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

[Skyscraper]

Didn’t know they were doing another event, where are the details on their website?

If you want to attend you can DM me for the email address

 

[Matt N]

You see, I think this is an interesting one. Not Paultons’ policy more specifically, but the more general issue originally discussed.

For me personally, I’d argue that context is vital here.

If someone is featured prominently within a video without their consent (i.e. they are made the focus of the video at one or more points), I think that is wrong on the part of the vlogger. People should not be prominent within footage or photos posted online if they have not consented to it.

But in terms of more incidental background appearances, I don’t have an issue with it. If a vlogger was filming this type of content in your own home, or in a public area with implied privacy such as a toilet or changing room, that would of course be highly problematic. But theme parks are public places. If you appear in the background of a vlogger’s video, you’re unlikely to be noticed unless someone is looking for you specifically (which would likely only be you/your close friends and family). Lots of people drift in the background of theme park vlogs and wider theme park videos, so unless you do something to specifically draw attention to yourself (and at that point, I would argue you’re implying consent in some cases anyway, depending on what said thing is), you’re unlikely to be noticed by viewers.

I say this as someone who has incidentally appeared in the background of vlogs before with varying degrees of prominence, so it’s not a situation I don’t have first hand experience of. In these situations, I sometimes tend to try and divert myself out of view of the vlogger’s camera depending on how close I am and the nuances of the situation, but if I am caught in shot, I don’t really have an issue with it going online. It’s not like the vlogger is parading me and putting me front of centre in their video without my consent, and it’s in a public place, so I figure that people are unlikely to notice me and that incidental appearances in vlogs are a risk I take by visiting a public place.

Filming or taking photos in a public place is not illegal, and being out in a public place in a public situation naturally exposes you to some level of risk. I’d argue that trying to ban photos and videos in public places that have people incidentally appearing in the background is a slippery slope that is tough to draw a good line on. Where do you stand on people taking pictures of their kids to post to Facebook, for example? If the parents don’t have a private Facebook page, that picture is posted and out there for the whole internet to see no less than a vlogger’s video is. And if the kids are in a public place, there is a very real chance that others may be incidentally caught in the background. If you wanted to ban this, should we also ban any photos from this forum? Many construction updates and park photos posted on here will have people incidentally appearing in them, some of whom are in their place of work at the time. It’s a slippery slope, for sure.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

You see, I think this is an interesting one. Not Paultons’ policy more specifically, but the more general issue originally discussed.

For me personally, I’d argue that context is vital here.

If someone is featured prominently within a video without their consent (i.e. they are made the focus of the video at one or more points), I think that is wrong on the part of the vlogger. People should not be prominent within footage or photos posted online if they have not consented to it.

But in terms of more incidental background appearances, I don’t have an issue with it. If a vlogger was filming this type of content in your own home, or in a public area with implied privacy such as a toilet or changing room, that would of course be highly problematic. But theme parks are public places. If you appear in the background of a vlogger’s video, you’re unlikely to be noticed unless someone is looking for you specifically (which would likely only be you/your close friends and family). Lots of people drift in the background of theme park vlogs and wider theme park videos, so unless you do something to specifically draw attention to yourself (and at that point, I would argue you’re implying consent in some cases anyway, depending on what said thing is), you’re unlikely to be noticed by viewers.

I say this as someone who has incidentally appeared in the background of vlogs before with varying degrees of prominence, so it’s not a situation I don’t have first hand experience of. In these situations, I sometimes tend to try and divert myself out of view of the vlogger’s camera depending on how close I am and the nuances of the situation, but if I am caught in shot, I don’t really have an issue with it going online. It’s not like the vlogger is parading me and putting me front of centre in their video without my consent, and it’s in a public place, so I figure that people are unlikely to notice me and that incidental appearances in vlogs are a risk I take by visiting a public place.

Filming or taking photos in a public place is not illegal, and being out in a public place in a public situation naturally exposes you to some level of risk. I’d argue that trying to ban photos and videos in public places that have people incidentally appearing in the background is a slippery slope that is tough to draw a good line on. Where do you stand on people taking pictures of their kids to post to Facebook, for example? If the parents don’t have a private Facebook page, that picture is posted and out there for the whole internet to see no less than a vlogger’s video is. And if the kids are in a public place, there is a very real chance that others may be incidentally caught in the background. If you wanted to ban this, should we also ban any photos from this forum? Many construction updates and park photos posted on here will have people incidentally appearing in them, some of whom are in their place of work at the time. It’s a slippery slope, for sure.

We're at risk of repeating the same conversation we had only a few months ago. Some of the points in your most recent post were raised and addressed then, indeed it reads like a pastiche of a post you made two pages ago.

A theme park is not a public place. It is private land. General admission is permitted based on the terms and conditions set by the land owner, or park operator. You agree to those terms when you buy a ticket and access the property.

A public place is somewhere that the public can access without hinderence.

No one is calling for an outright ban on photographs or videos in publicly accessible spaces, and slippery slope arguments are weak. Crucially, no one is saying the photos shouldn't be taken, the issues are around how they are published, shared and the intended audience.

Anyone filming content, with the intention of wide or public distribution, should be following the long established principles of professionals before them. The delivery mechanism may have evolved, and the barrier to entry for amateurs may have lowered, but it doesn't mean that standards should have.

 

[Matt N]

We're at risk of repeating the same conversation we had only a few months ago. Some of the points in your most recent post were raised and addressed then, indeed it reads like a pastiche of a post you made two pages ago.

A theme park is not a public place. It is private land. General admission is permitted based on the terms and conditions set by the land owner, or park operator. You agree to those terms when you buy a ticket and access the property.

A public place is somewhere that the public can access without hinderence.

No one is calling for an outright ban on photographs or videos in publicly accessible spaces, and slippery slope arguments are weak. Crucially, no one is saying the photos shouldn't be taken, the issues are around how they are published, shared and the intended audience.

Anyone filming content, with the intention of wide or public distribution, should be following the long established principles of professionals before them. The delivery mechanism may have evolved, and the barrier to entry for amateurs may have lowered, but it doesn't mean that standards should have.

I admit I'd completely forgotten about posting in here previously... that teaches me for not reading back through a thread before posting! Clearly my opinions nor my writing style have changed very much since we last had this conversation...

I disagree. Yes, a theme park may not be a public place in the sense that the public can access it without hindrance, but I still don't think you go to one expecting privacy, at least not in the same manner as you would expect at home or in a sensitive area. Theme parks have thousands of people in them, and thousands of people are around you at any moment in communal areas; in that sense, I would definitely argue that they are a public place, and the same risks of being out in public still apply. If the parks turn a blind eye to vlogging (as they mostly do), then I don't really see what can be done.

Despite what you say, I do also think there's a very fine line with this sort of thing. Why is it OK for someone to upload pictures to their public Facebook profile incidentally containing other people in the background without their consent, but it isn't OK for a vlogger to post video content to YouTube with similar incidental background appearances of other people without their consent? In both instances, someone's likeness is being uploaded to the internet by someone else non-consensually, and all the risks associated with that still apply.

As said, though, I do agree that consent should be required in instances where the person's presence is more prominent.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Yes, a theme park may not be a public place in the sense that the public can access it without hindrance, but I still don't think you go to one expecting privacy, at least not in the same manner as you would expect at home or in a sensitive area. Theme parks have thousands of people in them, and thousands of people are around you at any moment in communal areas; in that sense, I would definitely argue that they are a public place, and the same risks of being out in public still apply.

Privacy isn't binary. You can expect various levels of discretion and privacy depending on the context. You don't either have privacy or not, and it is always yours to consent away. It cannot be taken away from you without legal due process.

Just because a theme park is outside, it doesn't mean that it's any less private that an bowling alley, a cinema, a university lecture hall, a theatre, a hospital or a restaurant.

If the parks turn a blind eye to vlogging (as they mostly do), then I don't really see what can be done.

They don't. The terms and conditions of entry to Alton Towers clearly state the following:

Photography and Filming:

Unless it is expressly prohibited, you are permitted to take photographs and recordings within the Attraction provided that these are not sold or used for any commercial purpose unless otherwise agreed/prior permission is obtained. Filming and photography on all rides and attractions is strictly prohibited unless otherwise specified. Go pro (or any other handheld recording device including mobile phone and video camera) use is not permitted onboard rides and attractions. 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 be 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 and you must adhere to all photography/filming restrictions in place from time to time whilst within the Attraction. From time to time Merlin or other authorised parties carry out photography and/or video recording in the Attraction, which may feature guests. Entry to the Attraction is deemed acceptance of these Entry Conditions, and you therefore agree that Merlin or any authorised party may use such images in perpetuity in any promotional, advertising or publicity material in any format whatsoever. You further agree that copyright in these materials rests with Merlin or such authorised party (as the case may be).

Terms and Conditions | Alton Towers Resort

Read the Alton Towers Resort Terms & Conditions

www.altontowers.com

In case anyone is TLDR, this section is particularly appropriate:

By accepting these Entry Conditions, you agree not to intentionally photograph and/or capture video footage of any individual without that person’s permission and you must adhere to all photography/filming restrictions in place from time to time whilst within the Attraction.

The parks aren't turning a blind eye, the average vlogger just doesn't care. They value their audience, and commercial success, over your privacy or the park's wishes. The parks could put their foot down, but is it worth the backlash? You're, in effect, being held ransom by entitled mouth pieces with cameras.

Why is it OK for someone to upload pictures to their public Facebook profile incidentally containing other people in the background without their consent, but it isn't OK for a vlogger to post video content to YouTube with similar incidental background appearances of other people without their consent?

The public profile is down to a poor understanding of a private individual privacy settings on their Facebook account, or whatever. The intention is that it is shared with a small audience, it is targeted. The vlogger is literally broadcasting, it's for an audience as wide as possible and often with commercial interest. It's the intent that matters.

Yes, a theme park may not be a public place in the sense that the public can access it without hindrance, but I still don't think you go to one expecting privacy, at least not in the same manner as you would expect at home or in a sensitive area. Theme parks have thousands of people in them, and thousands of people are around you at any moment in communal areas; in that sense, I would definitely argue that they are a public place, and the same risks of being out in public still apply. If the parks turn a blind eye to vlogging (as they mostly do), then I don't really see what can be done.

 

[Matt N]

Privacy isn't binary. You can expect various levels of discretion and privacy depending on the context. You don't either have privacy or not, and it is always yours to consent away. It cannot be taken away from you without legal due process.

Just because a theme park is outside, it doesn't mean that it's any less private that an bowling alley, a cinema, a university lecture hall, a theatre, a hospital or a restaurant.

I'd argue that none of those other places you mentioned, aside from maybe the hospital in certain circumstances, are private places either. On the spectrum of private to public, I'd personally put these places far more towards "public place" than "private place"; you won't be afforded the same privacy going to them as you get in your own home or a sensitive area, and you know that going in. I would personally argue that all of these are public places by virtue of the fact that lots of people will be in them at once and you're not in your own home or a sensitive area with implied privacy. It has nothing to do with theme parks being outdoors; I think of most of the examples you mentioned as equally "public".

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that even "public" places like these still see people deserving an extent of privacy. For example, it would be a gross violation of someone's privacy if a vlogger came and started waving their camera in someone's face non-consensually, or if they otherwise harassed an unsuspecting member of the public. But I would argue that simply filming themselves or their surroundings in a public place and having people incidentally appear in shot while they film is not, in itself, harassment or a violation of privacy. It's not really any different to those action shots of streets they always have on the news, or interviews in public places; they feature people incidentally, but attention isn't drawn to those people unless you personally know them. Admittedly, I'm not aware of the specifics of how consent is handled when filming broadcast news in public places, but I'd imagine that with those action shots in particular, people just see the camera and decide whether to walk in front of it or not, which is no different to a vlogger filming in a park with a GoPro.

They don't. The terms and conditions of entry to Alton Towers clearly state the following:

Terms and Conditions | Alton Towers Resort

Read the Alton Towers Resort Terms & Conditions

www.altontowers.com

In case anyone is TLDR, this section is particularly appropriate:

The parks aren't turning a blind eye, the average vlogger just doesn't care. They value their audience, and commercial success, over your privacy or the park's wishes. The parks could put their foot down, but is it worth the backlash? You're, in effect, being held ransom by entitled mouth pieces with cameras.

It's worth noting that the phrase you've highlighted says:

By accepting these Entry Conditions, you agree not to intentionally photograph and/or capture video footage of any individual without that person’s permission and you must adhere to all photography/filming restrictions in place from time to time whilst within the Attraction.

I think "intentionally" is the key word here. While people are captured in the background of vlogs, I would argue that in most cases, the only ones being filmed or photographed "intentionally" as the T&Cs state are the vlogger themself and/or any stars they have with them, who have all consented to being intentionally filmed. Vloggers are not intentionally filming members of the public; they are filming themselves or their surroundings, and members of the public occasionally happen to appear in the background.

It's like I said before; I think there's a big difference between giving an unwitting member of the public a prominent presence in the video without consent, which I agree is wrong, and having members of the public appear incidentally in the background of a video or otherwise within a video in a peripheral, non-noticeable role, which is not a prominent presence. The question I'd ask is; is the person likely to draw attention to themselves within the video from people other than those who know them? I'd argue that formal consent primarily needs to be sought by vloggers if the answer to that question is yes, which in many of the more incidental presence situations we're discussing, it won't be.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Admittedly, I'm not aware of the specifics of how consent is handled when filming broadcast news in public places, but I'd imagine that with those action shots in particular, people just see the camera and decide whether to walk in front of it or not, which is no different to a vlogger filming in a park with a GoPro.

This is a GoPro. It's smaller than your phone and weighs a few grams. It's discrete.



This is a Sony PXW-Z750 ENG (electronic news gathering) camera. It weighs several kilos and is typically mounted on your shoulder, or preferably on a tripod. It is obvious and not discrete.

which I agree is wrong, and having members of the public appear incidentally in the background of a video or otherwise within a video in a peripheral, non-noticeable role, which is not a prominent presence.

No one, not even me, is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to film in theme parks, or incidentally capture people in the background of footage.

Film yourself, obviously, talking to a camera and that's fine. Film people going around on a ride, and that's not really ok (depending on the fidelity and shot composition). Film people coming into a station? Absolutely not. Film children in a splash zone? Shouldn't even be considered.

The real world isn't extremist Matt, just online discussion, and I fear that you've failed to read the nuance which has been described in these very pages.

It is refreshing that Paulton's Park is reminding vloggers that the park is primarily for paying guests, and that their enjoyment should be paramount, over the wanton need for vloggers to get content.

 

[Matt N]

Ah, fair enough; I think I get you a little more now.

I was referring more to the instances where a vlogger is holding the GoPro out in front of them while talking to the camera, where I'd argue it's a bit more noticeable, but I do acknowledge that the chest mounts used in some scenarios where the vlogger is not talking to the camera may be a bit more easily hidden to a casual bypasser.

I agree that some of the "off-ride"-type footage in the cases you mention is maybe a bit more of a grey area. How would you feel about it if faces were blurred so that people were not personally identifiable? Perhaps this should become more widespread in vlogs?

 

[Danscott22]

I don’t mind if I’m in the background, or if I’m on a ride (seen myself on both on YouTube) but wouldn’t want a camera shoving in my face

 

[tayspru]

how does one go about attending these fan events anyway? I have a modestly sized social media reach with just over 15k followers, but don’t seem to be part of the “in” crowd as my content isn’t exclusively theme parks (nevermind I was a “thoosie” in the dark days of 2008 before it was cool, and when Merlin was a beacon of hope!)

 

[Matt N]

how does one go about attending these fan events anyway? I have a modestly sized social media reach with just over 15k followers, but don’t seem to be part of the “in” crowd as my content isn’t exclusively theme parks (nevermind I was a “thoosie” in the dark days of 2008 before it was cool, and when Merlin was a beacon of hope!)

I believe you can sign yourself up; Paultons came onto this very forum and encouraged members to sign up for it, if I'm remembering rightly.

 

[Benzin]

Paultons probably doing it to ensure that families who visit the park on that day don't feel somewhat nervous by 100ish camera wielding goons filming their kids, even by accident.

Given the things I'm constantly signing off for nursery/kids activities to allow photography it's no real surprise to see a predominantly kids aimed park doing it.

 

[James]

I'm sure it's already been mentioned, too, but Paulton's is much smaller than a park such as Alton Towers. So vloggers perhaps have to be a bit more aware when filming than somewhere like Towers, where you can go somewhere quiet to speak to the camera.

I have a degree in photography and still undertake it as a hobby more than a profession, so I'm pretty accustomed to the debate around taking pictures of others. Photography and videography can be quite similar. Laws are somewhat relaxed in the UK, although there's always basic courtesy when you get members of the public caught in photos. If they are your primary subject, gain consent. If not, there are a few variables to consider, including your intended use of the image, before keeping or deleting that image. The rise of vlogging, mobile phones, and small devices such as GoPros has made this more of a debate in recent years, although I cannot say much has changed, and the majority of 'influences' show the same common courtesy that professionals and hobbyists have done so for decades prior.

I think Goose has summed up a lot rather nicely on this page.

 

[Slugjc]

This subject should be about 1 thing and 1 thing only. Respect.

Respect to the T&C's on a company website.

Respect to the people who really don't want to be filmed without permission.

We live in an age where cameras are every where. To be honest, I'm one that would rather go about my business knowing that vloggers are not filming me. If I see one, I will move out of my way to avoid being in there shot. I'm of a generation that would wait for someone to take a photo before moving on. I respect that they want to be doing it, who am I to spoil what folk find fun.

I've made my voice clear on my opinions of Theme park vlogs on here before, several times. Over saturated market and very rarely any good and they seem to busy being focussed on themselves.