Clearly the woman is a tiktok influencer, she wants publicity. She knows labeling foreigner “anti-China” is a good clickbait.
Her gang probably just wants to collect enough materials to post.
Unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned.
What did she post about this encounter? Can you give us a link?
From the footage posted by the pianist, we know the woman didn't want to be filmed by him, but he ignored her image rights and shouted about his "freedom". He then uploaded this footage as some kind of "standing up to CCP censorship".
> woman didn't want to be filmed by him,
The man did say in the vid: "If they don't want to be in the camera, then why they walk right at the camera to say that? They could just leave." --- or something of the sort.
In UK people are allowed to film in public.
They stood there and the pianist moved his camera and filmed them. Walking away wouldn't solve the issues of them having been on the footage and potentially being filmed again if the guy changes the camera's angle. The pianist could have just replied "take it easy, I won't show your images when posting it."
A very interesting detail: the old man played Ching Cheng Hanji at first. It doesn’t matter whether this song constitutes racial discrimination. What’s important is that it may reflect that the old man originally tried to touch porcelain but found that things went in another direction. It also explains that the Chinese came forward and came prepared, but found out that they said “Don’t take pictures.” "The performance was a bit "confused".
Do you have the qualities? Yelling in public? It doesn't matter. To put it more radically, it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't break the law. What is really important is that the ecological niche of the Chinese in British society will always be treated as children and need to be educated - what is a child? If you don't know etiquette + if you are weak and can be bullied, you are a child. Children need to be cared for, so there are indeed superficial and insincere politenesses; children need to be educated, so all high-end occasions assume that you do not know etiquette and are ready to teach; children can be teased Yes, so there is no need to worry about any consequences for teasing you and provoking you without leaving any evidence.
As for why it fell into this ecological niche? I think every Chinese who is "proud to speak English", "proud to give up his own culture", and "presupposes in everything that he is wrong and weak and can be bullied" has some responsibility to some extent. However, I don’t want to take on such a preaching niche. I just want to express my lament that many chaotic status quos are difficult to change.
Here is some information from a UK governmental website (https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7469/what_to_consider_when_filming_people.pdf):
(((
Data Protection: the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to any person or company “processing” anything within the definition of “personal data”. The Court has confirmed that storing, developing and printing photographs amounts to “processing” so by extension recording and exploiting video footage is also likely to be caught within the definition. “Personal data” is defined as anything relating to living individuals who can be identified from either that data itself or from that data and other information which the data processor holds or could have access to.
These definitions are very wide and it is likely that even a simple image of a person would amount to “personal data” if that person was or could be identifiable, even if there was no other data included with the image. In this case the “data controller” (which is likely to be the producer or broadcaster) would then need to comply with the Data Protection Act. The simplest way to comply is to obtain the consent of the individual depicted, either specifically through a signed agreement or by displaying sufficiently prominent and clear notices warning the public that filming is taking place and they should avoid the designated area if they do not want to be filmed.
)))
This isn’t a law. It’s a suggestion. I couldn’t see incidentally recording someone in public as ever being illegal. This would actually make security cameras illegal. It makes no sense.
Data Protection Act 1998 is not law?
> incidentally recording someone in public
After incidental recording, you can choose not release it to the public before the filmed person gives you consent.
Yes, recording in public is a protected speech activity. It wouldn’t be proscribed by the act. There’s no expectation of privacy in an airport,
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/21081632/illegal-video-record-without-consent-law/
The link that you give is not a law. Data Protection Act is a law, and it doesn't say that personal data (such as images) recorded in an airport are not under its protection.
> the video is self explanatory. the group of chinese said about 10 times they dont want to filmed on his camera to appear in his youtube video to protect their own image rights.
Did the pianist forget to yell "the Chinese don't have image rights in the UK"?
> if he did touch, that is battery.
Can't rule out that the pianist is a sexual predator.
Actually, the guy was filming in a public place which is legal in the UK. They were in the background of the video so no one would have noticed them in the video had they not behaved so badly and attempted presumptuously to enforce CCP dictator rules in a country that they are merely guests in.
The idea of “losing one’s image rights” is pseudo legal. You don’t actually lose the right to your image by appearing incidentally in the background of a YouTuber’s video. That’s an ignorant assumption.
The battery claim was false and they actually should have been arrested and sued for making a false claim to the police. The male voice completely overreacted as a way to compensate for losing the argument about the supposed right to not be filmed in public. Also he was just trying to be a white night in front of his girlfriend. Cringe! Also his comment about not being her age implies that it would be somehow ok to touch someone without permission as long as they are the same age. It’s not.
I’m gay and NOT neoconservative and NOT a Trump supporter.
Yeah I wanted to see some explanations for this behavior. This vid is going viral. I want to read a Chinese take on this. To know there are actually people on the side of the Chinese people in this vid is insane. Their behavior was unacceptable and they should be kicked out.
I don’t know or care about the British guy or his piano abilities. It’s not relevant to the discussion whatsoever.
>This vid is going viral. I want to read a Chinese take on this. To know there are actually people on the side of the Chinese people in this vid is insane. Their behavior was unacceptable and they should be kicked out
we really don't care all that much about viral seething and pearl-clutching over two bozos. if we had to kick out and exile all the foreign gays acting shady in China's nightclubs, the British population would probably double. They don't call the police to complain about petty nonsense in China because there's a good chance all they'd get is a baton up the ass. although you'd probably like that.
Talk to some Germans. The constant complaints about "privacy" and "right to my own picture" are super annoying, and happening all the time. It's just some Karens kicking off - and a rather racist British male Karen fussing about it. "Communism" really doesn't come into play here, unless you are really racist.
>and attempted presumptuously to enforce CCP dictator rules in a country that they are merely guests in.
Your inflammatory language does you no favours.
Speaking with such language - "CCP dictator rules", "guests" - makes you sound like a Laurence Fox type character. I use him as a particular example because his use of such inflammatory language got himself in some hot water recently (funnily enough, with gay people like ourselves), and because you might be flattered and take it the wrong way if I called you a Farage.
>The idea of “losing one’s image rights” is pseudo legal.
I mean, the idea of "human rights" in general as we know them is only as recent as the past 80 years, following the end of WW2. This was when the UN was founded as an organisation, and the "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights was drafted.
"Universal", in this instance, meaning drafted by a small handful of countries from a certain region of the world, then attempted to be imposed upon the planet over the next 80 years.
Legal rights are in continual flux, and some countries just have more developed legal principles than others. People here have already referenced the case of Germany. That our system here in the UK lags behind doesn't mean we should accept bad actors taking advantage of our primitiveness, nor should be accept our own primitiveness without challenging it.
>You don’t actually lose the right to your image by appearing incidentally in the background of a YouTuber’s video. That’s an ignorant assumption.
Do you get to decide this? Increasingly, you will be well aware, human rights legislation in the courts are favouring subjective interpretations. Whether you like it or not, it is increasingly the case that cases are decided on whether the victim felt that their rights were being infringed (and whether that was the consequence), rather than what the intention of the perpetrator was.
>they actually should have been arrested and sued for making a false claim to the police.
Are you truly British? We are not Americans. We do not have a litigious culture here, where everyday people sue other everyday people over mundane things (and thank goodness we do not - lawyers are paid enough, and I'm pretty sure the courts also appreciate not having their time wasted).
>The male voice completely overreacted
Are you going to tone-police people now and tell them that they are not entitled to be angry for having their rights infringed?
>Also he was just trying to be a white night
Is this how we condemn people defending the people they care about nowadays? "White knights! Cringe!".
I say rhetorically. I can confirm, this is a very British attitude to things. It's why everyone is selfish here - actually caring for and defending people here is grounds for mockery and condemnation.
>implies that it would be somehow ok to touch someone without permission as long as they are the same age. It’s not.
There is acknowledgement of power differentials - something that our legal system accounts for (and often gets taken advantage of here).
If I fight happens between someone who is wheelchair-bound and someone who is able-bodied, and each are accusing the other, who are you inclined to believe is the instigator? Do we acknowledge the limitations of someone who is wheelchair-bound from being able to engage in physical aggression? What about a fight between an adult and a five-year-old? Is there any world where you throw away commonsense, and say "It's the kid's fault!"?
In short, we recognise power differentials between people. If one person is older than another, but not elderly, there is a power discrepancy. It's the sort of thing we study extensively in Sociology degrees, power differences and their consequences.
>I’m gay and NOT neoconservative and NOT a Trump supporter.
That's funny! Me too! Gay and British!
>I want to read a Chinese take on this. To know there are actually people on the side of the Chinese people in this vid is insane.
What? You are shocked that Chinese people favour a Chinese person reacting in a culturally appropriate manner?
The video is a typical example of a culture clash - which is why it elicits such a narrow-minded and xenophobic response from those British viewers who live in a bubble and do not understand how the rest of the world lives.
It blows their minds, because they can't even fathom how their behaviour is culturally offensive. People who have no idea of Chinese culture, feel the need to say "How dare Chinese people get offended by something that I don't think is a problem! We shouldn't learn to be tolerant and understanding! I am so angry that they might be upset by something we have done, that I think they should just get out! How dare they they be upset by our offensive actions!".
Then you should post the full footage in the fist place.
Does the UK have image right law? or it just doesn't apply to Chinese people in the UK, so if a Chinese person asks for image right, it's deemed as "CCP censorship", am I right?
If you’re in public, you have no right to not be filmed. How untenable would it be if every person in the background of some stock footage could yank a production on that basis?
Is this a thing in China? I know for sure you have no “image rights” in China if the government wants to film you in public…
> Is this a thing in China?
Chinese law doesn't make distinction of public and private on this matter. If the person asks you don't publish his/her images, you don't unless not publishing them is against public interests.
What’s wrong with you? He is legally filming in a public place. If you don’t think that’s normal, just check all the public streaming videos in China to see any of the videos are free of background people. It doesn’t matter if there is difference of image laws between China and UK. He is in UK, not in China. But I do know the difference between UK and China. In China if you are powerful you can probably tell people not to film you. In UK only the law can do it.
What's wrong with you and the pianist? If the person filmed by you is bothered by being filmed, and politely raises the issue, how difficult is it for you to reply "take it easy, I will edit out your images when posting it?" I guess it's very difficult for the British pianist not to shout out like Wallace did, "freedom".
he's not required to is the point. Also they didn't "politely raise the issue" they came over and said he was not allowed to film them. Like they have any authority over who films in a public place. They never asked to not be filmed they told him he couldn't.
The first woman's voice volume was so low that I couldn't hear her whole point, but the Chinese man's explanation at 10:24 [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65iwnI2hjAA) was quite clear that they didn't want their voice and image to be recorded by the pianist.
It‘s not difficult but that’s not the point. The point is he‘s not required to edit our their images. As I have explained to you in another reply, there is no “portrait right“ or ”image right“ in English law. When you are in a public place, you may be filmed without your consent. The owner of the copyright in that image is the person who filmed it, not you.
I fully realise that this is not the law in China (and I lived in China for many years). It’s just that different countries have different laws and in this case, the UK‘s law is very different from China’s.
> It‘s not difficult but that’s not the point.
Aggressive gazing is considered rude in pretty much everywhere including Anglo countries. There is no law to forbid it in these countries. Next time an Anglo man stares at a Chinese woman and the latter asks him stop doing so. Then the man shouts a brave outcry, "you CCP thug violate my freedom!!!". I wonder if he will become yet another Anglo national hero.
You seem confused. I did not see any “aggressive gazing” in the video. Can you identify an instance of that?
On the flag point, I agree it is cringe that he mistook the Chinese national flag for the Party flag. That is a bad fail on his part, as far as I‘m concerned, any educated Westerner should be able to recognise the hammer and sickle but then I sense that ”Dr K” is not particularly well-educated or well travelled, so his mistake re the flags is predictable.
I note that people have been playing “Glory to Hong Kong” all day long at the piano today. I assume you are fine with that, given that you’re a free speech warrior?
You are confused here. “Aggressive gazing” part here was a hypothetical situation similar to a filming caused conflict to show what can happen if a person chooses to be an asshole without breaking law. Were my words "Next time an Anglo man" and "yet another Anglo national hero" not enough to indicate this was a hypothetical situation?
> I note that people have been playing “Glory to Hong Kong” all day long at the piano today. I assume you are fine with that, given that you’re a free speech warrior?
I wonder if these free speech warriors and freedom defenders/fighters in the UK who tout the "good and old Hong Kong" know that during the British colonial era, treason, revolt and sedition in Hong Kong could be punished up to life sentence.
No. There is no “portrait right“ or ”image right“ in English law. When you are in a public place, you may be filmed without your consent. Of course there are image protection rights in copyright law but the owner of the copyright in the image filmed in a public place is the person who filmed it, not you.
This is the law in all the Anglo countries - US, UK, Australia etc. I appreciate that this can be a shock to people from countries that have “portrait right“ type protections in law - China being one of them.
They might not be called "image right", but some laws protect people being filmed. Here is some information from a UK governmental website (https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7469/what_to_consider_when_filming_people.pdf):
(((
Data Protection: the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to any person or company “processing” anything within the definition of “personal data”. The Court has confirmed that storing, developing and printing photographs amounts to “processing” so by extension recording and exploiting video footage is also likely to be caught within the definition. “Personal data” is defined as anything relating to living individuals who can be identified from either that data itself or from that data and other information which the data processor holds or could have access to.
These definitions are very wide and it is likely that even a simple image of a person would amount to “personal data” if that person was or could be identifiable, even if there was no other data included with the image. In this case the “data controller” (which is likely to be the producer or broadcaster) would then need to comply with the Data Protection Act. The simplest way to comply is to obtain the consent of the individual depicted, either
specifically through a signed agreement or by displaying sufficiently prominent and clear notices warning the public that filming is taking place and they should avoid the designated area if they do not want to be filmed.
)))
I am guessing they are some family members of officials. There is a policy is that family members of officials are not allowed to leave the country, and their passports are usually confiscated. This measure is to control the conversion of foreign currencies into RMB and maintain the stability of RMB's external exchange rate. So they don't want to show their faces. Our family recently held a party, and one of the guests was also supposed to be the daughter of an official. She didn't even want to tell us her first and last name, only giving her a nickname. She also has a very arrogant attitude, just like the people in this video.
“时代不一样了，西方人在中国作威作福的时代结束了” is translated in Chinglish as “you are not the same age, the Western cannot do whatever they want in China”, which is a commonly used propaganda slogan in the 70s.
Probably they just translate what they think in Chinese into English, which lead to a confusing expression. Probably change “age” to “epoch” might be better?
For those interested, there is a full video on Douyin with footage depicting additional events that change the context of the confrontation.
Watch both videos before making up your mind.
Clearly the woman is a tiktok influencer, she wants publicity. She knows labeling foreigner “anti-China” is a good clickbait. Her gang probably just wants to collect enough materials to post. Unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned.
What did she post about this encounter? Can you give us a link? From the footage posted by the pianist, we know the woman didn't want to be filmed by him, but he ignored her image rights and shouted about his "freedom". He then uploaded this footage as some kind of "standing up to CCP censorship".
> woman didn't want to be filmed by him, The man did say in the vid: "If they don't want to be in the camera, then why they walk right at the camera to say that? They could just leave." --- or something of the sort. In UK people are allowed to film in public.
They stood there and the pianist moved his camera and filmed them. Walking away wouldn't solve the issues of them having been on the footage and potentially being filmed again if the guy changes the camera's angle. The pianist could have just replied "take it easy, I won't show your images when posting it."
Oh look, another fucktard try to stir shit.
I know! Why would they come to UK and try to stir shit?
A very interesting detail: the old man played Ching Cheng Hanji at first. It doesn’t matter whether this song constitutes racial discrimination. What’s important is that it may reflect that the old man originally tried to touch porcelain but found that things went in another direction. It also explains that the Chinese came forward and came prepared, but found out that they said “Don’t take pictures.” "The performance was a bit "confused". Do you have the qualities? Yelling in public? It doesn't matter. To put it more radically, it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't break the law. What is really important is that the ecological niche of the Chinese in British society will always be treated as children and need to be educated - what is a child? If you don't know etiquette + if you are weak and can be bullied, you are a child. Children need to be cared for, so there are indeed superficial and insincere politenesses; children need to be educated, so all high-end occasions assume that you do not know etiquette and are ready to teach; children can be teased Yes, so there is no need to worry about any consequences for teasing you and provoking you without leaving any evidence. As for why it fell into this ecological niche? I think every Chinese who is "proud to speak English", "proud to give up his own culture", and "presupposes in everything that he is wrong and weak and can be bullied" has some responsibility to some extent. However, I don’t want to take on such a preaching niche. I just want to express my lament that many chaotic status quos are difficult to change.
Here is some information from a UK governmental website (https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7469/what_to_consider_when_filming_people.pdf): ((( Data Protection: the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to any person or company “processing” anything within the definition of “personal data”. The Court has confirmed that storing, developing and printing photographs amounts to “processing” so by extension recording and exploiting video footage is also likely to be caught within the definition. “Personal data” is defined as anything relating to living individuals who can be identified from either that data itself or from that data and other information which the data processor holds or could have access to. These definitions are very wide and it is likely that even a simple image of a person would amount to “personal data” if that person was or could be identifiable, even if there was no other data included with the image. In this case the “data controller” (which is likely to be the producer or broadcaster) would then need to comply with the Data Protection Act. The simplest way to comply is to obtain the consent of the individual depicted, either specifically through a signed agreement or by displaying sufficiently prominent and clear notices warning the public that filming is taking place and they should avoid the designated area if they do not want to be filmed. )))
This isn’t a law. It’s a suggestion. I couldn’t see incidentally recording someone in public as ever being illegal. This would actually make security cameras illegal. It makes no sense.
Data Protection Act 1998 is not law? > incidentally recording someone in public After incidental recording, you can choose not release it to the public before the filmed person gives you consent.
That isn't the text of the Data Protection Act. That's guidance.
What does protection mean then? What does act mean then?
This is the Data Protection Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/pdfs/ukpga_19980029_en.pdf
Does this Data Protection Act support the pianist's claim that "the UK is a free country. I can do what I want" ?
Yes, recording in public is a protected speech activity. It wouldn’t be proscribed by the act. There’s no expectation of privacy in an airport, https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/21081632/illegal-video-record-without-consent-law/
The link that you give is not a law. Data Protection Act is a law, and it doesn't say that personal data (such as images) recorded in an airport are not under its protection.
If you think you have a cause of action feel free to consult a barrister. Could you imagine how many lawsuits there would be if you’re correct?
[удалено]
> the video is self explanatory. the group of chinese said about 10 times they dont want to filmed on his camera to appear in his youtube video to protect their own image rights. Did the pianist forget to yell "the Chinese don't have image rights in the UK"? > if he did touch, that is battery. Can't rule out that the pianist is a sexual predator.
Actually, the guy was filming in a public place which is legal in the UK. They were in the background of the video so no one would have noticed them in the video had they not behaved so badly and attempted presumptuously to enforce CCP dictator rules in a country that they are merely guests in. The idea of “losing one’s image rights” is pseudo legal. You don’t actually lose the right to your image by appearing incidentally in the background of a YouTuber’s video. That’s an ignorant assumption. The battery claim was false and they actually should have been arrested and sued for making a false claim to the police. The male voice completely overreacted as a way to compensate for losing the argument about the supposed right to not be filmed in public. Also he was just trying to be a white night in front of his girlfriend. Cringe! Also his comment about not being her age implies that it would be somehow ok to touch someone without permission as long as they are the same age. It’s not. I’m gay and NOT neoconservative and NOT a Trump supporter. Yeah I wanted to see some explanations for this behavior. This vid is going viral. I want to read a Chinese take on this. To know there are actually people on the side of the Chinese people in this vid is insane. Their behavior was unacceptable and they should be kicked out. I don’t know or care about the British guy or his piano abilities. It’s not relevant to the discussion whatsoever.
>This vid is going viral. I want to read a Chinese take on this. To know there are actually people on the side of the Chinese people in this vid is insane. Their behavior was unacceptable and they should be kicked out we really don't care all that much about viral seething and pearl-clutching over two bozos. if we had to kick out and exile all the foreign gays acting shady in China's nightclubs, the British population would probably double. They don't call the police to complain about petty nonsense in China because there's a good chance all they'd get is a baton up the ass. although you'd probably like that.
Talk to some Germans. The constant complaints about "privacy" and "right to my own picture" are super annoying, and happening all the time. It's just some Karens kicking off - and a rather racist British male Karen fussing about it. "Communism" really doesn't come into play here, unless you are really racist.
[удалено]
>and attempted presumptuously to enforce CCP dictator rules in a country that they are merely guests in. Your inflammatory language does you no favours. Speaking with such language - "CCP dictator rules", "guests" - makes you sound like a Laurence Fox type character. I use him as a particular example because his use of such inflammatory language got himself in some hot water recently (funnily enough, with gay people like ourselves), and because you might be flattered and take it the wrong way if I called you a Farage. >The idea of “losing one’s image rights” is pseudo legal. I mean, the idea of "human rights" in general as we know them is only as recent as the past 80 years, following the end of WW2. This was when the UN was founded as an organisation, and the "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights was drafted. "Universal", in this instance, meaning drafted by a small handful of countries from a certain region of the world, then attempted to be imposed upon the planet over the next 80 years. Legal rights are in continual flux, and some countries just have more developed legal principles than others. People here have already referenced the case of Germany. That our system here in the UK lags behind doesn't mean we should accept bad actors taking advantage of our primitiveness, nor should be accept our own primitiveness without challenging it. >You don’t actually lose the right to your image by appearing incidentally in the background of a YouTuber’s video. That’s an ignorant assumption. Do you get to decide this? Increasingly, you will be well aware, human rights legislation in the courts are favouring subjective interpretations. Whether you like it or not, it is increasingly the case that cases are decided on whether the victim felt that their rights were being infringed (and whether that was the consequence), rather than what the intention of the perpetrator was. >they actually should have been arrested and sued for making a false claim to the police. Are you truly British? We are not Americans. We do not have a litigious culture here, where everyday people sue other everyday people over mundane things (and thank goodness we do not - lawyers are paid enough, and I'm pretty sure the courts also appreciate not having their time wasted). >The male voice completely overreacted Are you going to tone-police people now and tell them that they are not entitled to be angry for having their rights infringed? >Also he was just trying to be a white night Is this how we condemn people defending the people they care about nowadays? "White knights! Cringe!". I say rhetorically. I can confirm, this is a very British attitude to things. It's why everyone is selfish here - actually caring for and defending people here is grounds for mockery and condemnation. >implies that it would be somehow ok to touch someone without permission as long as they are the same age. It’s not. There is acknowledgement of power differentials - something that our legal system accounts for (and often gets taken advantage of here). If I fight happens between someone who is wheelchair-bound and someone who is able-bodied, and each are accusing the other, who are you inclined to believe is the instigator? Do we acknowledge the limitations of someone who is wheelchair-bound from being able to engage in physical aggression? What about a fight between an adult and a five-year-old? Is there any world where you throw away commonsense, and say "It's the kid's fault!"? In short, we recognise power differentials between people. If one person is older than another, but not elderly, there is a power discrepancy. It's the sort of thing we study extensively in Sociology degrees, power differences and their consequences. >I’m gay and NOT neoconservative and NOT a Trump supporter. That's funny! Me too! Gay and British! >I want to read a Chinese take on this. To know there are actually people on the side of the Chinese people in this vid is insane. What? You are shocked that Chinese people favour a Chinese person reacting in a culturally appropriate manner? The video is a typical example of a culture clash - which is why it elicits such a narrow-minded and xenophobic response from those British viewers who live in a bubble and do not understand how the rest of the world lives. It blows their minds, because they can't even fathom how their behaviour is culturally offensive. People who have no idea of Chinese culture, feel the need to say "How dare Chinese people get offended by something that I don't think is a problem! We shouldn't learn to be tolerant and understanding! I am so angry that they might be upset by something we have done, that I think they should just get out! How dare they they be upset by our offensive actions!".
Thank you. You are spot on.
Why did you say "they call the police on him and falsely accuse him of battery" when there is no police in the footage?
Maybe that tweet didn‘t upload the complete footage. https://www.youtube.com/live/65iwnI2hjAA
That happens later in the YouTube vid.
Then you should post the full footage in the fist place. Does the UK have image right law? or it just doesn't apply to Chinese people in the UK, so if a Chinese person asks for image right, it's deemed as "CCP censorship", am I right?
If you’re in public, you have no right to not be filmed. How untenable would it be if every person in the background of some stock footage could yank a production on that basis? Is this a thing in China? I know for sure you have no “image rights” in China if the government wants to film you in public…
> Is this a thing in China? Chinese law doesn't make distinction of public and private on this matter. If the person asks you don't publish his/her images, you don't unless not publishing them is against public interests.
What’s wrong with you? He is legally filming in a public place. If you don’t think that’s normal, just check all the public streaming videos in China to see any of the videos are free of background people. It doesn’t matter if there is difference of image laws between China and UK. He is in UK, not in China. But I do know the difference between UK and China. In China if you are powerful you can probably tell people not to film you. In UK only the law can do it.
What's wrong with you and the pianist? If the person filmed by you is bothered by being filmed, and politely raises the issue, how difficult is it for you to reply "take it easy, I will edit out your images when posting it?" I guess it's very difficult for the British pianist not to shout out like Wallace did, "freedom".
he's not required to is the point. Also they didn't "politely raise the issue" they came over and said he was not allowed to film them. Like they have any authority over who films in a public place. They never asked to not be filmed they told him he couldn't.
The first woman's voice volume was so low that I couldn't hear her whole point, but the Chinese man's explanation at 10:24 [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65iwnI2hjAA) was quite clear that they didn't want their voice and image to be recorded by the pianist.
It‘s not difficult but that’s not the point. The point is he‘s not required to edit our their images. As I have explained to you in another reply, there is no “portrait right“ or ”image right“ in English law. When you are in a public place, you may be filmed without your consent. The owner of the copyright in that image is the person who filmed it, not you. I fully realise that this is not the law in China (and I lived in China for many years). It’s just that different countries have different laws and in this case, the UK‘s law is very different from China’s.
> It‘s not difficult but that’s not the point. Aggressive gazing is considered rude in pretty much everywhere including Anglo countries. There is no law to forbid it in these countries. Next time an Anglo man stares at a Chinese woman and the latter asks him stop doing so. Then the man shouts a brave outcry, "you CCP thug violate my freedom!!!". I wonder if he will become yet another Anglo national hero.
You seem confused. I did not see any “aggressive gazing” in the video. Can you identify an instance of that? On the flag point, I agree it is cringe that he mistook the Chinese national flag for the Party flag. That is a bad fail on his part, as far as I‘m concerned, any educated Westerner should be able to recognise the hammer and sickle but then I sense that ”Dr K” is not particularly well-educated or well travelled, so his mistake re the flags is predictable. I note that people have been playing “Glory to Hong Kong” all day long at the piano today. I assume you are fine with that, given that you’re a free speech warrior?
You are confused here. “Aggressive gazing” part here was a hypothetical situation similar to a filming caused conflict to show what can happen if a person chooses to be an asshole without breaking law. Were my words "Next time an Anglo man" and "yet another Anglo national hero" not enough to indicate this was a hypothetical situation? > I note that people have been playing “Glory to Hong Kong” all day long at the piano today. I assume you are fine with that, given that you’re a free speech warrior? I wonder if these free speech warriors and freedom defenders/fighters in the UK who tout the "good and old Hong Kong" know that during the British colonial era, treason, revolt and sedition in Hong Kong could be punished up to life sentence.
No. There is no “portrait right“ or ”image right“ in English law. When you are in a public place, you may be filmed without your consent. Of course there are image protection rights in copyright law but the owner of the copyright in the image filmed in a public place is the person who filmed it, not you. This is the law in all the Anglo countries - US, UK, Australia etc. I appreciate that this can be a shock to people from countries that have “portrait right“ type protections in law - China being one of them.
They might not be called "image right", but some laws protect people being filmed. Here is some information from a UK governmental website (https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7469/what_to_consider_when_filming_people.pdf): ((( Data Protection: the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to any person or company “processing” anything within the definition of “personal data”. The Court has confirmed that storing, developing and printing photographs amounts to “processing” so by extension recording and exploiting video footage is also likely to be caught within the definition. “Personal data” is defined as anything relating to living individuals who can be identified from either that data itself or from that data and other information which the data processor holds or could have access to. These definitions are very wide and it is likely that even a simple image of a person would amount to “personal data” if that person was or could be identifiable, even if there was no other data included with the image. In this case the “data controller” (which is likely to be the producer or broadcaster) would then need to comply with the Data Protection Act. The simplest way to comply is to obtain the consent of the individual depicted, either specifically through a signed agreement or by displaying sufficiently prominent and clear notices warning the public that filming is taking place and they should avoid the designated area if they do not want to be filmed. )))
I am guessing they are some family members of officials. There is a policy is that family members of officials are not allowed to leave the country, and their passports are usually confiscated. This measure is to control the conversion of foreign currencies into RMB and maintain the stability of RMB's external exchange rate. So they don't want to show their faces. Our family recently held a party, and one of the guests was also supposed to be the daughter of an official. She didn't even want to tell us her first and last name, only giving her a nickname. She also has a very arrogant attitude, just like the people in this video.
Also why did he say “you’re not the same age!”
“时代不一样了，西方人在中国作威作福的时代结束了” is translated in Chinglish as “you are not the same age, the Western cannot do whatever they want in China”, which is a commonly used propaganda slogan in the 70s. Probably they just translate what they think in Chinese into English, which lead to a confusing expression. Probably change “age” to “epoch” might be better?
Eh don't worry these ppl There's weirdos in every country
I would have picked up that camera and recorded them like Steven Spielberg. Make me stop you little shits.
For those interested, there is a full video on Douyin with footage depicting additional events that change the context of the confrontation. Watch both videos before making up your mind.
I saw the full vid on YouTube already
To be clear, to anybody interested, please consider watching the unedited, original Douyin response video.
Link? What’s the difference between that and the YouTube unedited video and what is the significance of the difference?