Youtube complaint

[tc1ooo]

Like a lot of people on here I put a few videos of gigs on Youtube. I have never had a complaint until today when I received this polite but threatening email:


"Dear Sir/Madam,

I’m a student at Magdalene College Cambridge, and me and my friends have recently seen the videos that you have put up on YouTube of the ‘BOP’ on 09/10/09. In particular we are writing about the video in the given link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-FPr_C58Ko). Magdalene College 09.10.09 part 2.

We are furious that this video has gone up on the internet and is in the public domain without our permission, even though it clearly features us, our faces and therefore our identities. This is a contravention of our rights to privacy and since you have not asked for our individual permission, you are in violation of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Under this act you have a legal obligation; “Data [held by a company, organisation or individual] must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual(s) whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). It is an offence for Other Parties to obtain or view this personal data without authorisation.”

A corollary of this act is that: To be able to utilise a photograph, image or video in a commercial application or an advertisement, you need explicit permission from the subject(s).

This is something which you do not have and thus with objection from the featured party, you are obliged to take down the material from your site. We are writing to you for this reason in objection to this video (Magdalene College 09.10.09 part 2).

We do not wish to take this further and hope that this can be resolved adequately. If it can not, in the first instance we will involve college officials at Magdalene, then if need be we will contact University officials and the Information Commissioner's Office.

We await your reply and hope the issue is resolved quickly."


I will remove it of course, but I'm tempted to leave it on for a couple of days just because of the threat at the end. Also he's used a false name - there's no one of that name at the college.

Has anyone else had anything like this?

[Vectis]

Has anyone else had anything like this?

No, because I always have permission.

If you don't, do the right thing and take it down.

[DJWilson]

Edit the clip and then re upload :)

[tc1ooo]

No, because I always have permission.

If you don't, do the right thing and take it down.

How can you get permission from everyone who was there?

[Danno13]

Sounds like someone didn't have a good night and feels like taking it out on you. I mean, how many students would be "furious" about something like that, they obviously need to get out more.


How can you get permission from everyone who was there?

You can put it into your contract with whoever books you - probably not completely watertight, but at least it's something.

[tc1ooo]

I think it's probably more like he's been snogging someone he shouldn't have ;)

[Vectis]

How can you get permission from everyone who was there?

It's a standard entry in the contract - as Danno says, not watertight.

THEN, if it's a gig where we're contracted to video/photo and I'm sure we'll be using footage for promotional reasons, I'll make an announcement during my 'Welcome' speech to the effect that we will be recording the function and that anyone who has a problem with that should come and see us during the course of the evening and we'll make sure we edit them out. Incidentally, no-one ever has. You get the odd drunk making fun of the fact that we asked, but that's as far as they take it.

Also, for under-16s parties we only ever publish pics which are in silhouette or in which it is impossible to identify a child.

[DeckstarDeluxe]

how do you know he is in the video? or indeed they are who they say they are or are included in the video?

[Vectis]

how do you know he is in the video? or indeed they are who they say they are or are included in the video?

Shouldn't matter. If permission is in hand, then the video should stay. If not, it should go.

[Digitalsounds]

It isn't worth the hassle i would take it down, at the end of the day you can always post another gig up to you tube

But some people really do take the biscuit :bang:

[Tony Scott]

Sounds like some over-eager law students putting there recently aquired legal knowledge to the test......pillocks! :D

[tc1ooo]

It isn't worth the hassle i would take it down, at the end of the day you can always post another gig up to you tube

But some people really do take the biscuit :bang:

I've already said I'm going to take it down, I just didn't like his threat at the end, all he had to do was ask.

[discomobiledj]

Do you have anything in your contract about videos?

[Digitalsounds]

I've already said I'm going to take it down, I just didn't like his threat at the end, all he had to do was ask.

Sounds like a right toff student,

I would tell him to coco, I would contact the organiser of the event who booked you and let him know what his colleges are upto.

[tc1ooo]

Like I said, something seems odd about it. He hasn't asked the organiser to contact me, and he's used a fake name. Maybe he doesn't want to draw attention to it...

[simonp]

Actually you're not in contravention of the Data Protection Act at all, and that is a poor attempt at convincing you otherwise. If in a public place and you were specifically targeting (zooming in on) an individual in order to gain intelligence or information that would be a different matter - your camera is just set to cover a room at an organised event, and although faces may be recognisable you're not collating information on any set individual.

When in the context of images The Data Protection Act was put in place originally to regulate public space & covert surveillance, the latter requiring RIPA authorisation.

If it was a room of under 16 year olds it would be a different matter, but then again nothing to do with the Data Protection Act.

In short you can take your camera in the street and film what you like and put it where you like, as long as your not targeting specific individuals over a prolonged period.

[DJMaxG]

I would message them back saying

We would like your complaint in writing made by an AUTHORISED Member of Staff (from the College) sent to our company office

and sign it with only your first name.

[andyw]

i would just take it down personally unless i had permission from the college in the first place, they might not like it being broadcast on youtube and then might think twice about booking you again if that is the case.
any correspondence you send should be kept polite and profesional

[Tom]

Did anyone one approach you at the gig and tell you not to film anything???

Does sound a little off to me.

[DJWilson]

Actually you're not in contravention of the Data Protection Act at all, and that is a poor attempt at convincing you otherwise. If in a public place and you were specifically targeting (zooming in on) an individual in order to gain intelligence or information that would be a different matter - your camera is just set to cover a room at an organised event, and although faces may be recognisable you're not collating information on any set individual.

When in the context of images The Data Protection Act was put in place originally to regulate public space & covert surveillance, the latter requiring RIPA authorisation.

If it was a room of under 16 year olds it would be a different matter, but then again nothing to do with the Data Protection Act.

In short you can take your camera in the street and film what you like and put it where you like, as long as your not targeting specific individuals over a prolonged period.


I was thinking the same sort of thing, you see it on telly all the time, that would take ages to ask for permission from everyone walking down oxford street for example!

[rob1963]

Actually you're not in contravention of the Data Protection Act at all, and that is a poor attempt at convincing you otherwise.

That's what I thought as well.

As far as I'm aware, the data protection act is concerned with personal information held about people, and states that it must be relevant, accurate etc etc...and I have no idea what that has to do with video footage of people dancing at a party!

:shrug:

[simonp]

That's what I thought as well.

As far as I'm aware, the data protection act is concerned with personal information held about people, and states that it must be relevant, accurate etc etc
:shrug:

Spot on

[Vectis]

that is a poor attempt at convincing you otherwise

Irrelevant in this case. Inaccurate interpretation of the DPA is by the by - the line We are furious that this video has gone up on the internet and is in the public domain without our permission, even though it clearly features us, our faces and therefore our identities. confirms what needs to be done.

[DJWilson]

But have they even said at what points of the video there in???

[simonp]

Irrelevant in this case. Inaccurate interpretation of the DPA is by the by - the line We are furious that this video has gone up on the internet and is in the public domain without our permission, even though it clearly features us, our faces and therefore our identities. confirms what needs to be done.

The whole 'complaint' is irrelevant in this case - He doesn't need their permission to put any images in the public domain, especially if their face is one of many in amongst a crowd. They've stated it "features" - a face in a crowd is not featured, and in any case, a face does not automatically give away identity.

[Vectis]

The whole 'complaint' is irrelevant in this case

:agree:

But any professional company faced with such a complaint who cannot produce the relevant permissions should take down the video as a matter of course.

[Goodfellows Discos]

[I][B]"Dear Sir/Madam

Funny how they can't seem to remember if their DJ was male or female :p

Either way, I would take it down. It does look quite suspicious with the fake name and over exasperated references to the DPA - it is not worth giving them a chance to shred your reputation, let a lone a lawsuit against you for failing to cease and desist the video.

Alex

[visualdjmax]

Another way round it is to produce signage at the entrances of the venue stating FILMING IN PROGRESS TONIGHT and then the purpose of what the film is being used for. It's all a bit mad and sounds a bit like some law student is trying to do some extra curicular! Max G you don't study law do you mate? I have never had a problem with this. In fact I always make a point of asking the client (which I would never name of the film, unless they asked) if they are happy about it going on Youtube/Facebook as its the easiest way that guests can access the footage after the event. It's all a bit mad if you ask me!

[Creature]

How about removing the video for now and contacting the person who booked you and explain what has happened and supply them witha copy of teh email you recieved ? All nice and polite

[simonp]

At's all a bit mad and sounds a bit like some law student is trying to do some extra curicular!

Then they definitely need the extra curricular work/tuition because if they though about it technically, they wouldn't be quoting the DPA, they'd be trying to use a section of the Human Rights Act, which would be more relevent, but they still wouldn't have a case lol

[DazzyD]

Because I store information about my clients (like many of us) then I come under the legislation of the DPA (I also use it in my Benefits day job) and I have read the Act several times over and cannot remember it mentioning photographic/videographic images in this respect. It is also not illegal to take, and use, these images in a public place or with the express permission of the premises owner or their representative. So, up to now, you've done nothing wrong.

However, you have received a complaint and this should be dealt with. You could, if you wish, ask this person to identify themselves in the the video and then use video-editing software to blur their faces. They obviously have a problem with their identity being released in this way and this is the issue legally and nothing to do with the DPA. Obscure their identity and they've got no complaint!

[DJMaxG]

as mentioned already, they should complain in writing. Inform them of your "complaints procedure", and leave it at that.

If they do choose to identify themselves and complain in the correct manner, then take it a step further, if not, then just simply ignore it and move on.

It could be a prank from anyone, possibly even law students, as someone mentioned earlier.

[DeckstarDeluxe]

in all fairness what we need to remember here is while someone might not be right in regards of the DPA but I think its good buisness practice to just take it down. After all how many gigs were you really going to get from that video?