To ask if anybody knows the answer to this?

[HellaFitzgerald]

On news reports, when they are filming a report in public and people are walking down the street in the background (faces showing), do the producers have to ask them to sign contracts to appear on TV once they are off-screen? Or are they "plants" and have already agreed? Or are news reports subject to some sort of clause that they are allowed to do this without contracts in the name of public interest?

(Before anyone asks, this did not happen to me - I'm watching the news right now and just wondered).

They can record in pubic without consent.

They are in a public place.
This is the 2nd thread in 2 days where someone has questioned this although the other thread was about children being filmed/photographed in public.

any one can film or take pictures in a public place, not sure why the news would be any different?

Of course they don't require consent

This is the second idiotic post about rights to privacy in public today

any one can film or take pictures in a public place, not sure why the news would be any different?

I thought differently as I thought people had to sign a contract to state their agreement otherwise they can not legally be broadcast on TV, even the news (though thought it might be exempt, as in the OP)

Why is it "of course"?

Of course they don’t require consent. If you’re in a public place you can be filmed. If they do a news report with a crowd, say at Glastonbury or like recently a lot of news reports on busy beaches, do you think they check with hundreds and thousands of people for filming permission?

I don't think it's an idiotic question at all.

Can someone explain why car registration plates are blurred out, if they are filmed in a public place? I assumed it was to do with privacy but if faces aren't given the same protection, why are cars?

I wandered into a news shot years ago. Certainly didn’t ask my permission- I didn’t even realise until I saw myself on TV (it was years ago and I was in my own world, I don’t really know how I missed the cameras 3 feet away from me!)

Because, I am guessing, a name and address of the owner can be gained from a car reg whereas your name and address can't be gained from your face?

I considered things like Glastonbury and the like of being somewhere in the ticket terms and conditions, similar to "your call may be recorded" when calling a company.

I feel those people that they film when they do articles on 'Britain's Obesity Crisis'.

Imagine recognising yourself from the back, just walking down the street

@HellaFitzgerald

It's 'of course' because most are aware of this very basic fact

I think the uk uses biometrics to ID people so theoretically your face could be used to identify you.

God, I hope not! 😬😂
(excellent typo!)

It is a common misconception you have Op (I don't mean that horribly). Just quite a few people think the same as you.

I've often seen people get cross and say "You can't film me without my consent".
Well, they are wrong, provided you are in public.

I'd have to look it up, but the laws changed around the right to privacy when you are out and about in public.

This is why we have so many CCTV. You are being filmed a lot out in public, you're just not aware.

Naturally, if you are at home, private, then someone can't film, take a picture through your window.
But I remember a whole woo-ha when drones became a thing and people where flying drones above people's gardens and taking pictures. I can't remember what the law says on that though. I'll have to have a look.

Hi, thanks for your reply, I do understand the difference (and other people's misinterpretations) of what you're describing, but my question is specifically related to broadcasting laws, not something that someone posts to social media which seems to be a law unto itself, but actually broadcast on TV.

@PollyRockets It's 'of course' because most are aware of this very basic fact

Can you show anything that confirms it?

I had to sign an agreement when a Countryfile type programme filmed me. I wasn't part of the programme, just in the background doing something, but still had to sign my permission to air. (It was on tv for seconds)

“You do not need to ask passers-by for permission to feature their faces in a film. Under UK law, the copyright of film shot in a public place resides with the filmmaker.”

from here:
britishfilmcommission.org.uk/guidance/regulations/

@HellaFitzgerald

Confirms what?

It's no coincidence that 99% of those replying here know this to be the case

It's been done on Miranda.
"It was panning!" 😂

Yes it applies to whether you are being filmed/pictured for the TV or for social media. Also it applies if it is a broadcaster or an "average" person on the street.
No matter who it is or where the footage will be displayed, they do not need your consent, if you are in a public place.

If you think about it, it kind of makes sense. During riots etc, press are always there filming what's going in. You always have some poor BBC reporter, dodging flying bottles, reporting live from the scene.
It would make zero sense, if they had to say "excuse me everyone, before you go home or get arrested, please could you give your consent and sign this contract?" 😁

That's the key thing, it has to be public, not private property. So for example, if you are in a museum or cinema, sometimes you will be allowed to film/take a picture, but as these are private property, they can demand you dont film at all.

Sad as I am, I find these laws quite interesting. 😁