r/BrandNewSentence • u/Sebastianlim • 19h ago

"Women are being advised to play copyrighted Disney music when they spot men secretly recording them with Meta glasses."

Post image
18.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/7thFleetTraveller 16h ago

It is not illegal to film someone on the street.

Over here in Germany, it is. You can't just film people without their consent, that's against our personality rights. But still, I don't think such a device would be forbidden only because you "could" potentially do something illegal with it. There are a lot of legal uses for them which are no problem. I agree though, some kind of light signal to show a camera is filming, might be a good solution.

12

u/bcocoloco 16h ago

It’s a lot more nuanced than that. Otherwise every tourist would be breaking the law by taking pictures.

15

u/7thFleetTraveller 16h ago

This is defined by the law, too. When you take pictures of sights, and there are people randomly in the background, taking the picture is legal. You're not directly pointing the camera at their faces and focusing them, they are random background. But, if you want to upload the picture online where it can be seen in public, then you have to blur out the faces.

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

So wearing the glasses and filming everything is legal there. Because you're not specifically pointing the glasses at a person

1

u/Visual-Scallion1535 16h ago

Thats insane tbh

how does a journalist do their job?

14

u/7thFleetTraveller 15h ago

What's so insane about having a right on your own picture? Journalists have to ask for consent of the people they are filming, too, of course. At least when it comes to regular (private) people. If they film a situation and people don't consent, their faces get blurred. Same as with full names.

It's a different situation if someone is a person of public interest, a celebrity or politician etc. Those have already agreed to public attention, filming etc., as long as they are at a public place and not on their private property.

6

u/mqee 13h ago

For Americans, every right they don't have is insane.

Privacy rights? Insane.

Healthcare rights? Insane.

0

u/Visual-Scallion1535 7h ago

Apperently the concept of “free speech” is insane for Europeans

2

u/MornwindShoma 7h ago

"Free speech" doesn't protect you from other people's rights.

0

u/Visual-Scallion1535 7h ago

no but it does give me broad discretion to post about things I observe and capture happening in public

1

u/MornwindShoma 7h ago

Your discretion is under laws like anyone else. Free speech doesn't mean absolute immunity

It's not in the US, it's not in the EU

→ More replies (0)

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

but it does give me broad discretion to post about things observe and capture happening in public

Yes. Just like all of Europe... We all have free. Speech here mate

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Visual-Scallion1535 15h ago

Im just not sure I believe the journalist had all these people sign a release tbh

7

u/RaspberryLanky7905 15h ago

release is probably included in the ticket purchase.

1

u/Visual-Scallion1535 15h ago

Okay heres a photo from an article covering a public parade

6

u/Cross_22 15h ago

All your questions could be easily answered with a quick google search "public photography laws in germany"

4

u/Putrid-Poet 14h ago

From what I understand, the gist of the law is that if you focus on an individual, you are not allowed to post the photo/video online without their consent. But if you are taking a photo of a crowd or if you are taking a photo of a person/place of public interest and some people happen to be in your photo, you are allowed to post the photo. Other thing to note is that taking a photo or video is almost always legal in public places, the law restricts online publication.

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

This is not a photo of any individual it's a photo of a crowd. Therefore legal. Not that hard mate

1

u/Visual-Scallion1535 3h ago

His comment said their faces would need to be blurred even if they arent the subject of the photo

3

u/Pwacname 11h ago

I think they missed the exception that if a person just happens to be in the background and isn’t the focus of the picture, it’s fine. I don’t know where the “you have to blur them” comes from, because I have never in my life here either heard or seen that. 

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

Nothing insane about it.

It's just an anti harassment law

1

u/Cautious-Start-1043 11h ago

Exactly. At Oktoberfest everyone are criminals…

1

u/RedditJumpedTheShart 16h ago

Then how do the live cameras in public areas exist? I can easily find them online and easily identify people in them.

1

u/7thFleetTraveller 15h ago

There are specific laws for things the government and authorities are allowed to do. Which is indeed a problem in regard to data security and personality rights, yes.

1

u/sliver013 14h ago

I'd rather we the people have that right than our government. 

2

u/Pwacname 11h ago

If it helps, government security cameras ime are extremely limited and will be extremely clearly signalled. My favourite was a public pool I visited on a holiday, where they had signs all over, because they had a security camera. Well, they had a security camera checking only the entry area, which was shut off except for (hours listed, which were the hours it was closed, with the addition that those were the hours where it was closed). 

So basically it was filming nothing but the parking lot/front doors of a public pool at night, because of repeated past vandalism, and then there was additional info on how long the data was saved, where, who’s the privacy person, etc etc. that is the amount of surveillance I can honestly tolerate in public. 

1

u/Ok-Soil997 11h ago

When filming in public or even private, people have to be informed that they are being filmed in this area. You find signs like that on every single entry to a store, for example.

1

u/MornwindShoma 7h ago

There are literal signs telling you you're being recorded in both public and private places.