Privacy violation

[magnatom]

If you read back and remember Magger's previous postings, he has checked out the legality of filming on the public highway and showing the vids on youtube. I think he's got something about it on his blog as well. The circumstances and legality are different if you're filming or being filmed on private property.

Ultimately the issue is with Youtube.

Indeed. It comes under the recreation exemption. I have correspondence with the Information Commissioner to back this up.

 

[downfader]

Sorry to play devil's avocado here, and my understanding of the law is of course limited - but - I believe while you are fully within your rights to film someone in a public place, I think there are different laws in place regarding their broadcast.

Hence when you see TV shows and there is filming on the street, sometimes you get people's faces being blurred out - I think the broadcaster requires a consent form to be signed for the material to be broadcast.

Worth investigating I guess.

When I was working at the hospital and the Beeb were filming there they would use release forms, yes. However this was due to it being classed as private property and members of staff and public being in a difficult and sometimes emotional circumstance.

On the street its different. You only really need a release for certain commercial and advertising scenarios (for example the ads with the kleenex where people chatted on the sofa, and the ad with the running machines in the street where people looked on were staged to avoid this, others far enough in the background didnt need a release)

If you're submitting photography (or even video thesedays) to library agencies they often stipulate release forms, but meerly to cover their back and out of a business policy (as already said Youtube is taking a business policy)

I think you have to remember that what Mags, I, Thomas and others do is a form of blogging, its generally "recreational".

 

[thomas]

The privacy thing, well, in my eyes (and I'd be interested in Flying Monkey's and Kirstie's views on this) is verging on censorship. Now I can certainly understand that there has to be limits, and that in the end youtube/google are providing a service and can decide to do what they like with it, but, if they can't operate within and up to the laws of each country (technically not difficult considering their expertise) then, what is the point?

Though annoying, I can understand why youtube just deletes the video straight away/gave you the 48 hours to edit the video....even if they are not legally required to.

As for other hosting places, I use resellerzoom for my websites. The packages are affordable and quite large. I think there might be a stipulation on video streaming/hosting lots of videos though, so you'd have to check.

The cost of an actual server, even if split between youtube helmet camera blogger folks would still be quite a lot...certainly it wouldn't be something I'd be interested in.

I would try http://www.vimeo.com/

It always seems to be a higher quality than youtube....but less people will find your videos!! I think it's better to mirror some of the ones youtube doesn't like hosting, rather than just not using youtube out of principle.

The only problem I've had with music is it removing copyrighted music soundtracks, which I can completely understand.

 

[BentMikey]

fewer people, surely?

 

[KentMikey]

fewer people, surely?

That has what has been said Einstein.

 

[thomas]

fewer people, surely?

I couldn't care fewer

That has what has been said Einstein.

+1.

grammar/spelling forum police = boring. You understood what I meant, it wasn't like it was ALL IN CAPITALS or txt tlk.

How would you like my references? Will the Harvard system do

 

[BentMikey]

I'd normally agree, but there are some really obvious ones like this one that are well worth fixing.

 

[magnatom]

Interestingly this video hasn't been deleted yet. I sent an e-mail to youtube (obviously just expecting it to be ignored) asking for clarification, mentioning my communications with the information Commissioner etc. Maybe it has prevented it being deleted....or maybe they are just slow over Christmas/New Year.....hmmm.

 

[hackbike 666]

What are you going to do if it is deleted?

Put another edited one up?

That person isn't important to the video anyway.There are idiots everywhere.

 

[magnatom]

What are you going to do if it is deleted?

Put another edited one up?

That person isn't important to the video anyway.There are idiots everywhere.

I'm still considering moving from youtube totally, however, that is a decision for the new year.

Actually, I think that person is important to the video, because it shows there are idiots everywhere! If it gets deleted, I won't be putting up an edited version. I will however, contemplate following it up with youtube, or someone else...

 

[hackbike 666]

Yeah try not to take them off unless need be.IMHO.

Well I wouldn't I suppose.

 

[BentMikey]

Nah, don't give up on youtube, carry on using them. I would also do a secondary route where you can relist any videos that youtube deletes for invalid reasons like this.

 

[downfader]

I'm still considering moving from youtube totally, however, that is a decision for the new year.

Actually, I think that person is important to the video, because it shows there are idiots everywhere! If it gets deleted, I won't be putting up an edited version. I will however, contemplate following it up with youtube, or someone else...

I noticed yesterday it was still there. As Mikey says dont just ditch youtube just because of this. I know one of the US velomobile guys had some issues too, he just put a copy on Vimeo and still uses his Youtube account:

http://www.youtube.com/user/freddotu

 

[ufkacbln]

Just to repeat myself, and add a small change. Edit and keep with an explanation, but now add a link to the others!