Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the person filming.
Could really use some new laws here.
Could really use some new laws here.
Edit: And that influencers think they are above existing laws when it comes to consent ain't a big surprise neither. I agree with the woman here, handing stuff to people that don't want it, lying to them about being filmed and using the footage for petty self promotion and monetary gain is the opposite of kindness. In fact it is borderline abbusive.
In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.
The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
And those laws are running up against the 1st Amendment. https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/
While the issue has not yet been delegated to the US Supreme Court, recording laws have been or are being struck down in more states on 1st Amendment grounds.
> You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
IANAL, but such legislation would be a content-based restriction and, as a result, would be subject to strict scrutiny. Frankly, any such requirement is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny unless it seeks to prohibit currently unprotected expressions (obscenity, incitement to imminent lawless action, etc.). Recording an individual in public isn't one of them.
A particular person as the main subject, yes, consent is absolutely necessary. E.g. newspapers don't buy or publish pictures of people without gwtting consent of the model / person from the seller. Persons of public interest, read promis and paparazzis, are different in the details of the interpretation of that law. And those are litigated often enough.
Perhaps you're referring to audio? If so, audio has different requirements as a result anti-wiretapping laws.
> If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required.
Permission may be required from the mall and/or storefront owners if you're filming on or inside the property.
In most systems, legislators have smaller constituencies than the executives. No President or Prime Minister will swing meaningful votes by prioritizing enforcement of consent-to-be-photographed laws. But an MP or Congressperson with an off-year primary projected to be within a 1,000-vote margin might find those 50 or 60 extra votes helpful.
That said, the ordinary course would be for said legislator to compel the executive to enforce. Not to write more laws. (The latter being easier to do, easier to message and less prone to backfiring.)
It's far from a clear cut law, if you just appear in the corner of a frame or in the background you'd have a hard time winning any lawsuits, but in this case I think the deck would be stacked against the Tiktoker pretty unfavourably.
Personally, I think it's offensive how often these social media posters will use other people for their profits. Doing tricks in front of the camera is a fine way to make some cash or get famous, but when you start filming interactions with other people just for social media clout it's disgusting, narcissistic behaviour. This isn't some fun event that happend spontaneously, this is a planned, well thought out video shoot that puts a stranger in the center of attention in world where any moderate amount of attention can result in death threats from strangers across the globe.
http://www.montpellier-journal.fr/fichiers/circulairephotosp...
And see here where the French Constitutional Council struck down a law that would have criminalized filming with the intent to cause harassment of officers:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-french-court-...