captured in footage like this? Surely if you don't want to be on online content you don't attend an event for online content creators?

Indeed, I will clarify that going in I was fully aware that there was a high chance I'd be caught on camera. As you say, it was to be expected given the nature of the event.

 

[Tom]

In terms of Alton Towers' terms and conditions:

Unless it is expressly prohibited, you are permitted to take photographs and recordings within the Attraction provided that these are solely for private use and are not sold or used for any commercial or public purpose. By accepting these Entry Conditions, you acknowledge that Merlin may on demand have access to photographs taken and video footage captured by you and request that certain photographs and/or footage are deleted if they are deemed to be offensive to or infringe the privacy of other guests and/or staff. By accepting these Entry Conditions, you agree not to intentionally photograph and/or capture video footage of any individual without that person’s permission...​

Clearly not enforced, but there is latitude there to clamp down on filming people, or filming at all given that YouTube is often monetised (i.e. commercial).

 

[Alsty]

On that basis nobody should be vlogging at all since their YouTube videos are monetised and therefore "commercial". However parks are willing to turn a blind eye to it due to the free publicity it brings.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Another thought on what started this conversation, the footage/image in question was taken at an event that was specifically for themepark fans, vloggers and bloggers. The event was designed to generate this kind of content to promote the park and in attending such an event surely there is an implied concent that you will captured in footage like this? Surely if you don't want to be on online content you don't attend an event for online content creators?

The Theme Park Super fans event took place on a normal operating day at Paultons, technically starting at 17:15.

The footage of @Skyscraper was taken during the normal operating day of the park, not during the event.

For all intents and purposes, to the casual visitor, there were no signs that an event was taking place that day. There wasn't any signage welcoming people to the Super Fans event, there weren't notices informing people that vloggers had been invited to an event in the evening and that they might be filming content before hand.

The event was for "Superfans", it wasn't a dedicated media event, anyone could apply for tickets to attend. There is an expectation that vloggers are going to film content at this special event, but they don't have to be disrespectful and blasé about it. They could also separate the vloggers from the other Superfans, during things like the behind the scenes of the ride tours, to properly cater for both audiences. It's quite difficult to ask a question to an engineer about wheel polymers when you're dodging 12 cameras because the companion of a vlogger is doing something "funny", like sitting backward on a seat, for the views.

When we filmed at very large scale conferences, which are similar to the events described, we ensured that we had completed consent and disclosure forms for every person featured. If a form wasn't possible, we asked them to give consent on camera. When filming B roll footage, with it being a broadcast camera, we were very noticeable and used wide angle shots where possible. If someone was captured on a close up, we'd inform them and make a note as to whether they were ok with inclusion or not. Additionally the conferences always had signage in areas where filming was permitted, or likely to be taking place with third party content creators, to inform their guests of it.

Is it a lot of extra work? Yes. Does it adhere to professional standards which have been around for decades? Yes. Vloggers are also professionals, or at least they present themselves to be. They should absolutely adhere to the same standards as other, more traditional, media.

If a park is going to invite a lot of vloggers for an event, during a normal operating day, there should be a code of conduct and signage for the guests. "We're running a special event today, there may be some more cameras than normal filming. If you have any questions please contact guest services". Each vlogger should have an accredited pass, and be able to present their contact information for anyone who asks for it. Vloggers should be made aware by the park what is acceptable and what isn't. When they need to ask for permission, when they don't. What they can and can't film. We have to do this at other industry events and concerts, festivals etc, it shouldn't be any different here.

 

[pluk]

The Theme Park Super fans event took place on a normal operating day at Paultons, technically starting at 17:15.

The footage of @Skyscraper was taken during the normal operating day of the park, not during the event.

For all intents and purposes, to the casual visitor, there were no signs that an event was taking place that day. There wasn't any signage welcoming people to the Super Fans event, there weren't notices informing people that vloggers had been invited to an event in the evening and that they might be filming content before hand.

The event was for "Superfans", it wasn't a dedicated media event, anyone could apply for tickets to attend. There is an expectation that vloggers are going to film content at this special event, but they don't have to be disrespectful and blasé about it. They could also separate the vloggers from the other Superfans, during things like the behind the scenes of the ride tours, to properly cater for both audiences. It's quite difficult to ask a question to an engineer about wheel polymers when you're dodging 12 cameras because the companion of a vlogger is doing something "funny", like sitting backward on a seat, for the views.

When we filmed at very large scale conferences, which are similar to the events described, we ensured that we had completed consent and disclosure forms for every person featured. If a form wasn't possible, we asked them to give consent on camera. When filming B roll footage, with it being a broadcast camera, we were very noticeable and used wide angle shots where possible. If someone was captured on a close up, we'd inform them and make a note as to whether they were ok with inclusion or not. Additionally the conferences always had signage in areas where filming was permitted, or likely to be taking place with third party content creators, to inform their guests of it.

Is it a lot of extra work? Yes. Does it adhere to professional standards which have been around for decades? Yes. Vloggers are also professionals, or at least they present themselves to be. They should absolutely adhere to the same standards as other, more traditional, media.

If a park is going to invite a lot of vloggers for an event, during a normal operating day, there should be a code of conduct and signage for the guests. "We're running a special event today, there may be some more cameras than normal filming. If you have any questions please contact guest services". Each vlogger should have an accredited pass, and be able to present their contact information for anyone who asks for it. Vloggers should be made aware by the park what is acceptable and what isn't. When they need to ask for permission, when they don't. What they can and can't film. We have to do this at other industry events and concerts, festivals etc, it shouldn't be any different here.

True, but as has already been said by Skyscraper, in this case of being featured in such prominence the vloger in question knew he was there for the event.

The blurring of the lines between the public and the media that social media has created renders much of the law and traditionally accepted codes of practice inoperable or redundant in any meaningful way, it's certainly not an easy one.

I think it is easy to overstate the practices of traditional media too. My dad was prominently featured as a bystander (ie not part of the event or the story itself) in footage used after a London bombing, just a single shot of him coming through the train turnstiles hours after the event, but clearly identifiable. Probably a similar intrusion to a boatride thumbnail although seen by millions more. No notice, no concent, but a nice freeze frame on the introduction to the 6 o'clock news and moving footage after.

 

[rob666]

If when I get to the allotment I bury a body that footage becomes valuable, but I won't so it isn't.

Now stop leading people off track...we know perfectly well that the bodies are under your patio.

 

[Skyscraper]

In Lift Hills and Thrills' vlog he walks right past myself, @BooMT and our +1s in Tornado Springs, as close as you can possibly get. Think we were talking so didn't notice him, but watching it back it's still surreal how clear we are and I don't really know what to think of it. At least on the rides I'm only shown for a second and had my hood up on the Splash Lagoon pics (although in one pic my face is slightly visible).

 

[Deleted member 17985]

I used to be a full-time drag queen, DJ, and host in my former life and so am more than used to seeing deeply unflattering pictures and videos of myself from every angle but the good one, and I'm also used to being in the background being the silly bugger I am. I've never knowingly been in a thoosies vid, but wouldn't be bothered as long as it was literally just me in the background. If I was the sole focus of a photograph or video, that would be different. I wouldn't like to be used in a thumbnail without permission even if I looked drop dead stunning. I'm sure they don't need permission, but it's just good manners to check, especially if said vlogger knows who you are.

I also think that now everyone is a director with an iPhone in hand, it's almost pointless to try to avoid being in shots. I've noticed quite an increase in random park vloggers of late, so it's only going to get more prominent.

My one hard no would be in waterparks for so many reasons. I physically cringe when I see vloggers walking around waterparks without any blurring. I watch a few unrelated Japanese channels and they are very good at shooting above crowd head height so they can blur faces without impacting the legibility of the shot. Doesn't work 100%, but it makes a big difference. I don't want people seeing my swamp creature body on YouTube, no thank you.