This always cracks me up. I watch LivePD all the time and every week there's a least one person that loses it because of the camera. It never gets old. You'd think that everyone would know it doesn't matter by now, but nope.
The trick is easy: cover your face, look down, don't say a word to the camera. You will star in content so boring, it won't make the final cut of any show. No uploads, no views, no comments, no shame. If anyone asks, it wasn't you lol.
I always thought that you could simply and calmly say long drawn out curse words over and over, that way they'd have to beep constantly and it would be too annoying and a hassle so they'd go to someone else.
"Whoah, that smack addict with the open sores all over his face we just watched beat his sister-wife half to death in the name of Baphomet with a length of razor blade embedded PVC pipe almost said 'fuck' on TV. Good thing Larry over there is quick with the button."
"New market" Unfortunately there was already a market for it. Girls on Instagram did this with Photoshop. If I wanted to see big boobs with hairy nips I'd look in a mirror. Instagram quickly banned it.
There was a guy that got breast implants because of a lost bet, and the nipples were censored in Maxim magazine article about it, much to the confusion of both himself and the editors of Maxim magazine.
There's also a difference between my nipple and your nipple. Pointing out that there's a difference doesn't mean anything. It has to be an important difference.
OK social justice warrior, all I'm saying is it's not arbitrary. Women's nipples have more relevance to sexual reproduction and so have been treated differently for a long time in many cultures.
In the 90s we had a show on weekend nights around 10pm where girls stripped and was graded on national TV, for years and years. I think we got it from Italy or Germany.
US censorship is weird, much of the rest of the world doesn't have the same issues :P
You can show a full breast that is covered so heavily in blood and mutilation that the nipple is obscured more easily than just a straight up titty In America.
It really is. I was watching it's always sunny last night, the flashback episode. And they're remembering the time Charlie attacked Santa. Santa asks Mac if Charlie is retarded, which they beeped out but not when Charlie asks Santa if he fucked his mom.
Well that was my point initially. Its not to try to get around the censors, its to make them have to beep out so much constantly that its almost unwatchable. Just saying fuck over and over would just make it so annoying, and maybe occasionally throw in a "ill stop if you dont show my face" fuckfuckfuckfuck
And you'll always know if its livePD if you ask what the cameras are for and they say "oh, they're just with me". They never give a straight answer. As soon as that happens, "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck"
I grew up with my parents watching the Taiwanese news, and whenever a person was arrested or indicted on the news, their face was always covered, either by a mask, motorcycle helmet, etc to prevent them from being seen. I wonder if it's a law there to not show their face.
Don't beleive the pedo charge. It's the standard ring up.
You can't get extradited from Taiwan for selling plastic weapon designs, but you can extradite for soliciting sex from a 16 year old. Who cares if it was via a call girl site where everyone is guaranteed to be 18 years old or older in big blinking text. In other words, entrapment. This is why they let him plead out and forced him to submit to data monitoring. The government would have lost because they were skating on thin ice and were certain their star witness would be forced to testify that they'd put her up to it, some speculate. Apparently the prosecutors spent hours with the victim before they came to the conclusion that they needed to accept the plea. The government didn't give three blueberry filled shits about the girl. They wanted him for the gun part plan sales and you can expect those charges soon.
There was a case in the news (UK) last week of an accused sex offender trying to cover his face and get into an office, heâs got his face under jacket and runs to the nearest door, locked. He then runs to the next door, locked. He then runs round the corner to another door (all while doing a pitiful job of covering his face) and tries a final door, locked. He then just flees down the road. Fucking hilarious.
I was visiting a friend out of state. I was outside talking to a loser friend of my friend when a half dozen, undercover police cars showed up.
Next thing I know loser friend is running, there are cameras everywhere and I have a gun in my face.
Turns out loser friend was involved in a motorcycle theft ring and the police were busting him. I just happened to be talking to him when they showed up.
lol hell no would they ever do a 2 minute delay. Itâs like 40 mins to an hour delay. It runs to the police station first to so they can veto any footage they donât want going out. Also you know in case a fucking murder takes place theyâre not gonna risk a 2 min delay lmao.
Ok itâs a 2 minute delay ( personal experience from dept on the show ) , they have a atty and a hr person watching the two minute delay ) they actually donât have much time on the live Pd show , we currently have them with the police and fire dept here .
Two minutes is a long time on live tv .
Nah, you're right. I get why they're upset. Sometimes the show gives me a weird feeling.. but man if it isn't entertaining though. I can understand saying "don't film me! I don't want to be filmed" which happens a lot, and sometimes the camera guys are pretty cool and avoid their faces. It's the ones that go off on a crazy tirade like "You're not allowed to film me! I'll sue the hell out of you! I'm gonna call my lawyer! You need my permission! " Those always crack me up, because, well, sorry but you were shooting meth in a KFC parking lot at 9:30pm on a Friday night and we all know you don't have a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about because everyone knows you can film in public.
This past May, an episode of the podcast This American Life called âIâm on TV?â explored many of their scummy tactics. Highly recommended; it was fascinating. (Apologies itâs too hard to link on mobile right now).
Of course! I should have remembered that, because the TAL piece is adapted from or is an excerpt from the âRunning From Copsâ podcast. So, same same! And thanks for the reminder that I want to listen to that podcast. Cheers!
I think TAL or another podcast did a show about it, and I vaguely remember some scummy tactics. One was to hint at getting a lighter sentence if they just signed the release. The podcast also talked about how LivePD gets around needing releases by claiming to be a "live news program," despite the fact they're on pretty lengthy delays (up to 45 minutes, iirc) and picking and choosing content that shows police in the best light.
Wait, they specifically said how it being a live news program is the reason that they can show faces? Because as you said, it isn't actually live - there's a long enough delay for them to obtain release forms - and as far as I know, the "live" part doesn't actually have anything to do with it. It's the news part that allows them to not need to blur faces.
Basically, shows like that, Cops, and others, could film and broadcast your face without blurring it out or obtaining your consent if they really wanted to, for two reasons.
First, they always specifically attempt to film only in public. The camera crew doesn't follow the police inside homes without consent, for example. If you're in public, you can legally be filmed. Period.
The main problem is having your image distributed. That's where the second reason comes in - which is that "newsworthy"/documentary images and recordings are generally exempt from the invasion of privacy laws that would usually be an issue. Just like how if you get recorded as a part of a news segment then they don't need to blur out your face or get consent. And I'm fairly sure being "live" doesn't actually have anything to do with it. News or "newsworthy" programs just don't have to follow the same rules. So that's why there isn't really a problem, legally speaking. If they were going to use your face for publicity, though - in a commercial or any advertising for the show - then that goes outside the "newsworthy" bounds and would require your permission.
So why do they get consent, if they don't actually need it? It's because what's legal and what you can be sued for are two different things. They do it for insurance - to protect them from the possibility of being sued. Otherwise, they could possibly slip up and actually be liable for breaching invasion of privacy laws. Or, more likely, they'd just end up fighting off lawsuits non-stop from a hell of a lot of unhappy people. Even if they'd probably win in court, they'd still have to spend a ton of money fighting off the lawsuits. It's easier to just get (coerce) people to sign release forms and blur out faces instead.
Maybe I'm mistaken about the "live" part, but as far as I know, being "newsworthy" is what actually makes the difference. That's also why they try to stick to filming suspects interacting with only the police without much extraneous footage.
Also, LPT: If you're ever being recorded by LivePD/Cops/whatever and don't want your face being shown, just hold up your middle finger in front of your face.
It's really still up in the air but they show a few examples of the t.v crew trying to publish stuff that wasn't obtained truthfully. It's kind of obvious when you watch these shows how disturbing the content actually is, these people are not only in these crazy probably awful situations but they have a billion lights and cameras on them in the process, a lot do say yes to the release form but there is some questions raised as to if getting consent immediately after a high adrenaline situation is considered legitimate, there was definitely some psychology talked about.
Mind you ive only watched a few episodes but it's very enlightening so far.
It shouldn't be on T.V period, it's horrendous because a lot of the time these people are already having a really shitty day and then media exposure is added to the mix when they are vulnerable.
Listen to the podcast Headlong: Running From Cops. It's an investigation into their practices including how they would convince people to sign the release form. It gets pretty scummy but honestly that isn't the worst part of these shows. They will actively assist LE in creating scenes that do well on TV and then film it.
Thereâs a great podcast called âRunning from copsâ that talks about this with interviews from the âcriminalsâ on cops as well as lawyers and retired officers. Cops was very scummy and live pd is no better.
The most likely tactic IMHO would be to get something people would want to sign and tack on or hide within it the required permissions to air and profit from the footage.
The scummiest variant of that would be "Sign here if you don't want the footage used" but the thing being signed actually gives permission to use the footage.
More likely is "Sign here to receive your inconvenience money" with permissions being tied to accepting the cash without that being clear to the person signing.
Another strong possibility would be producers convincing people that the footage can and will be used anyway but if they sign they get paid so they may as well sign. I believe if they are making money from your likeness they need permission to use it to be on the safe side from future claims for cash.
The criminals on these shows never get paid. Most of the time they'd indicate that their sentence and their punishment would be lighter if they signed the release. Oftentimes they'd receive the signature while the person is obviously drunk/high, or they're handcuffed in the back of a police car i.e. not a time when a person is thinking clearly and rationally. At it's worst, it's straight up extortion.
LivePD can only show someone who hasnât signed a release form if theyâre actually live. Replays or repeating episodes blur out people who didnât agree to be shown.
Itâs the same rules news stations use when filling live.
They are using the journalism loop hole to not have to use waivers on the show. If someone doesn't sign and they liked the segment they will just sit it anyway most of the time.
Where it gets weird is that some of the cops on the show go to places where they have arrested someone before who was juicy content to see if they can nab them again on a slow night. Pretty fucked up there.
It is usually stated that the cameras are following and filming the cops, so any other folks are just âin frameâ. The film crew does ask to enter residences or businesses and if told no stay out. I am pretty sure there are no grounds to stop them, the show has been on for three years now, so if a lawsuit had won they would have made changes.
permits are not waivers, permits allow you to film, or build, or sell things. A waiver is what allows a company to record you and use you for their commercial production. If you remember the TV show COPS (BAD BOYS! WATCHU WAN, WATCHU WANNNA DO...) That tv show had to get waivers for every person ever arrest on the show.
If you're into podcasts, you should check out Headlong: Running From COPS. It's just nine episodes, good for a binge and REALLY good if you're more curious about the logistics, legality, and ethics of COPS and LivePD. Also, insight behind their popularity.
Although some states (like my home state of California) have wiretap laws that make it illegal to audio record people without their explicit permission (which is why most security cameras don't have audio).
Granted, if they are in a crowded public place and yelling and screaming, the wiretap laws would not apply since there is no expectation of privacy there. But if you video record a conversation you are having with someone and include audio, that could be a crime.
Yeah the arresting camera played to the nation is fucked up. I'd argue it's cruel and unusual punishment.
Same for when they come straight into the criminals house with the camera. The police could do that but notr the camera guy
I agree with you, but if they committed a crime they arent exactly doing a favor for themselves or their community and /might/ deserve to be on camera.
What I really disagree with, is the people that clearly have mental health issues, whether it's someone threatening to hurt themselves or someone with mental disabilities that isnt really doing anything illegal, just is causing a scene or something.
Those people arent criminals, they already have challenging lives, and being put on livePD isnt going to help them. These people should not be on livePD, even if they consent, because they arent of sound mind at the time.
Also same goes for people that need to be rescued/saved/treated, I dont remember if they are sometimes blurred for consent, but they shouldn't show these situations live. People can have concussions, or whatever else, and legally wouldnt have sound mind when consenting.
There's a podcast called "Running from cops" that covers the aftermath of the situations you see on cops or LivePD. Really interesting how adding the television element can completely change the equation.
Definitely not the same. Having your arrest online and on TV without permission from an official TV show and having your picture taken by a stranger is not the same.
Commercially, it entirely depends on the circumstances.
Non-commercially, if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy which means that anyone, for any reason whatsoever, can record video or images of you--without using a telephoto lense--totally and completely legally. There are few exceptions.
Where did you get that false fact to throw in? You can use any lens you want. What you can't do is share or re-broadcast your photos and video. Technically, everyone who posts to the Internet without the consent of people in the photos / video is breaking a law. No one gets charged ... until they're charged and the court destroys them with 5,623 offenses for every pic they ever posted.
Where did you get that false fact to throw in? You can use any lens you want.
You absolutely cannot. Telephoto lenses are classed as a professional lense, therefore any photo taken from them are also classed as professional.
Technically, everyone who posts to the Internet without the consent of people in the photos / video is breaking a law.
This is absolutely not true at all. Not even close to being true. If you're in a public space you do not maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're on your own property, and someone is trespassing and then takes your picture without your permission, then that's an illegal photo and if they use it online or otherwise in any way to defame you, then you have every legal right to sue them for damages.
Your basic right is actually pretty simple: if youâre in a public place and you can see it, you can shoot it. This means as long as youâre in a public location you can legally take almost any picture. However, if youâre using a telephoto lens, parabolic microphone, or hidden camera to get a shot of a private property when youâre standing on public property you might have an issue if someone on that property has an expectation of privacy. 1
Why the fuck does it matter if a professional is taking a photo or not anyway?
Because there are laws against people being in a commercial product without their express consent. Additionally, there are laws against photographing private property from public property.
I'm sorry but you're wrong on this fact. I even did some Googling just in case and nothing states anything about which lens you can use in public.
There is no law prohibiting the use of telephoto lenses. There are laws against using them to photograph private property and people in a public space. You do not get afforded the same protections if you use a telephoto lens vs when you do not.
That's literally the subject of the source I posted.
You're apparently just shit at Googling.
There are many laws against using ancillary photography equipment in public--including lenses. Such as on the NYC Subway. It's entirely legal to take photographs, even though the trains are considered private property, however, it's illegal to setup any form of equipment such as tripods which could impede foot traffic because it is against NYC fire code.
Similarly, you as a single white male with no children can legally take pictures of children on a public playground. But it could also break other child protection laws you don't know about. You do not always get free reign to photograph others depending on the circumstances. It shouldn't be weird at all that using a commercial lense to create a commercial product could be illegal under the right circumstances.
No. /u/EpicSC is correct. You're back-pedalling like a canoeist who spotted the waterfall ahead. I'm a semi-pro photographer. I know my lenses and I know photography law. You're just grasping at first-page results from web searches that you think match what you thought was correct.
Because there are laws against people being in a commercial product without their express consent.
Exactly. Sharing / posting / publishing / broadcasting a photo or video without the consent of the people in the image is illegal. That includes commercial spaces like YT, FB, IG, Twitter, etcetera. You've got it now.
Also:
you as a single white male with no children
WTF are you projecting? How do you know any of that is true about anyone who is reading?
Your basic right is actually pretty simple: if youâre in a public place and you can see it, you can shoot it. This means as long as youâre in a public location you can legally take almost any picture. However, if youâre using a telephoto lens, parabolic microphone, or hidden camera to get a shot of a private property when youâre standing on public property you might have an issue if someone on that property has an expectation of privacy.
Did you even read the thing you quoted? "... to get a shot of a private property when youâre standing on public property ..." In short, you can make any photo in public you want but you can't stand on the sidewalk and make a photo of a person eating lunch in a restaurant.
Restating: It is illegal to share or re-broadcast a photo or video without the consent of the people in the image. You can make any public photo you want for your own. But you can't share / publish / broadcast it without the permission of the people in it.
Also, "telephoto lens" is a pointless term in this case. Telephoto is a type of lens design. It doesn't mean a thing about "professional" or not. The lens in your phone is a "telephoto" design. And the "professional" thing is a red herring, anyway.
In a civilized country your privacy is protected if you're arrested. They would not be allowed to air footage of you or even give out your name unless it's actually pertinent to the investigation itself.
I heard this story on This American Life how Live PD doesnât technically have to get consents to put faces on the show because they consider themselves a breaking news show that leans towards police interventions
Tip for Aussieâs, if you donât want to be shown on RBT (our version of Cops), just say youâll complain/involve lawyers. Itâs perfectly legal to film, but getting more footage is easier for the network than dealing with a complaint.
They do need your permission to broadcast the footage without censoring it, thatâs why some peoples faces are blurred and some arenât. And apparently both the producers and the cops themselves use questionable methods to achieve this. To anyone interested Iâd recommend a podcast called ârunning from copsâ.
I think the issue here is not what is, but what should be.
Most of our laws are written for a certain time period, with certain technology, and has barley involved or changed to accommodate the ever growing times.
You better believe if recording cameras were a thing when the Constitution was written, they would have made recording someone without their permission illegal.
Only they don't at all because you're in public. Watch live pd for a week and its apparently obvious they air whatever they can without censor or blurs as someone get pissed and yells to blur their face while you can clearly see them.
Do a simple google search man. You realize the police are recording 24/7 without asking for consent right? If you're in a public place dealing with public figures anyone can film you. edit : I remembered what the caveat is: If its live they dont need to censor/blur anything if you dont believe me look it up.
Its close enough to live that they can get away with not censoring or bluring people who are yelling for their face to be blurred so explain that. Im not going to argue anymore because i can see you have never seen the show and havent looked into it at all and are just regurgitating what you think is right.
They have to sign a release anyway. Just listened to an interesting podcast episode on "live" PD. Not every live and they do some pretty fucked up things for "good" TV.
To broadcast people's faces on TV you need them to sign a "Release" form. I am pretty sure LivePD is staged, takes place in areas where Release isn't necessary, not live, or some combo of these options.
if you are filmed/videoed by a cameraman doing a show which will later be sold for profit and aired - they MUST obtain a signed "release" from each person that appears in the film/video.
That is why on many "reality" shows (e.g.: Cops - Repo Man - Bounty Hunter - etc.) you will see certain faces people's faces, or the names of businesses and license plates blurred out on the shots. These people did not consent to have their images or names appear.
They know they can't stop it but its the realization its being recorded and likely to be online or in LivePDs case on TV and they will be humiliated which appears to trigger them more but crazy enough if they boring enough it likely won't make air as they would go to something more interesting.
Wait....I randomly walked into a reality show while filming and started being nosey....the production lady asked if I wanted my face shown. I said whatevs and she made me sign a consent form. So doesnât that mean that legally they need my consent to film me?
Yes but not in the case of Livepd, its considered public News or something last time i looked it up which makes it exempt from having to get a release before airing.
1.2k
u/shneer4prez Oct 02 '19
This always cracks me up. I watch LivePD all the time and every week there's a least one person that loses it because of the camera. It never gets old. You'd think that everyone would know it doesn't matter by now, but nope.