Helmet Cam For Personal Use, Does It Make Me A Nobber?

[Rogerborg]

On 15/10/2021 at 17:20, Madhouse said:

Didn't think anyone gave a monkeys about cameras nowadays. 

 

The new issue is sites asking people to let them review video before it's published, because of the profusion of "CHEETAR PUNASHED" Licking Mustard clickbait trash that bigs up (or fakes up) the issue while giving sites a bad name.

 

In practice a site can't prevent you publishing whatever you want, but they don't have to let you play again either if you're more interested in a career as a WuTuber than in helping them identify the problem players.

[Mad-Al]

Its worth noting that players haven't given you consent to be filmed so if its for personal use like watching back with your mates and some beers it's not likely to be an issue however some people (myself included) will get narky if they find there face in a video online without giving prior consent.

If people are geared up its usually okay as people are hard to recognise with full face pro but just be mindful that some people are less comfortable with having there likeness plastered on the Internet  than others.

Other than that this is an activity we all do for enjoyment so if this increases your enjoyment then thats all that matters!

And hey if you enjoy or want to learn editing then thats even better so why not chuck it on YouTube or wherever so you can enjoy and document your own work and track your growth as an editor, just dont be a dick and spam everyone with links to it willy nilly.

[Tommikka]

26 minutes ago, Mad-Al said:

Its worth noting that players haven't given you consent to be filmed so if its for personal use like watching back with your mates and some beers it's not likely to be an issue however some people (myself included) will get narky if they find there face in a video online without giving prior consent.

If people are geared up its usually okay as people are hard to recognise with full face pro but just be mindful that some people are less comfortable with having there likeness plastered on the Internet  than others.

Other than that this is an activity we all do for enjoyment so if this increases your enjoyment then thats all that matters!

And hey if you enjoy or want to learn editing then thats even better so why not chuck it on YouTube or wherever so you can enjoy and document your own work and track your growth as an editor, just dont be a dick and spam everyone with links to it willy nilly.

There is no requirement to give consent to be filmed 

 

If in a public place (which a site isn’t) then it’s fair game to film unless it affects the reasonable right to privacy (upskirting, nudity, topless etc)

Unless there are other bylaws in place 

 

In a place with public access (which a site will be) then permission is via the site owner / operator etc

This may be explicit or implied 

Explicit - it’s understood by those involved what is allowed 

Implied - eg walking around with a camera and no one objects.  If told to stop then stop

Site disclaimers that no one has read before signing is likely to have covered photography / filming, and may not be explicit as to who is allowed

to conduct filming/photography (they may intend to write it as customers consent to photography and use by the business, but the black and white details generally don’t say that others can’t film/photograph

 

For the use of material there’s also little legal control - I can go on a site, take photos and sell them.  I can’t use them for commercial advertising without getting sign off, but I can take your photo and sell my photo of you 

 

Someone might not be happy with being filmed or photographed, and if they say so then fine

[Mad-Al]

2 hours ago, Tommikka said:

There is no requirement to give consent to be filmed 

 

If in a public place (which a site isn’t) then it’s fair game to film unless it affects the reasonable right to privacy (upskirting, nudity, topless etc)

Unless there are other bylaws in place 

 

In a place with public access (which a site will be) then permission is via the site owner / operator etc

This may be explicit or implied 

Explicit - it’s understood by those involved what is allowed 

Implied - eg walking around with a camera and no one objects.  If told to stop then stop

Site disclaimers that no one has read before signing is likely to have covered photography / filming, and may not be explicit as to who is allowed

to conduct filming/photography (they may intend to write it as customers consent to photography and use by the business, but the black and white details generally don’t say that others can’t film/photograph

 

For the use of material there’s also little legal control - I can go on a site, take photos and sell them.  I can’t use them for commercial advertising without getting sign off, but I can take your photo and sell my photo of you 

 

Someone might not be happy with being filmed or photographed, and if they say so then fine

No its more a case of politeness that if youve ended up with a massive close up of someones face that you intend to use then be nice and check with them first

[Rogerborg]

5 hours ago, Tommikka said:

[Insightful stuff]

 

But the problem is that despite repeated regimes promising to do it, the UK laws on public / private filming and express / implied permission are still vague and fuzzy.

 

"Data controllers" are well regulated, but that's about it.  After that, it's pick a (contradictory) law, pick a (contradictory) precedent, and hope for a friendly court who believes your interpretation rather than the other side's.

 

De facto though, for video we're talking about WuTube, and they seem seem happy to smack down videos for a "that's me, it hurt my fee-fees" claim, regardless of any actual laws.  See Steven Crowder getting strikes over and over even when he has, and can show, express written permission from the subjects to be filmed.  WuTube doesn't care.

[Tommikka]

8 hours ago, Mad-Al said:

No its more a case of politeness that if youve ended up with a massive close up of someones face that you intend to use then be nice and check with them first

There’s the moral element, the legal element, and also whether or not there’s any knowledge of what’s on camera. (Particularly with fish eye lenses on action cameras)

 

For the OPs question they would be wearing a video camera.  Safe zone footage from head cams is very boring.  
If it’s uploaded raw then it’s likely that few people will watch long enough to see

If edited then even at the minimum it’s likely to have safe zone footage cut out in preference to game footage.

But you do get videos of a days ‘story’ that could have safe zone footage.

For battery life it’s common to get into the habit of switching on & off to avoid wasting power and card space on the boring stuff

 

If you don’t want footage or pictures of your face out there, then help people out with that by letting the site know (they are the authority on what people are allowed to film/photograph on site)

If a camera is around you then a polite mention makes it clear

 

My interest in photos is different. I do like good action shots, but the majority of the best pictures I’ve taken are in the safe zone.  I won’t be asking permission to take a photo - I’ve then lost the ‘real’ moment of that picture.  I’ll lift the camera, allow for that moment of a ‘no face’ and snap the shot.  You still have the option of saying you have an issue with it

(I’ve had that I think on only two occasions - and both of those were people who weren’t supposed to be there, they only asked that I don’t publish those photos but I deleted them as an unusable photo is no good to me and it also avoids accidental publishing)

However - I would be taking those on the basis of ‘officialdom’ and you would have already consented that photos are being taken.

Candid safe zone photos are the ones that I have sold most often - so they can give a nice photo to their mum, or new profile photo. The rest would have to have caught a particularly interesting action shot, or the full set of a team etc 

My pictures also go to my general use, they may be for the site/event, Facebook galleries, portfolio and also photography competitions some which have gone to art gallery exhibitions.

If I’ve taken the photo legally then it’s my property to use.

 

In street photography there’s the same situation, there’s no disclaimer with the small print giving consent.  It’s just the shot being taken, I’ve had some refusals but most of the time there’s no issue.