Computing desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 3

Does Wuvday violate privacy?

Looking at the photos and videos already published by other users on the Wuvday website, I see that they portray people. Is this a violation of privacy? If I publish photos and videos for tourism and (less likely) journalistic purposes, can I be charged with this crime? 151.95.216.228 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website? --Lambiam 16:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! 2.194.244.126 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question about application of Italian law as it refers to the consent of people in photographs used for commerical media. It is not a "computing" question. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question more for the Humanities board, and laws can vary country to country, but my 2p as a photographer in the U.K

Basically everything you see on public property is free to be photographed, the definition of public/private is a hard one and is a line that's often blurred, it's not strictly outdoors/indoors because car parks are private property but a picture of someone on the street (i.e in public) is legal here, there are rules (most notably no minors and no homeless) and if someone asks you to delete it, you delete it!

Private property is different, things like shopping centers, you should always consult the info boards or ask someone working there before using a camera, photography/videography on private property isn't strictly illegal, but the owner sets the rules including those on camera usage.

Filming police officers in public is also ok, i've done it before, they didn't care.

It may seem an invasion of privacy, but imagine if you couldn't have other people in your photos full stop, it would make photography very hard.

Oddly though i've heard the rules regarding CCTV are the opposite, a CCTV camera must be filming your private property only and not anywhere else, i know someone who had police knock on their door asking for footage of an incident and he was like "it was out of view because of your rules"

If you want to know more you should read the articles on Candid photography Street photography Photography and the law etc OGWFP (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's much case law in this respect. But I think the issue with doorbell CCTV is a view of the "street", in most situations, inevitably includes other peoples' property. I know there's been software for many years which allows blanking out shapes corresponding to windows, though I think that was done to make CCTV more acceptable, rather than on legal grounds. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I can tell you that as a Canadian, and therefore a subject of a separate (but still connected) branch of law in an English common law system jurisdiction, photographing or filming people in the public spaces is legal - as you point out - but what you do with that footage has many restrictions and caveats. You can photograph and film in Canada not on the basis of what is private and what is public, but on the basis of whether there is an expectation of privacy or not. Then, it matters greatly what you do with that footage, and how - electronic distribution is regulated usually by both provincial and federal statute - and broadly speaking, everyone retains the ownership of *their own information* - and images of you would be considered your own information, so that recording you in a public space may be legal Since there is no expectation of privacy for the same purpose as that public space is normally used, so that normally the footage that people take is for their own private use. But it is not normal to record people in a public space and then sell that footage for commercial purposes without their permission, because you would be using their information for your profit. If a person is interviewed, let's say by a News Channel, the act of being interviewed and on camera serves usually as the justification for why that footage can be used. Used. But not knowing you're being recorded and then having your information used for commercial purposes is almost certainly against Canadian law. And I would assume by proxy against UK law, but some of this is statutory rather than common so it will depend on the specific statute in effect. Historiaantiqua (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]