GDPR question about face appearing in a video / TV show

[Ethan_2000]

Hi,
I have a question about GDPR / Data Protection Law, and I was hoping that someone might be able to help me.

What if someone appeared in a TV news show, where they were filmed in a public place, but only for about a couple of seconds. The footage featuring the person was just a short clip of a larger programme.
It is obviously too late to prevent the original broadcast, due to the lack of a functioning time machine etc.

However, what if we wanted to the prevent this company from using this clip again? ... Does this require just sending a DSAR / data protection notice including a request to have either;
1. our face and head covered with a mosaic effect / pixelation (then they can edit and re-upload new version of video), or
2. delete the clip including us altogether (then they can edit and re-upload new version of video)

I understand that we have the right to be forgotten, but does this right fit into this scenario? ... it seems like this could be a bit of a grey area.

This page seems to provide an overview, but just an overview: https://ipo.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/c...photographers/

The ICO obviously has a much more detailed page, but still still lacks any mention of TV or Video etc: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations...ht-to-erasure/

Any guidance would be much appreciated.
Thank you

[R0b]

Hi,

Privacy rights are always rapidly evolving but I don't believe there is anything that is set in law per se, regarding filming in public and privacy rights. Alot of these rights are usually addressed through case law. Whilst there are data protection laws around processing data, there is no absolute right to privacy for everything, especially where you are roaming around in a public place.

The key question and what you would need to show is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be filmed in public. In relation to image rights and that kind of thing, taking photos in a public place is lawful so the same expectation is likely to apply here. You might find it useful to read a recent court case on a similar point (Stoute v News Group Newspapers Limited) where the claimants sought an injunction for pictures that were taken of them and purchased by NGN. The court granted an injunction for photos taken on private property but refused an injunction where the photos were taken of them on a beach and at a restaurant in a public place. The decision was based on the fact that as they were in a public place, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy since everyone else around them could also see what they were doing.

Therefore, without an additional element of private information being exposed by the filming e.g. they showed you on your phone reading personal emails, you may have an uphill struggle.

Also to add to this, there are certain exemptions where the Data Protection Act 2018/UK GDPR does not apply, one of them being for journalistic purposes. The relevant references are Section 15 and Schedule 2, paragraph 26 of the DPA 2018. This used to be Section 32 exemption in the previous 1998 DPA so it has been around for a while.

So to summarise, you can try to exercise your rights, but don't be surprised if they are rejected. Certainly, exercising your right to object would force the company to explain what basis they are relying on to process the data or if they are exempt per the above references.

[Ethan_2000]

Thank you Rob, your reply is very comprehensive.

[wales01man]

My son an ex copper was on interceptors filmed for hours and some was broad cast with his permission he recieved the grand some of Ł1 IN ROYALTIES

[atticus]

Maybe he should have asked for a fee, or checked the royalty terms.

[Ethan_2000]

...there are certain exemptions where the Data Protection Act 2018/UK GDPR does not apply, one of them being for journalistic purposes. The relevant references are Section 15 and Schedule 2, paragraph 26 of the DPA 2018...

I have been reading the statute for GDPR but I find it hard going.

I can see the exemption for journalists in PART 5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/part/5

26(1) In this paragraph, “the special purposes” means one or more of the following—
(a) the purposes of journalism;

... but I cannot see in the text where it states that this exemption applies to the entire DPA / GDPR.

Might this exemption only apply to a certain section, like "the right be forgotten" (the right to erasure)?

[Manxman]

Can I ask why you have an issue with this?

As has been explained there is no law to prevent someone being photographed or filmed in a public place because - er.... - it's a public place and everybody can see you anyway.

Why would a two second video clip on a TV news programme present a problem?

(Don't want to pry unnecessarily, but if you could explain precisely why you are unhappy it might help others suggest a workable solution for you... )

[Ethan_2000]

(Don't want to pry unnecessarily, but if you could explain precisely why you are unhappy it might help others suggest a workable solution for you... )

I was filmed attending a political event, and I don't want this footage to undermine me in the future. Therefore, I would prefer it if the TV company could blur my face, so future pay-per-view (or any other possible media they might have planned) would show an edited version (with blurred face) and not the original.

Any help would be much appreciated.

[atticus]

Have you asked the producers?

[R0b]

I have been reading the statute for GDPR but I find it hard going.

I can see the exemption for journalists in PART 5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/part/5

26(1) In this paragraph, “the special purposes” means one or more of the following—
(a) the purposes of journalism;

... but I cannot see in the text where it states that this exemption applies to the entire DPA / GDPR.

Might this exemption only apply to a certain section, like "the right be forgotten" (the right to erasure)?

I suggest you read the ICO guidance that helps break down what does and doesn't apply to exemptions (spoiler, it includes exemption from your rights such as right to object, but the only exclusion that it doesn't apply to is automatic decision making).

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations...on-exemptions/

[MIKE770]

What might show I was part of recently/years ago (political event), it is news and you happen to be there well what are you going to ask researchers? etc please ask each and individual person on scene (250+ if we can include them in background report?) never heard such rubbish, if you do not want to be seen then do not attend. Help they are among us! do not quote regulation for the wrong context. read it!

[Ethan_2000]

Have you asked the producers?

Not yet. I wanted to work out how strong my position was first.

I suggest you read the ICO guidance that helps break down what does and doesn't apply to exemptions (spoiler, it includes exemption from your rights such as right to object, but the only exclusion that it doesn't apply to is automatic decision making).

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations...on-exemptions/

I am finding this very difficult to understand, but thank you anyway.

[R0b]

If you are struggling to understand the concept of the law and how to apply it then I would suggest that you instruct a solicitor to give you the necessary advice on whether what you are asking for has any legs. In my view, there is no case to answer or there is some merit in all of this, it will be based on a novel argument and will ultimately involve commencing legal proceedings for which you will need someone to represent you and in turn will become costly to yourself.

Whether you think it's worth the time and cost, only you can decide.

[Manxman]

I was filmed attending a political event, and I don't want this footage to undermine me in the future. Therefore, I would prefer it if the TV company could blur my face, so future pay-per-view (or any other possible media they might have planned) would show an edited version (with blurred face) and not the original.

Any help would be much appreciated.

I don't think you have snowball's chance of getting your image removed if it was an event that you deliberately and knowingly attended.

If, on the other hand, you had not been "attending" the event and your image had been incidentally captured as an "innocent" passerby, then maybe.

(The lesson is: don't attend potentially controversial events that might be filmed if you think they might embarrass you later...)