What are the laws that restrict the showing of people’s faces on television? Sometimes members of the public are blanked out by the editors but other times they are not.
Mostly this is done to protect the innocent. In a show such as Cops those that are being arrested will have their faces blurred, if they haven’t been convicted because they are still assumed innocent. It probably is the same for you in the UK.
In the UK it seems to be more obvious when they are protecting the innocent/preventing disclosure of detectives identity etc. I am living in the US at the moment and have noticed that it is difficult to distinguish exactly why they are blanked. Sometimes passers-by are left unblanked and sometimes they aren’t. Is this the law or just scared programme editors?
I think people have to give their permission for their likeness to be used on television. So if some are blanked out, then those people didn’t give permission.
On a side note, once on COPS, they busted a guy’s door down and had him face down on his living room floor. His dog was standing on his back, barking, and they blanked out the dog’s face. What the hell was that about?
In the UK there are lots of reasons. Often to protect the anonymity of witnesses/victims, either for their safety or their privacy.
Also to protect the identity of minors, be they victims or offenders.
Also where proceedings are active in a case, which is defined as from the point of arrest or the issue of a warrant for an arrest (not just from when the commmittal/trial/bail hearing starts) for which identity is an issue.
But (at least in England, Scotland is a bit different) we have one law. Laws in the US may very from State to State, which could create confusion.
The dog was innocent. Duh.
Yes, we wouldn’t want the dog to suffer any embarrassment.
My thought was that someone might recognize the dog. Of course, if someone knew him well enough to recognize his dog, they probably could recognize the guy’s living room. Hell, they probably could recognize the guy, even with his face blocked out, if that was the case.
Just seemed weird, I had never seen a dog’s face blocked out like that.
It extends to more than television. Check out these two covers for the UK and US version sof the same album.
UK:http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000252VB/o/qid=1006869303/sr=2-2/ref=sr_bt_2/202-8393398-0715028
US:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000D9VL/qid=1006869343/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_7_2/103-3856165-7707011
Basically, they foudn the picture for the UK version but couldn’t find the guy in the picture to ask his permission for the US version, so they went with a different picture.
They used a similar lookign guy in videos, but decided not to reshoot the photo.
Its is a film crew in Salford filmed me walking past once and chased after me asking me to sign a form that said i had given them permission to allow them to show my face on TV.
There aren’t any expectations of privacy in public places, are there? I’m thinking specifically of the Cops types shows, for example, someone speeding at 95 in a 25, say, and they blank out their faces and the license plate.
Well, the highways are public. Virtually all the perps faces are blanked out, usually in the process of beating someone up, shooting someone, robbing a bank, etc. I don’t see what right to privacy anyone would have in that instance.
This is isn’t about laws, it’s about lawsuits. With today’s populace’s propensity to sue at the smallest slight, producers are much more inclined to hide the identity of anyone they’re not absolutely sure has given their full and completely informed permission to appear in their production.
Yes, under some circumstances, you can photograph me in a public place and show that footage publicly without my permission, but there are a number exceptions, mostly based on how you use that footage (news vs entertainment, context and juxtaposition.) Bottom line - it ain’t worth it. Why risk a suit when it’s so easy to hide identity. At least, that’s what their lawyer probably tells them.
I guess I’m unclear why anyone would need permission to broadcast film of public events. They don’t blank out faces of the tens of thousands of people at a football game, or musical events, or myriad of other public venues.
I watched a closed circuit tape on “Cops” or “Most dangerous/stupid criminals” or whatever, while some moron attempted to steal a cash register by ripping it from the counter. Why is he afforded anonymity? It makes no logical sense. If the answer has something to do with lawsuits, then we’ve turned law and order on its head.
No, it’s about law. The only one who owns your likeness, and the right to use it for commercial purposes, is you. Are you suggesting that the law should be disregarded for convenience purposes? Anyone producing a television show should comply with the law.
I reject your basic proposition that folks these days sue at the smallest slight. Aside from anecdotal references to a few stupid lawsuits that get filed occasionally then widely reported in the media, lawyers typically don’t file stupid lawsuits, because juries hate them, and its a waste of time and money.
A RAND Institute for Civil Justice report entitled “Trends in Civil Jury Verdicts Since 1985” scrutinized all jury verdicts from 1985 to 1994 in state courts of general jurisdiction in 15 jurisdictions in California, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Texas and Washington. The authors concluded that there was no measurable rise in the proportion of tort suits (compared against population growth) over that period of time. The propensity for bringing trivial lawsuits is a public perception that is not borne out by fact.
There’s a lot of law and tradition mixed up in the answer to this question, but it all boils down to context. People at a live sporting event or attending a televised concert generally don’t mind appearing on camera. The john on the street corner trying to pick up the hooker does. Both are public venues (well, sort of… more on that later) but the producer of the program in question has to take into account people’s expectations when deciding who to show and how to show them. The guy in the stadium with the “Hi Mom” sign - no problem. The neighbor of the guy booked for running a crackhouse - better blur him out.
And strictly speaking, if you’re at a football game or a concert, you are not at a public place. You are very much in a private facility and subject to their rules. Some venues are more explicit about this than others, posting signs that say, in effect “Admittance to this facility constitutes permission to use your likeness in whatever manner we see fit.” One high profile court case revolving a ticket holder pissed off because his face made it on-screen and you’ll see those signs everywhere, including on the back of the ticket.
There is also a difference based upon whether the program in which the footage is used is entertainment or news. Journalists have much more latitude in showing faces than entertaiment producers do. So long as a journalist represents the events depicted correctly and fairly, he’s free to broadcast nearly anything and anyone deemed newsworthy. (And for the record, “Cops” is an entertainment program, not journalism. There may be other programs that straddle the definition, but “Cops” isn’t one of them.
I’m still unclear why some moron robbing the 7-11 has the ‘right’ to anonymity.
No one’s suggesting that anything be disregarded. You may own your likeness (or at least are allowed to assert some control over how your likeness is used) but when you visit a public place, you relinquish some of those rights. I can’t steal your image, but I can show that you were present in that public place at that time and in reference to that event. How I am allowed to use your image, within that rigid context, is also dependent upon whether the use is entertaiment or journalistic. But even within those allowed areas, some producers choose to blur faces so as not to invite trouble for themselves.
Granted, but with so much at stake (reputation and money) producers are a lot more careful now about permissions. The perceived overabundance of lawsuits may be unfounded, but producers have nonetheless become much more cautious in recent years. Then again, perhaps we’re just seeing many more entertainments that use footage gathered in public. They’re not bluring more faces, they’re just showing us more footage in which faces should be blurred.
FWIW most states recognize four individual types of invasion of privacy torts.
Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, § 652:
I’ve done a very, very small amount of research into this relative to the body of law that is out there. My first project as a 1L was to look into various claims that could arise from a hypothetical. But from what I’ve seen, individual states (I’ve looked at NJ, MI and WA) interpret the individual prongs quite differently.
I would think that since shows hop from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is easier for them to blank out/ create anonymity of the folks rather than investigate each state’s law.