Legalities of Uploading Cycle-Cam Film - Take 9

[Origamist]

Interesting article - particularly with ref to the Human Rights Act:

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/cyclists-legal-helmet-camera-footage-lu-3359.htm

 

[BSRU]

It's rubbish, it's claiming showing information already in the public domain, i.e. registration plates, could violate the data protection act, firstly it's public information already and secondly the act only affects companies not private individuals.
If your on a public road then it's not a private matter, so how can human rights law have any bearing.
It also tries to justify the erroneous statements by using the Google StreetView argument, Google backed down because of the bad publicity not the law.
They've obviously been YouTube'd for some bad behaviour.

 

[gaz]

I saw that yesterday. An intresting read, but as Bsru has said, you are appling human rights to data in the public domain.
I asked the information commissioner only a few months ago if there are any legal implications with uploading footage to the net. It's not a problem in their eyes.

If it is against human rights. Then what about the photos tourists take with other people in the background, it would be against human rights to post those on Facebook.

Do I not have the human right to be able to use the roads without being put in danger?

 

[Origamist]

It's the Human Rights Act that is potentially the problem for uploaders. That said, I just can't see it being invoked over a piece of bad driving on Youtube (especially as YT already pulls vids when disgruntled "victims" feel their privacy has been compromised.

 

[Origamist]

I saw that yesterday. An intresting read, but as Bsru has said, you are appling human rights to data in the public domain.
I asked the information commissioner only a few months ago if there are any legal implications with uploading footage to the net. It's not a problem in their eyes.

If it is against human rights. Then what about the photos tourists take with other people in the background, it would be against human rights to post those on Facebook.

Do I not have the human right to be able to use the roads without being put in danger?

From the article:

If the footage accidentally features other people, that will probably not be an invasion of their privacy, but uploading footage of particular people, or vehicles which identify people, holding that person up to universal ridicule, could be deemed to be an invasion of their privacy. What may be of interest to an individual or to cyclists may not be 'in the public interest'.

 

[benborp]

The biggest threat that I read into that piece was the possibility of the wrong person i.e. someone with a bit of clout and the necessary resources, could make life very unpleasant for a poster by initiating legal proceedings. That sort of thing could quickly eat away several hundreds of thousands of pounds if the poster took a principled stand for their rights, regardless of how right and justified the poster was. People use such legal bluster all the time to get their way.

 

[siadwell]

Don't know whether he was the author of this article, but there's a poster over on YACF called Access Legal Guy who works for this law firm.

 

[Origamist]

Don't know whether he was the author of this article, but there's a poster over on YACF called Access Legal Guy who works for this law firm.

It's the same chap.

 

[Origamist]

The biggest threat that I read into that piece was the possibility of the wrong person i.e. someone with a bit of clout and the necessary resources, could make life very unpleasant for a poster by initiating legal proceedings. That sort of thing could quickly eat away several hundreds of thousands of pounds if the poster took a principled stand for their rights, regardless of how right and justified the poster was. People use such legal bluster all the time to get their way.

It's possible a civil case could be pursued. I guess a lot would hinge on whether the uploaded film was deemed in the public interest and then various things would come into play (i.e. if you called the vid: "moronic motorist [reg no.] is a would-be killer" as a opposed to "left hook avoidance" - it would have a bearing). Then again, YouTube will remove vids if requested in certain circumstances, so it would have to be a deep-pocketed and bloody-minded individual who went after a cam-user.

Gaz, it might be worth going back to the IC on this one for an update.

 

[BSRU]

What someone does on a public highway is not a private matter it's 100% public and hence not covered by the Human Rights Act.

 

[BSRU]

From the BBC, who a very sensitive about this issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-privacy-introduction/

Privacy laws do not apply when:-
exposing or detecting crime
exposing significantly anti-social behaviour
disclosing significant incompetence or negligence
protecting people's health and safety

All of these can apply to video's of bad road users.

 

[gaz]

Gaz, it might be worth going back to the IC on this one for an update.

I will be doing that. I shall post my findings here.

With regards to civil claims. If someone wants their video removed, I will do. In fact I have removed several because people asked.

 

[Origamist]

BSRU - do you have any legal background?

 

[BSRU]

No.

 

[BentMikey]

I will be doing that. I shall post my findings here.

With regards to civil claims. If someone wants their video removed, I will do. In fact I have removed several because people asked.

You've been threatened with legal action Gaz?

This guy did (one of the Mason father/sons), but I left his video up:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqCnBt3XZxE