What's the protocol for blurring the faces of criminals on reality police tv shows?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Just watching Traffic Cops on BBC1 and a guy who got convicted of criminal damage had his face blurred out, but a convicted drunk driver did not. Is it a choice the criminal can make? Seems odd that the middle-manager drunk driver actively agreed to have his shame splashed over the tv. And couldn't a newspaper print their picture with impunity?

― Affectian (Affectian), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

if they're drunk it's okay

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

shockingly, the drunk will sign whatever you put in front of them at the time

― PARTYMAN (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

What blows my mind is the people on those "LOL WE CAUGHT YOU INTERNET CHILD SEDUCER" shows who apparently waive having their faced blurred.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Wednesday, 23 August 2006 20:53 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I'd like to know this.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 August 2006 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPS_%28TV_series%29#Production_Information :
"All videotaped persons are required to sign a photo release permission form, otherwise their faces are blurred, or in the majority of cases, the segment is simply not used."

― nervous (cochere), Thursday, 24 August 2006 13:57 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder if it's at all different for the UK. How odd that some people would agree to have their faces shown - well, other than cocky young hoodlums using it to show off to fellow hoodlums. Also odd that someone guilty of a crime can have their picture in the newspaper but not on tv, what's the reasoning behind this?

Similar tv-type question: watching Street Hypnotist on FTN earlier with the unfathomably charmless host. The title says it all. A middle-aged woman came into a photo studio with the intention of posing for a portrait to put up in her living room. Charmless Guy clicks his fingers, sends her in a trance and convinces her that she's a glamour model and has turned up to pose for an underwear shoot. Clicks his fingers again and the woman strips off and poses for some saucy snaps. Click, tells her nothing has happened and to put her clothes back on, wakes her up and takes a couple of normal portrait shots. Later he takes her back to the shop and points at her underwear picture in the window - the woman is visibly distraught, laughing nervously and trying to cover it up while the host sniggers and walks off telling her it'll be in the window all night with people leering at her.

Is this legal?! I guess she signed a disclaimer before filming but surely this breaks the hypnotist code of conduct, if such a thing exists?

― Affectian (Affectian), Thursday, 24 August 2006 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

hypnotist code of conduct?! i'd love to see that document :)

I guess she signed a disclaimer before filming

i thought the whole point isn't that you sign a disclaimer before filming; it's that you sign a release form afterwards. ISTR suzy has discussed/explained this on another thread.

admittedly, that doesn't negate the fact that she's been made to look a tit in the shop window. and i can't believe that she just walked into this studio and really didn't realise something was up. i mean, there'd be fucking TV cameras everywhere. if she didn't ask what they were for, she's a knob; if she did ask (or even if she didn't) and was deliberately misled - ie they didn't admit it was a hypnosis show - then she's got a good case for legal action.

Also odd that someone guilty of a crime can have their picture in the newspaper but not on tv, what's the reasoning behind this?

well: a newspaper report of a crime is ostensibly in the public interest. "20 gratest cop chase dilemma cheeseburgers with fries" is an entertainment show, so whatever privilege is afforded to newspapers (and indeed TV news) to print photos once someone's found guilty presumably doesn't apply. but i know arse all about the law pertaining to visual broadcast, so i'm just kinda making this up.

still, i seem to know more than our duty lawyer last night, who tried to make us remove the "200 years ago" entry from the "on this day" column because he thought it might be defamatory to, umm, long-dead unnamed gypsies. jesus christ almighty.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 24 August 2006 20:06 (nineteen years ago)

Ah yeah, the entertainment vs public interest thing makes sense, although you could argue that some coverage by the Daily Sport or Daily Star barely scrapes that. How's about if the people behind Traffic Cops caught, let's say, Sam from Big Brother drink driving - would she have the option of having her face blurred out?

― Affectian (Affectian), Thursday, 24 August 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

i think that if they showed it as part of an entertainment package several days/weeks/months later, then yes ... although it's a moot point because sam is so desperate for fame that i can imagine him/her downing a bottle of gin and reaching for the car keys as i type.

nb lawyers: no i can't. i can't imagine anything of the sort.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 24 August 2006 21:47 (nineteen years ago)

i always assumed there was a cash incentive to sign the waiver on these types of shows, which would explain why so many people would agree to it.

― acidmouth (acidmouth), Friday, 25 August 2006 02:22 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.