Should media be able to take photos of, or film people in public, without asking their permission?

Monday 20th April, 03:00 AM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 17 Total Comments Show All

movieguy at 08:36 AM JST - 20th April

The simple answer is yes, but Tatsumaru points out the "good faith" issue. The media should always be concerned in what context they are filming or taking photos.

It would also be nice if the media would let people know what context they are using the film and/or photos.

Can we expand this JT??? What about amateur photographers and videographers taking photos and filming people in public??? Do the same ethics/protocols apply???
neverknow2 at 08:46 AM JST - 20th April

No they shouldn't be able to. THey shouldn't be able to profit from taking my picture.
nisegaijin at 09:30 AM JST - 20th April

yes, that's why it's called public. I believe in freedom of information.
Deguchisan at 11:23 AM JST - 20th April

Good faith is relative, because "good" is a subjective judgement and "faith" is belief without cause. Therefore "good faith" is believing for no reason in a subjective judgement.
Altria at 01:18 PM JST - 20th April

People who voted yes, the next Pic of the Day could be YOU!

(if you're a girl in a bikini or a homeless dude)
mareo2 at 06:56 PM JST - 20th April

No, at least that they are commiting a crime, their personal lifes is not my business.
mareo2 at 06:58 PM JST - 20th April

I mean, private lifes.
Spidey at 07:00 PM JST - 20th April

"I mean, private lifes."

I think you mean private "lives."

S!
moonbeams at 07:04 PM JST - 20th April

y
grafton at 09:09 PM JST - 20th April

If you are in public the whole world can see you, that is why it is called being in public. If you are doing something stupid we can all see you & if I happen to have a camera I can film you & you should have no right to object, you are in public, a free fire zone for those that do stupid things. Sorry but if you don’t want to look like an idiot on JTs picture of the day don’t do idiotic things in public.
BTADT at 11:18 PM JST - 20th April

Media? Are you going to just leave it at that...naughty and shame on you!!!!
Disillusioned at 10:53 AM JST - 21st April

Why not?
noypikantoku at 02:07 PM JST - 21st April

it depends, if I am filming Shibuya crossing as an establishing shot for a news or documentary etc. I am filming Shibuya! the main focus is Shibuya...and of course there will be some people out there who will be in the shot,but if I film Miss A. who is crossing the road and follows her up until she reaches the station without notifying her and having the full focus of the video on her face , if she is wearing a red shirt for example and the title of the video is girl in red shirt then I aired it to the TV then now I can say I invaded her privacy....
Den Den at 10:36 PM JST - 21st April

security cameras film our every move. I think we have to accept this, although I disagree. But a line must drawn with intrusive or invasive filming. This definition is where the law must be clear, as I have seen J-boys filming upskirts in a convenience store.
ca1ic0cat at 02:51 AM JST - 22nd April

If the people in the images are not readily identifiable (crowd shot or at a distance) or are not a part of the story (e.g. a passerby)then the images are usually held to be in free domain. If the person is identified or part of the story or group then usually permission is required, blanket waiver or individual.

If you think this is silly you should try Britain. Can't even scratch yer bum without some bloke watching it on CCTV.