on youtube I watched a British reality show about airports and (mostly foreign) passengers being searched for anything illegal.
What I find troubling is that many of these passengers speak very little English and find it difficult to articulate an answer to what officers ask in English. I remember an Indian national who didn’t speak any English that though he had the right visa to work in the UK, only to find he had been duped by an Indian scammer and was refused entry. He started crying and the crew filmed the whole scene.
This is humiliating to say the least and I wouldn’t want this to happen to me if I visit the UK. My questions:
-
Should a reality crew start recording me, do I have a right to my image and can I tell them to stop recording me? Do tv crews respect that?
-
What about the police? Can they record my face, even if I don’t consent?
-
I also have a cultural question: If an officer at a British airport asks you if he can search your luggage and you say no and you ask him if you are under arrest, what happens then?
the rule is, the production company has to have your express permission if you directly talk to the camera or are featured in the footage. If you are in public and part of the crowd you cant ask for removal unless theres a good reason like court cases or something. You have to sign a form if you are more than just a person passing.
heathrow in particular is interesting because nearly all large airports are public owned and heathrow is private. This is important because the production company has permission to film from the owners, and so as a customer you are on their premises and subject to their terms of entry, one of which is being filmed as a member of the public. If the production company does interview you or features you (not just a passing person) and do not have permission there have been many cases where the program has been held from broadcast until the matter is resolved. If you think you need to ask them the company and names of production staff are on the credits of the show.
I know of one case with a prank tv show where the company pranked an estate agent by blowing up the house, and he got PTSD. The episode was never broadcast because he refused to sign the release, and sued the company for a serious amount of money. But the basic release form meant the company couldnt pass through the broadcast regulations.
In public there are a few restrictions but basically its public land like a street and not expected to be empty of people. You cant film wembley arch because its licenced to the FA rather than the local council.
THEY BLEW UP A HOUSE ? AS A PRANK ?
What has humanity come to…
i can expand a little but you dont know who’s reading this now or in the future, so cant give many more details. The idea was, as the ‘mark’ leaves the building with the couple who are in on the gag the house collapses behind him. Unfortunately the company used explosives and fire rigs to make the thing fall to bits so it looked like it just blew up and just missed him. There’s more to it as well but the upshot is, its a terrible thing and ruined a guys life for some stupid tv show.
I note there are no details as to whether the property was structurally sound. It seems like it would be a lot for a prank show to buy a house someone could live in just to blow it up, rather than buying a condemned property and cleaning/fixing it up just enough to look livable to anyone not inspecting it too closely. Especially with housing prices the way they have been in the UK for the last 30-odd years.
I mean that’s kind of awesome.
It’s what Cotton would have wanted
Spot on answer and really well articulated.
I think a lot of folk assume privacy, similar to the French model, but in the UK that really doesn’t exist.
One of the clearest examples is how the press operates. Doorstepping politicians and celebrities. They wouldn’t be able to do that if they required permission from the individual.
What’s the French model?
There’s a few French models, from what I’ve heard
In France the subject of the photograph owns the copyright of the picture.
Wow. So what happens there if you take a picture in a crowded area?
Legally, the default is that you need to ask permission of all subjects to shoot the photo. And again for each publication of that image.
In practice this is relaxed for public shots and street photography where the intent is not to make someone the subject of the photograph (people walking by in the background of a shot) or when “treating people with respect” (so yeah, no predatory homeless shots, or getting up in people’s faces). That said, this is for personal use and publishing them means you still might need to seek permission or risk being prosecuted later.
Finally there is a caveat that is “the right for information” which is how the paparazzi are able to photograph celebrities and the like. Under the heading of journalism.
Even so, you can only use those photographs in context. So, say you catch a shot Madonna flouting the law, you can’t later use that same photograph to illustrate an article of her being nice to cats. Furthermore they can also claim you are intruding on their private life. Which might still get you into trouble.
That’s really clear. I appreciate you taking the time to fill me in so thank you!
You’re more than welcome. It’s a fascinating subject area. Especially given the history of street photography and its roots in France.
Public place , no expectation of privacy. Same as most places.
deleted by creator
Absolutely false. If that were the case and you were filming a large gathering you would need permission from everyone which of course isn’t feasible in the slightest.
They violate no law in doing so. There is nothing inherently illegal about simply broadcasting your image without your permission.
The risk is that you can make some sort of claim against them (they promised you money, or they are trying to defame or harass you, etc.). Valid or not, without your explicit consent, they cannot definitively refute your claim.
A judge/jury will ultimately decide based on who seems the more credible party. Since they have little to gain and you have little to lose, the benefits to them of broadcasting your image without your consent are usually not justified.
Only true in the EU
We have CCTV everywhere so no matter what we’re almost always getting recorded anyway. For a show though they should have had to sign a waiver otherwise they’d have to be blurred. Whether or not that was done legitimately for those that barely speak English? No idea.
Also I think if customs have any suspicions they have the right to search your bag. I don’t think it’s a case of whether you want them to or not. When you go through customs and you put your bags in the conveyor belt they’re looking into your bags with xrays, and if the xray is inconclusive, they search your bag. They don’t tell you about it. You’re on the other side still waiting for your bags. It’s only afterwards that they’ll be like “hey, I just had to check your bag, was a false flag, it was just your beard scissors”. Which happened to me just the other week actually.
If this is the show I think it is, I think it was very short lived and only lasted a season, maybe two. Australia had one that lasted longer though I believe but that focused more on packages going into the country and not just passengers. Mostly dealing with their eco-bio laws or whatever they’re called.
In about 2014 we flew through an airport where some of these “customs” types shows was being recorded. They had signs up everywhere (I think in multiple languages) saying “episodes of _____ are being recorded here. If you do not wish to be recorded please talk to the crew” (or something like that).
But who knows what they’ve filmed for their cut-away shots, from the far said of the arrivals hall.
I guess you should expect shots of you walking to be ok. But probably have the right to opt out of having your “case” filled.
Absolutely, you are in a public place.
There has been several episodes of “border control UK” and similar where individuals are pixelated, so somehow there must be a way for them to refuse. Usually the footage is also >10 years old (check the clocks and calendars on display), there must be a statue of limitations concerning some of the stuff they are showing.
If an officer at a British airport asks you if he can search your luggage and you say no and you ask him if you are under arrest, what happens then?
The police (and Border Force staff when you’re in a place under their jurisdiction) have the legal right to search you and your belongings, as long as they can justify the reason for that request. If you refuse to allow them to do that you will most likely be arrested and you will have your belongings confiscated and searched anyway.
If you are in a public place, you can be filmed. Yes the police can and, in my opinion, should film every interaction they have with members of the public. Depends, they will either refuse you to fly/enter. or if they have evidence of illegal activity they may detain and/or hand you over to be arrested by police officers.
There’s some very wrong answers here. So most of the time you can’t film a person without consent for broadcast, for TV or just your 12 follower youtube channel.
There are a few exceptions and the relevant one here is breaking the law, so if you are smuggling drugs for example, then you can be recorded and broadcast. If suspected of a crime and currently being dealt with by authorities, so say if you were being searched suspected of drug dealing then you could be filmed against your will legally, BUT, if no drugs were found then it can’t then be broadcast.
Now with the Indian man you are discussing, he did break the law, kinda, unknowingly, but if you broadcast him this would be a defence, HOWEVER, I would never cause that’s bullshit, did they blur his face? Cause morally that would be the right decision. It’s an important story to show, possibly a type of human trafficing, but the person/victim should not be shown.
Now for your end questions, you have a right to request them not to record, they may have a different right to continue and should explain this to you, but if you’ve done nothing wrong then the footage gets deleted and it’s just an annoying thing that happened one time.
Police record everything on bodycam, they sometimes have a camera crew with them, same rules apply for them as above, but when dealing with the police you are always recorded, this is for your protection and theirs. If you commit a crime they can broadcast this.
If an officer at the airport wants to search your luggage and you say no then it really depends on the type of officer but it’s quite likely that you won’t be admitted into the country. If you haven’t gone through immigration then they can send you back for basically any reason, and refusing to be searched, drug tested, interrogated, etc, all counts.
There are a few exceptions and the relevant one here is breaking the law
could you paste a source?
Regarding the Indian national: No, no blurred face, which I find denigrating because to me this is sensationalism against a person who cannot defend himself.
So this is the rule -
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-eight-privacy
8.1 states the use of crime as a public interest defence.
I have a problem with the case you state as it appears that they have broken 8.19 as he’s also a victim of crime in this scenario. This is common in police programmes where cases of domestic violence often involve people who are both perpertrators and victims and the general rule is to blur them.
If you feel you want to, then I’d say complain to OFCOM about this. They can fine the programme makers and force them to blur for future broadcasts.
Reality tv shows aren’t on every corner in the UK. I feel your risk is low.
I believe you can be filmed in public.
They will search your bags if that want to, whether you like it or not.
They can’t broadcast your image without consent.
My friend is a photographer and they have to get people to sign a form before they can use any photos with people in.
You’ll often see people with their faces blurred in these shows and that’s why.
If the police have body cams you will be recorded but again they can’t broadcast this.
As for searches:
Stop and question: police powers
A police officer might stop you and ask:
what your name is what you’re doing in the area where you’re going
You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.
Stop and search: police powers
A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying:
illegal drugs a weapon stolen property something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar
You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:
serious violence could take place you’re carrying a weapon or have used one you’re in a specific location or area
They can’t broadcast your image without consent.
Yeah, this isn’t true.
They can’t broadcast your image without consent.
They absolutely can. The principle has been tested multiple times in court and the case law is very clear - anyone who is in a public place can have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If a photo is taken and published, or video is recorded and shown then anyone in the crowd is basically fair game.
For under-18s there is a code of ethics that means any responsible photographer will blur out the faces of anyone who appears to be a child, but even that’s (probably) not enforceable by law.
