Should media be able to take photos of, or film people in public, without asking their permission?
Have Your Say ( 22 )
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Why do some celebrities self-destruct due to substance abuse?
( 9 )
-
What do you think are the main reasons why U.S. car sales are so low in Japan?
( 34 )
-
What can be done to ease escalating tensions between the West and Iran over its nuclear program? And should Japan join sanctions against Iran?
( 14 )
-
What do you think of the revised plan to realign U.S. forces in Japan by sending some Marines to Guam, and rotating others to Australia, the Philippines, Hawaii and possibly Iwakuni in Yamaguchi Prefecture?
( 17 )
-
Why are there so many deaths due to snow-related accidents (people falling off rooftops, for example) in Japan this winter?
( 15 )
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- Full-time English Teacher - Osaka
- Epion English Language Schools, Osaka
- Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month Depending on your ability and experience
-
- Part-time English Teacher - Osaka
- Epion English Language Schools, Osaka
- Salary: ¥10,000 ~ ¥15,000 / Day Depending on how many days a week are worked
Order by Time Order by Popularity
22 Comments
Login to comment
0
Tatsumaru
In the United States, it tends to be pretty open. Most media outlets understands the consequences of defamation (the legal term). Basically, as long as media takes photos/film in good faith without exploitation, I see nothing wrong with a news group walking down the street just filming people and doing some exposé on a town for example.
Overall, getting permission from everyone that was photoed or filmed is almost impossible at best in some situations. So just preventing defemating material from being shown is far more favorable, both media outlet wise as well as legally.
0
movieguy
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???
0
neverknow2
No they shouldn't be able to. THey shouldn't be able to profit from taking my picture.
0
nisegaijin
yes, that's why it's called public. I believe in freedom of information.
0
Deguchisan
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.
0
Altria
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)
0
mareo2
No, at least that they are commiting a crime, their personal lifes is not my business.
0
mareo2
I mean, private lifes.
0
Spidey
"I mean, private lifes."
I think you mean private "lives."
S!
0
moonbeams
y
0
grafton
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.
0
BTADT
Media? Are you going to just leave it at that...naughty and shame on you!!!!
0
Disillusioned
Why not?
0
noypikantoku
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....
0
Den Den
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.
0
ca1ic0cat
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.
Back to top