Is It Legal to Film People in Public for Social Media?
In the content creator economy, filming people without their consent has become everyday behaviour. From TikTok nightlife clips to YouTube street pranks, millions of people capture others in public places and post the footage online. Whether it is for likes, shares or monetisation, this behaviour is not without consequences for the creators as well as the subjects. Over the weekend the BBC ran a story about two women whose interactions with ‘friendly strangers’ were uploaded to social media causing the women much alarm and distress.
Dilara was secretly filmed in a London store where she works, by a man wearing smart glasses. The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3 million views. Dilara then faced a wave of unwanted messages and calls. It later turned out that the man who filmed her had posted dozens of similar videos, giving men tips on how to approach women. Kim was filmed last summer on a beach in West Sussex, by a different man wearing smart sunglasses. Kim, who was unaware she was being filmed, chatted with him about her employer and family. Later, the man posted two videos online, under the guise of dating advice, which received 6.9 million views on TikTok and more than 100,000 likes on Instagram.
**The Law**
Uk law does not expressly prohibit filming or photographing people in public places; unlike other jurisdictions such as UAE, Greece and South Korea.
However, a number of legal issues arise especially once the footage is uploaded, and particularly where the it is intrusive, monetised or causes harm.
Although being in public generally reduces people’s privacy expectations, the UK courts have recognised that privacy rights can still arise in public places. Filming may become unlawful where it captures people in sensitive or intimate situations, such as medical emergencies, emotional distress or vulnerability.
The manner of filming, the focus on the individual, and the purpose of publication are all relevant factors.
Back in 2003, in a landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a British man’s right to respect for his private life (the Article 8 right to privacy) was violated when CCTV footage of him attempting suicide was released to the media.
The case was brought by Geoffrey Peck, who, on the evening of 20th August 1995 and while suffering from depression, walked down Brentwood High Street in Essex with a kitchen knife hand and attempted suicide by cutting his wrists. He was unaware that he had been filmed by a CCTV camera installed by Brentwood Borough Council.
The court awarded him damages of £7,800. In recent years, media coverage has highlighted situations where women were filmed on nights out and uploaded online in a degrading or sexualised manner. While the filming occurred in public, the intrusive nature of the footage and the harm caused can give rise to privacy claims.
Victims of secret filming also have a possible cause of action in the tort of misuse of private information, developed by the courts in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22. This case was about Naomi Campbell successfully suing the Mirrror for publishing photos of her attending a Narcotics Anonymous meeting on the King’s Road in London. The court said the test is whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and if so, whether that expectation is outweighed by the publisher’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.
**Data Protection**
When a person is identifiable in a video, that footage constitutes personal data within the meaning of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). Publishing such footage online involves ‘processing’ personal data and brings the UK GDPR’s obligations into play. The ‘controller’ has a wide range of obligations including having a lawful basis for processing, complying with the principles of fairness and transparency and respecting data subject (the victims’) rights which includes the rights to objection and deletion.
Creators sometimes assume they come under the ‘domestic purposes exemption’ in Article 2(2)(c) UK GDPR. However, this exemption is narrow and does not usually apply where content is shared publicly, monetised, or used to build an online following.
Failure to comply with the UK GDPR could (at least in theory) lead to ICO enforcement action. Article 82 of the UK GDPR gives a data subject a right to compensation for material or non-material damage for any breach of the UK GDPR. Section 168 of the DPA 2018 confirms that ‘non-material damage’ includes distress.
**Harassment**
Even where filming in public is lawful in isolation, repeated or targeted filming can amount to harassment or stalking. Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and which the defendant knows or ought to know causes alarm or distress. Filming someone repeatedly, following them, or persistently targeting them for online content may satisfy this test. In 2024 a man was arrested by Greater Manchester Police on suspicion of stalking and harassment after filming women on nights out and uploading the videos online. The arrest was based not on public filming alone, but on the cumulative effect of the conduct and the harm caused.
**Post Publication**
Individuals who discover that a video of them has been published online without consent can make a direct request to the creator to remove the footage, particularly where it causes distress or raises privacy concerns. If this is unsuccessful, most social media platforms offer reporting mechanisms for privacy violations, harassment, or non-consensual content. Videos are often removed following complaints. Other civil remedies may also be available including defamation where footage creates a false and damaging impression.
**_This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming_**** _GDPR Update_**** _workshop._** **The new (2nd) edition of the****UK GDPR Handbook****has been published. It contains all the changes made by the**Data (Use and Access) Act 2025**.**
### Share this:
* Share on X (Opens in new window) X
* Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
*
### Like this:
Like Loading...
## Author: actnowtraining
Act Now Training is Europe's leading provider of information governance training, serving government agencies, multinational corporations, financial institutions, and corporate law firms. Our associates have decades of information governance experience. We pride ourselves on delivering high quality training that is practical and makes the complex simple. Our extensive programme ranges from short webinars and one day workshops through to higher level practitioner certificate courses delivered online or in the classroom. View all posts by actnowtraining
Is It Legal to Film People in Public for Social Media? In the content creator economy, filming people without their consent has become everyday behaviour. From TikTok nightlife clips to YouTub...
#CCTV #Human #Rights #Privacy #Social #media #Tik #Tok #You #Tube
Origin | Interest | Match