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

[Matt.GC]

It seems to me that we can't have it both ways. I intently dislike social media and the way the companies that own those networks behave. Now it's absolutely your right and personal choice to use them, but I've seen some of you post things on here with videos and pictures that clearly identify other people, including of people who are in their own place of work. It stands to reason that if you are able to enjoy the privilege and "freedom" of doing so, then you have to accept that others could be posting content of you somewhere else too.

Bearing in mind that Meta, Google, Apple, and many more operators hold an absurd amount of your personal information, things that could cause you serious harm should they be used for bad intentions, far more dangerous and invasive than a video of you on a ride in a theme park, and they operate under legal jurisdictions outside of your home country. But I bet many of you are happy to skip the T&C's before accepting all of them, you're just keen to see a new queue line at Thorpe or watch a video of a cat doing funny things.

I'm on camera all day everyday, with my every move at work recorded. I also have a body worn that works when I press a button, if I don't like that then I can always just quit, but they also don't need to pay my mortgage for me. But it took me months to get Google to remove a video of me online. If it was in the street or on someone's Ring doorbell then that's just tough, you can film on your own property and in a public place and I know that every time I leave the house. But this was on private property (you come in to a store by invitation, they are not public rights of way), my own workplace. I told the filmer with their phone in front of my face that I did not want them to film me and that they were on private property. The intention was to do one of those silly social media Karen's showing off things - "look at this evil man whilst I attempt to take him down a peg or two". Nobody at Google reviewed it, so I had to resort to emailing a barrage of complaints, explaining that I had clearly asked to not be filmed on private property, I was authorised to make that decision on the behalf of the business, and that I was only filmed and posted on-line with the intention to humiliate me.

But when I go to a theme park, I know people will have their cameras out. If I don't like it, then I don't have to go. I would prefer not to appear in Vlogs and stuff, but then I wouldn't go to an event being held for that purpose. Or to a ride opening. If someone did film me and the kids going round a park minding our own business, then I would find it rude, but pretty tough really. If as a society we've decided that we want to give our intimate data to social media companies, watch videos of people falling over to have a good laugh at them, to see Hansel the Mack engineer screwing a bolt onto an Hyperia footer, to have a computer in our pockets that we can film on at any time, for our security services to foil terrorist plots, and for the police to catch the guy that nicked our car - then we've got to accept everything that goes with it, whether we like it or not.

 

[Funcone]

I agree that from a moral standpoint (not a legal one) it depends a lot on whether people are incidental or the subject of the video. In a crowd you can’t realistically ask everyone if they’re happy to be in it. But when people, whether they’re guests or staff, become the subject, I’d say it’s more awkward.

A good example of this is some of the through put videos I’ve seen. I love talking about efficiency and seeing a team of staff operating a ride well, but when you get someone filming the staff loading a ride and commenting on their technique, like commentators in a football match, I think it can go too far. You can end up with a lot of people who don’t understand the procedures they’re having to follow judging people on minimum wage zero hour contracts, and that doesn’t feel right.

I don’t really watch Vloggers though, so I don’t know how sensitive they typically are with what they do and don’t include.

 

[rob666]

On radio four in the night very recently, on the world service I think...a discussion about future times, when they all realise that social media is an absolute evil addiction to all, causing substantial work productivity losses, community hate, multiple fraud and hate crime... and discord generally around the world.

"Hey, remember the early twenty first century, when all the crazy liberal idiots let the kids loose on social media before they were eighteen, freestyle.
Caused so much anxiety, lowering education standards, and making them anti social idiots who became so fat and lazy, with an attention span of two minutes...
How things have changed since rationalisation and licensing...life is now so much less stressful and natural now we are limited to twenty minutes on any internet device a day...so liberating."

 

[rob666]

If someone did film me and the kids going round a park minding our own business, then I would find it rude, but pretty tough really.

Sorry about the double quote box there, great with tech me.
Clear point here for you mate.
If you felt harassed by such recording, and it continued, deliberately following you, then that is a clear offence under current harassment law...even if they just refocused on you every time your paths crossed.
So then you have the absolute right to kick them in the privates and run away.
Tell them pluk said it was ok.

 

[Funcone]

On radio four in the night very recently, on the world service I think...a discussion about future times, when they all realise that social media is an absolute evil addiction to all, causing substantial work productivity losses, community hate, multiple fraud and hate crime... and discord generally around the world.

"Hey, remember the early twenty first century, when all the crazy liberal idiots let the kids loose on social media before they were eighteen, freestyle.
Caused so much anxiety, lowering education standards, and making them fat, lazy anti social idiots who became so fat and lazy, with an attention span of two min utes...
How things have changed since rationalisation and licensing...life is now so much less stressful and natural now we are limited to twenty minutes on any internet device a day...so liberating."

Or people will look back on these as the golden years. "Remember when we used to scroll through Facebook looking at pictures of lol cats"
"Gosh, I'd forgotten that. We haven't done that since the robots took over".

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Bearing in mind that Meta, Google, Apple, and many more operators hold an absurd amount of your personal information, things that could cause you serious harm should they be used for bad intentions, far more dangerous and invasive than a video of you on a ride in a theme park, and they operate under legal jurisdictions outside of your home country. But I bet many of you are happy to skip the T&C's before accepting all of them, you're just keen to see a new queue line at Thorpe or watch a video of a cat doing funny things.

I don't think it's fair to say that because some people are more cavalier with accepting terms and conditions, from companies which spend a lot of money convincing them that they really ought to, that they need to abandon all principles when it comes to privacy in other areas of their life. You, clearly, absolutely care about this type of behaviour (evil corps and TOS), but you're at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to appearing in vlogging footage. The views don't have to be mutually exclusive and it's certainly far more nuanced than that. Additionally, with the evil corps and their TOS, you have the ability to read (if you so wish) everything you're agreeing to. You have informed consent, theoretically you know what you're signing for and you've actively agreed. When you're enjoying a lazy lap on the Congo River Rapids and someone's got a 4K video of you bobbing along from a bridge, you literally don't have any control, or say, or consent.

But it took me months to get Google to remove a video of me online.

I'm very sorry that this happened to you, Google's review process is absolutely awful, and needs overhauling. This shouldn't mean that everyone else has to have the same experience as you.

or on someone's Ring doorbell then that's just tough, you can film on your own property

Actually, a recent court case confirmed that Ring doorbells should operate under the same conditions as CCTV on a commercial property. They should only be focused on private property, they should not capture someone else's private property (like your neighbour's house) and they need to be clearly identified and notices put up.

BBC News - Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras

Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras

The Amazon devices were found to invade privacy and break data laws in a landmark UK case.

www.bbc.co.uk

GDPR vs Ring Doorbells. Infringement of Privacy or reasonable safety precautions? - Saunders Law

Do you have a ring doorbell? Do you have CCTV on your property? A recent case, Fairhurst v Woodard, from October last year provides some interesting and useful guidance on...

www.saunders.co.uk

But when I go to a theme park, I know people will have their cameras out. If I don't like it, then I don't have to go. I would prefer not to appear in Vlogs and stuff, but then I wouldn't go to an event being held for that purpose. Or to a ride opening. If someone did film me and the kids going round a park minding our own business, then I would find it rude, but pretty tough really.

You shouldn't have to feel this way. There ought to be rules about it. We don't let everyone drive a car however they want to, wherever they want to and damn be the consequences. We have safety checks and measures in place. You can smoke, but you need to go to designated areas. You can go and watch a film in a cinema, but you absolutely cannot record it. We have an agreed system.

The game has changed, but legislation and public behaviour is lagging behind. No longer are photos and camcorder footage being used for home videos, for private use, but they are being published on platforms fully accessible by the whole world. You don't have control of how that footage is presented, you don't have control on where it goes. You ought to. Facial blurring technology exists on every single video editing programme, including the consumer and free options, it takes a matter of seconds to blur out a face, if it were required.

We shouldn't have to put up with it. We shouldn't have to bend to the will of the few that want to publish their every waking moment for the whole world to see. We shouldn't have to let our enjoyment of our day out be impacted by the, frankly selfish, behaviour of others.

 

[rob666]

They do tend to bounce of me quite hard when they are not looking where they are going on the Beach.
I refuse to step aside, and simply stop.
They then give an entitled sort of "Get out of my way" look.
And I tend to say "Look where you are going you idiot".
And then I grin all the way to the bar.

 

[Craig]

I'm much in the "do whatever" camp, with similar caveats to what others have suggested. Still images featuring me in the background? Do what you want, I'm in public as far as I'm concerned (regardless of private land yadda yadda). Chucking me prominently in a thumbnail without asking? That's going a bit far from just a general politeness point of view. It takes seconds to ask someone if it's ok, I don't think that's too much to ask.

As for video, similar things apply really. One thing that really annoyed me about Nemesis Reborn's opening was the sheer number of people walking the queue - be that live or recorded. I'm all for people demonstrating the length of the queue from a distance, but the constant flow of people and cameras being chucked in your face was annoying. You have no idea if your conversations were being picked up as they passed, and it was just a little bit too intrusive. Again, it's just a politeness thing more than anything else. It's not like state secrets were being discussed or anything, it'd just be nice to have not had to be mindful of it, especially considering it was the first time many of us were catching up for months.

From a terms and conditions point of view, indeed they do state filming is not permitted for commercial or public purpose. A note that that's commercial or public. That's a difficult thing to fully enforce considering you'd be preventing anyone with a Youtube channel, public Instagram/Twitter account from taking photos and videos. It's there to allow them to give a reason to eject/check footage if someone is being disruptive on park, rather than outright ban it.

tl;dr - Just a bit of common sense from people, that's all!

 

[Skyscraper]

As for video, similar things apply really. One thing that really annoyed me about Nemesis Reborn's opening was the sheer number of people walking the queue - be that live or recorded. I'm all for people demonstrating the length of the queue from a distance, but the constant flow of people and cameras being chucked in your face was annoying. You have no idea if your conversations were being picked up as they passed, and it was just a little bit too intrusive. Again, it's just a politeness thing more than anything else. It's not like state secrets were being discussed or anything, it'd just be nice to have not had to be mindful of it, especially considering it was the first time many of us were catching up for months.

That's a good point, I remember TPWW went past your TS group in the opposite direction in the queue and gave TS a shoutout.

 

[Matt N]

The question is, though; if we try and prevent any kind of photography or videography with people incidentally in it in the background, where do you draw the line?

If you try and prevent any kind of photography or videography with people incidentally being in the background, then that introduces all kinds of difficulties. As an example, personal social media pages are technically public if you don’t have certain settings enabled; if we were to prevent anyone from taking a photo or video that might have people incidentally being in the background, that would forbid many people’s photos and videos from being uploaded to their personal social media channels and shared with their family and friends.

As another example, these forums are public; if we were to prevent anyone from taking a photo or video that might have people incidentally being in the background, that would prevent pretty much any photo ever taken at a park from being uploaded onto these forums.

I fully agree that photos and videos where people are not incidental should only be taken and uploaded online with the full consent of all non-incidental people that have any kind of prominent role. I also fully agree that people should be entitled to privacy within their own homes and in private spaces. However, I think that the potential for an incidental appearance in someone’s photo or video taken in a public space is simply a reality of public life in the current era. You can’t stop people from taking photos and videos in a public space, and provided that people in a photo or video do not play a prominent role in this content without their consent, this is unlikely to have any adverse effects for them. Yes, their likeness might be mined for data and such, but this is no more likely to happen from this than it is from if they have a social media account or any kind of online footprint. If you’re concerned about your data being mined from these kinds of instances, the only thing I can suggest is stopping internet use entirely, as many websites out there will be able to mine the same information through plenty of other means.

It’s a tough one. Perhaps I’m too nonchalant on the matter…

 

[Matt.GC]

I don't think it's fair to say that because some people are more cavalier with accepting terms and conditions, from companies which spend a lot of money convincing them that they really ought to, that they need to abandon all principles when it comes to privacy in other areas of their life. You, clearly, absolutely care about this type of behaviour (evil corps and TOS), but you're at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to appearing in vlogging footage. The views don't have to be mutually exclusive and it's certainly far more nuanced than that. Additionally, with the evil corps and their TOS, you have the ability to read (if you so wish) everything you're agreeing to. You have informed consent, theoretically you know what you're signing for and you've actively agreed. When you're enjoying a lazy lap on the Congo River Rapids and someone's got a 4K video of you bobbing along from a bridge, you literally don't have any control, or say, or consent.

I'm very sorry that this happened to you, Google's review process is absolutely awful, and needs overhauling. This shouldn't mean that everyone else has to have the same experience as you.

Actually, a recent court case confirmed that Ring doorbells should operate under the same conditions as CCTV on a commercial property. They should only be focused on private property, they should not capture someone else's private property (like your neighbour's house) and they need to be clearly identified and notices put up.

BBC News - Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras

Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras

The Amazon devices were found to invade privacy and break data laws in a landmark UK case.

www.bbc.co.uk

GDPR vs Ring Doorbells. Infringement of Privacy or reasonable safety precautions? - Saunders Law

Do you have a ring doorbell? Do you have CCTV on your property? A recent case, Fairhurst v Woodard, from October last year provides some interesting and useful guidance on...

www.saunders.co.uk

You shouldn't have to feel this way. There ought to be rules about it. We don't let everyone drive a car however they want to, wherever they want to and damn be the consequences. We have safety checks and measures in place. You can smoke, but you need to go to designated areas. You can go and watch a film in a cinema, but you absolutely cannot record it. We have an agreed system.

The game has changed, but legislation and public behaviour is lagging behind. No longer are photos and camcorder footage being used for home videos, for private use, but they are being published on platforms fully accessible by the whole world. You don't have control of how that footage is presented, you don't have control on where it goes. You ought to. Facial blurring technology exists on every single video editing programme, including the consumer and free options, it takes a matter of seconds to blur out a face, if it were required.

We shouldn't have to put up with it. We shouldn't have to bend to the will of the few that want to publish their every waking moment for the whole world to see. We shouldn't have to let our enjoyment of our day out be impacted by the, frankly selfish, behaviour of others.

But we're actually saying the same thing. No, it's not great. No, legislation hasn't kept pace with tech.

But surely you've got to see the irony of people happily posting Tweets, Facebook Posts, and YouTube videos on this very forum. Or trawling social media for every minute update that happens within a theme park. Yet when the boot is on the other foot, suddenly it's not so nice?

I thought I hadn't fully signed up this world myself. But in reality I have, just not as full throttled as others. I've voted at general elections without considering this issue and I haven't written to my MP with my concerns. I stupidly signed up for a Facebook and Google account in the 2000's and now those companies have my intimate data and personal likeness forever. I don't boycott businesses that use CCTV. I watch YouTube videos.

But then I just popped over to the shop to buy myself something for tea. I begrudgingly accepted that I probably appeared on the neighbours door bells as I walked past, and on a motorists dash cam as I crossed at the lights. I knew that someone could have been in an office watching my every move on CCTV as I picked up my steak (lovely looking Ribeye and I'm looking forward to it), and someone could have filmed me from the public road if they wished to make a YouTube video about supermarket car parks or something. I would prefer none of these things of course, but then I don't go to private theme park events that I know is aimed at attracting vloggers.

So I suppose we'll stop seeing social media posts in forum threads going forwards as others would have by then terminated their social media agreements with American based companies and the Chinese Communist Party? Members MP's will soon be receiving letters demanding a change in the law? Merlin and Paultons will have similar letters regarding permitting filming on their premises or we'll withdraw our custom? They'll be no more pictures or videos posted in threads going forwards that identifies anyone without their permission?

Or do we want our cake and eat it? We sign up to the T&C's every time we vote, every time we accept all cookies on a website, every time we trawl through social media for ride construction updates, every time we turn our location on for "a better experience", and every time we go to a theme park premises knowing full well that they permit people with camera phones to film.

 

[Slugjc]

I worked as a lifeguard back in the early 21st century. Non of us had a camara on us like we do now. We operated a very strict no camara policy. Couldn't even photo or film the building without prior consent, all down to child protection. I find it very weird that anyone would film within a swimming environment.

The rise of vlogging and influencers, is something that I haven't, as of yet got my head around. To me, they are nothing more than the bores who used a camcorder their holidays thinking we are all interested in what they got up to in Malta. I am also very aware that these things are not aimed at me. And so do my up most to block and avoid. Because I like this site on the Facebook ™, the algorithm seems to think I'm interested in these blerts. One in particular (whom I will not name.) with his stupid grinning face and his grinning other half, keeps popping up on my feeds like a stalker. He's even punched a way on to my you tube™ feed.

Down to the actual question. Am I annoyed I am being filmed. Yes and no. If I'm happily stood in a spot, such a queue and some blert starts vlogging in front of me than yes I would be extremely peed that I will be on social media without my permission, all I need is to see myself on public forum. When I have serious issues about my body shape as it is, I don't want to be paraded all other YouTube™ the way I look now. The sensible thing to do will be point the camara so it doesn't impeded on folk, having a nice time queuing. Ask for permission, it will make me want to like you more and have a small amount of respect for you. However, if i see you filming and I happen to need to walk passed. Crack on, that's my choice. Like when you see the news interviewing someone in the street. You were there before me.

I've ranted before, after the nemesis reopening. Make it interesting. Make me want to watch it. let us see what you are seeing and not with you in the foreground. I'm not interested in you and ya mates. I'm interested in the ride behind you. And in some cases, just enjoy what you are doing first before filming for ya vlog. Someone has said about, social media can be a drug. I can see why, the colour schemes are all designed and to pull you in and it has to be said. The little red dot with a number is so thrilling isn't it. Don't lie to ya self. Since that very dot has probably drawn you here to read this post now. A small little part of ya brain went "yes.........oh no it's that Muppet. Let's see what badly written thing he has wrote today."

 

[pluk]

I worked as a lifeguard back in the early 21st century. Non of us had a camara on us like we do now. We operated a very strict no camara policy. Couldn't even photo it film the building without consent, all down to child protection. I find it very weird that anyone would film within a swimming environment.

Back in the 90's we'd go to centre parcs at least once a year. Loads of cameras and camcorders in the swimming pool area, capturing happy memories, nothing more sinister.

That's before everyone became disproportionately terrified of paedophiles though.

 

[rob666]

I hate to say it mate, but from my professional experience from a quarter century's work in child social services, working in good close collaboration with the police and other agencies...a number of those with video cameras were in fact paedophiles.

Most large extended families have one in the background somewhere, sadly.
It happens...I wouldn't say concern is disproportionate, it is very difficult to measure.
Depends if you are measuring actual experiences or convictions I suppose.

 

[Slugjc]

Back in the 90's we'd go to centre parcs at least once a year. Loads of cameras and camcorders in the swimming pool area, capturing happy memories, nothing more sinister.

That's before everyone became disproportionately terrified of paedophiles though.

I'm sure there wasn't. But at Leeds city council it was a very big NO NO. I refused to teach a lesson because someone was filming, I don't want people having footage of me, or other children without consent. As it should be.

I'm sure in the 90s it was different.

On a personal note. I think it's right that camara's should be no where near a poolside. Even to film your own family.

 

[pluk]

Most large extended families have one in the background somewhere, sadly.
It happens...I wouldn't say concern is disproportionate, it is very difficult to measure.
Depends if you are measuring actual experiences or convictions I suppose.

This is it, the chances of being the victim to that sort of offending by a stranger in public is vanishingly small. The danger is nearly always in the home. But people will always be terrified of the strangers at the pool and happily leave the kids with creepy uncle Keith.

**OFF TOPIC CLAXON SOUNDS**

 

[Slugjc]

I understand ya point. The chances are incredibly slim. Like it or not, it's still part of child protection laws. Creepy uncle Keith isn't just operating in the home. HE'S OUT THERE!!.

I've just looked Towers policy of filming at splash landings

"For the safety and privacy of our Waterpark guests, we kindly ask that filming and photography in the Waterpark is kept to a minimum and is only permitted of your immediate group.

Underwater filming/photography is strictly prohibited and the use of phones/cameras is not allowed within the pools or on our Waterpark attractions. Filming and photography of any kind is strictly prohibited in the changing room area.

Please kindly be advised that on occasion a member of our team may approach you to check that any filming and/or photography aligns to our terms and conditions. Any action or behaviour that is deemed to be a breach of our filming and photography policy, or challenges the privacy and/or safety of other guests, could result in you being asked to leave the Waterpark with immediate effect."

To me, that would suggest that filming for vlogs is prohibited. Taking an image of your family, or a selfie at poolside is sound. Which is probably mirrored across a wide variety of sites. Depends on how you interpret the term "minimum."

Bringing it back to topic. It takes some folk alot to be in bare minimum clothing in a public space. I'm a little body conscience. It would make me extremely uncomfortable if I saw some pointing a camara in my general direction at splash landings as an example. I'm sure I am not alone on that front.

 

[rob666]

There are rules, and there is the imposition of the rules.
Big difference there...all down to staff judgement.
Innocent actions are often quietly, discretely ignored...but can be imposed fully on the slightest whiff of suspicion.
Probably as it should be.

 

[Slugjc]

Interesting to see that staff can ask to look at what has been captured to check. Seen a few people say "they can't do that...." They can. Don't have to show them and they can't just look. They can enquire.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Interesting to see that staff can ask to look at what has been captured to check. Seen a few people say "they can't do that...." They can. Don't have to show them and they can't just look. They can enquire.

Under any ordinary circumstance they can't. As this condition is part of the terms and conditions for accessing the attraction, however, they can. If they hadn't stipulated that you agree to it, then they couldn't.