A legal question.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A legal question.
For the last two days, a film company have been making a commercial at Manchester Airport (UK). This filming has been carried out in the walkway connecting Terminal 2 with Terminals 1 & 3. This is the only thoroughfare for connecting passengers and goes via the railway station. As one enters the second part of the walkway, one is confronted with a notice that states (and I paraphrase) "This area is being used to film a commercial for British television. Your likeness may be captured and by means of this notice you have waived any intellectual rights under the (something) & Patents Act 1988" Signed BBH Ltd.
Is this legal to state your rights have been arbitarily waived? Surely the passengers have no alternative, particularly if they are already through the walkway to the other terminal?
Legal pilot advice, please.
Is this legal to state your rights have been arbitarily waived? Surely the passengers have no alternative, particularly if they are already through the walkway to the other terminal?
Legal pilot advice, please.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Um...I'll try, but really I'm guessing.
As I understand it, you have no right to insist that you're NOT filmed by a camera crew (in a public place) - there is no right to privacy, as such, recognised by English law.
So, you can't do anything about them filming you if you walk past them (and presumably we're only talking about a fleeting glimpse in a crowd scene).
I'm not familiar with the Whatever and Patents Act, but what I suspect it says is that you may, in certain circumstances, have a right to payment if your image is shown. I imagine in circumstances like these you don't and they're just being extra careful.
I think you could only be deprived of any right to payment if there were express provisions in the Act that said displaying a notice was enough to deprive people of that right - in general, if a person has a right, they have to do something to waive it themselves, it can't be "waived for them" by the action of someone else.
As I understand it, you have no right to insist that you're NOT filmed by a camera crew (in a public place) - there is no right to privacy, as such, recognised by English law.
So, you can't do anything about them filming you if you walk past them (and presumably we're only talking about a fleeting glimpse in a crowd scene).
I'm not familiar with the Whatever and Patents Act, but what I suspect it says is that you may, in certain circumstances, have a right to payment if your image is shown. I imagine in circumstances like these you don't and they're just being extra careful.
I think you could only be deprived of any right to payment if there were express provisions in the Act that said displaying a notice was enough to deprive people of that right - in general, if a person has a right, they have to do something to waive it themselves, it can't be "waived for them" by the action of someone else.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Before I say anything else, I'm not an Intellectual Property lawyer, so I'm probably talking complete crap, but...
It's the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The whole area of having copyright in your image is a bit new and uncertain for me, but assuming the Act actually does cater for it (and I'm not sure it does), then I'm afraid to say that unless you specifically say 'I do not wish my image to be used' then they can use it. You can waive your rights in most things simply by not objecting to a course of action.
Personally I think the whole thing is pointless anyway, given that there's no court on earth that'll uphold a complaint for breach of copyright simply because you happen to have been captured in a crowd scene.
Might be different if they linger on you, comment on you, make you a distinct part of the documentary, but frankly I don't think you'd have much of a case even then. There are plenty of 'fair dealing' exceptions which would probably get the filmmaker of the hook, such as reporting current events and so on.
No doubt there will be other lawyers out there who will now delight in proving me wrong....
It's the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The whole area of having copyright in your image is a bit new and uncertain for me, but assuming the Act actually does cater for it (and I'm not sure it does), then I'm afraid to say that unless you specifically say 'I do not wish my image to be used' then they can use it. You can waive your rights in most things simply by not objecting to a course of action.
Personally I think the whole thing is pointless anyway, given that there's no court on earth that'll uphold a complaint for breach of copyright simply because you happen to have been captured in a crowd scene.
Might be different if they linger on you, comment on you, make you a distinct part of the documentary, but frankly I don't think you'd have much of a case even then. There are plenty of 'fair dealing' exceptions which would probably get the filmmaker of the hook, such as reporting current events and so on.
No doubt there will be other lawyers out there who will now delight in proving me wrong....
Guest
Posts: n/a
From what I have seen and experienced this is a grey area in law, for example I was once interview in the street for a vox pop news item. I was under the impression at the time that such interviews required explicit permission to broadcast, and I had not even been asked for name etc; however within an hour I was on local news. On the other hand there have been a number of complaints upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Agency where members of the public have complained about their starring role in docusoaps (perhaps surprisingly not Airline). I believe that the only grounds for complaint is if the material has been edited unfavourably, and the above waiver notice is probably there to prevent professional actors claiming a fee for being in the background.
