Dash Cam Video Publishing: Responsibilities and Consequences

cormie

After a recent post in the dash cam video regarding legal consequences of publishing dash cam video footage with identifiable parties, it would be good to learn exactly what should be restricted.

I've personally been requested by the Garda to give a statement on two separate videos, one I posted only recently.

The case with the one posted recently was involving what I suspected to be a drunk driver. The Garda requested the footage in the case of the culprit not admitting guilt and it having to go to court, in which case if I decide to give a statement, I'd also be required to give evidence in court.

The more I thought about this, the less comfortable I was. Of course the offence at hand is terrible, but in this case nobody was injured and I started to think what put the person in that position in the first place and if they were already in a place of mental anguish, how would they deal with something like this on top and did I really want to play a part in it as a simple observer?

There's also the time and hassle it would cost me, when really, should they not be able to build enough evidence themselves considering they caught the culprit in the act.

Also, if hullaballoo's concerns are to be taken with extreme caution, am I putting myself in a position of prosecution posting such videos?

Ken.

I would have thought that video would be the same of photo's in public. No reasonable expectation of privacy as long as your not recording illegal stuff like kids or such.

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just for those of you uploading your own videos to youtube. If you're going to describe what happens, keep it to a minimum and try not to use words that describe road traffic offences. If the driver sees these videos, there are a number of ways they can go legal on you and for the sake of posting videos here, it's really not worth it. I just go with date and location for video names and an equally bland description to avoid problems such as having my videos removed/account closed by youtube or something more serious.

A side issue: if you have the radio on in your car and it's audible on the video, youtube may automatically make the video unavailable in certain places due to copyright - I had this happen on my last video because you can hear Jeremih Don't tell em.

I posted the above in the Dashcam thread over in motors. My point there doesn't really involve criminal liability, cormie, but you have discovered that there can be criminal implications for the people you're recording.

From the point of view of people posting their own videos, I was just pointing out that descriptions and video titles can often be problematic legally. For example, many people entitle their videos along the lines, "Crazy idiot careless driving on M50". There are potentially all manner of legal implications arising from just that seemingly simple statement. It's a statement that you might use down in the pub describing the incident to your mates and that's fine. Publishing these things in the public domain over a permanent medium is different.

The implications are almost too numerous to get into in a meaningful sense but my point was that it's far better to just state the bare minimum, such as date and place and avoid the potential for the headache. Of course, people will argue all day back and forth about this sort of thing but you can avoid all kinds of headaches by avoiding sensational titles for your videos.

cormie, I'm unsurprised that the Gardaí have gotten in touch with you in relation to some of your videos. It's really a matter for yourself whether you feel inclined to make a statement and give evidence in court. If you don't, the Gardaí won't proceed because they need you to "prove" the video evidence. It is not admissible on its own. It really is a personal decision for you to make but you're all the Gardaí have to prosecute someone who may show the same disregard for him/herself and others in future.

This thread as a general subject matter could drag on and on. The issues are numerous and the lawyers are not necessarily all agreed!

hullaballoo

A couple of posts have been deleted for being off topic. It's a lengthy OP with some background reading required!

I would ask that people address the specific issues contained in this thread and it would be preferable to keep the barstool lawyering to a minimum. The overlap in actual legal issues is sufficient to bog anyone down without throwing in old wives' tales and things your mates say.

Thoie

ken wrote: »

I would have thought that video would be the same of photo's in public. No reasonable expectation of privacy as long as your not recording illegal stuff like kids or such.

Photographing/recording kids in public is not illegal - child pornography is illegal. If I have a dashcam, and there are children in the car in front on a public road, or walking along the footpaht, there's nothing illegal about the video.

I'd agree with Hullabaloo that putting up a video with a title accusing someone of a specific offence (careless driving, speeding, drunk driving) could be a grey area. A title like "Crap driver on the M50" is far more obviously an opinion rather than a "verdict".

Vic_08

cormie wrote: »

I've personally been requested by the Garda to give a statement on two separate videos, one I posted only recently.

The case with the one posted recently was involving what I suspected to be a drunk driver. The Garda requested the footage in the case of the culprit not admitting guilt and it having to go to court, in which case if I decide to give a statement, I'd also be required to give evidence in court.

The more I thought about this, the less comfortable I was. Of course the offence at hand is terrible, but in this case nobody was injured and I started to think what put the person in that position in the first place and if they were already in a place of mental anguish, how would they deal with something like this on top and did I really want to play a part in it as a simple observer?

Sounds like some very flimsy excuses for not co-operating. Is it not the court's place to decide on any charges brought and to take into account the circumstances of the individual concerned? You are not being asked to pass judgement only to give an honest account of what you witnessed and to verify the accuracy of the video. A video that you had no problem publishing in order to publicly highlight the poor driving you captured.

cormie wrote: »

There's also the time and hassle it would cost me, when really, should they not be able to build enough evidence themselves considering they caught the culprit in the act.

Your witness statement and testimony is part of their case, by not co-operating you are making their job more difficult. Something worth remembering next time you wag your finger at bad driving or stick a video up on boards while complaining about how bad driving is endemic and it all being down to the lack of enforcement.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh on you but I have a bit of an issue with this type of thing. Watching a bunch of people trying to weasel themselves out of passing a guilty verdict on someone they were in no doubt was guilty because they did not want to be the ones to send him down probably has something to do with it.


hullaballoo in the dashcam thread you mentioned a Data Protection Commissioner CCTV case, do you have links for that?

Regarding the points you made in that thread I would agree that people should be careful how they describe uploaded videos, particularly with statements that assign a criminal act to someone.

Things such as "drunk driver" are obviously problematic as the person taking the video usually has no way of knowing that to be true short of the other party having been convicted of the offense. If the offense is clearly shown on the video then I would say it is reasonable to describe it as such, for example "driver on mobile while driving" if the video clearly shows that.

No matter what, there is no 100% formula to ensure that you won't have the "wronged" party attempting to have a video taken down or file a law suit. It is not exactly unheard of for people to use the threat of defamation/libel laws to bully others into not publicising their actions due to the cost and hassle involved in dealing with such cases. Speech may be free and the truth is a defence against libel but defending a libel case is most certainly not free and the truth is only the truth if you can prove it in a court.

Ken.

Thoie wrote: »

Photographing/recording kids in public is not illegal - child pornography is illegal. If I have a dashcam, and there are children in the car in front on a public road, or walking along the footpaht, there's nothing illegal about the video.

I'd agree with Hullabaloo that putting up a video with a title accusing someone of a specific offence (careless driving, speeding, drunk driving) could be a grey area. A title like "Crap driver on the M50" is far more obviously an opinion rather than a "verdict".

I meant more in general filming children. While its ok in your example of kids in the car ahead of you, you wouldn't last long if you were in a playground filming random children.

RustyNut

ken wrote: »

I meant more in general filming children. While its ok in your example of kids in the car ahead of you, you wouldn't last long if you were in a playground filming random children.

What offence would someone commit if they were to film random children in a playground?

hullaballoo

Vic_08 wrote: »

hullaballoo in the dashcam thread you mentioned a Data Protection Commissioner CCTV case, do you have links for that?

It took me less than 10 seconds to find the case: http://bit.ly/1HKxvwf

I've ranted at length about my views on the DPC and his interpretation of the Acts etc. and I'm not going to get into that again because I'm sure people are bored reading it. Nonetheless, he has certain powers under the Acts and he's not shy about letting people know about it.

Things such as "drunk driver" are obviously problematic as the person taking the video usually has no way of knowing that to be true short of the other party having been convicted of the offense. If the offense is clearly shown on the video then I would say it is reasonable to describe it as such, for example "driver on mobile while driving" if the video clearly shows that.

Obviously, I disagree with this assessment completely. As private citizens, we are not entitled to make findings of fact in relation to criminal acts. That is for the courts to do and, as I have said a few times now, there are numerous legal implications for someone who decides to effectively convict someone of an offence (even a minor one) by describing them as being in the act of committing a criminal offence in video footage.

It might seem counter-intuitive that you cannot describe something that appears to be blatantly obvious and that you could give evidence in relation to in a court, but when you consider how the law is supposed to work - innocent until proven guilty etc. - it makes a fair bit of sense.

My post in the dashcam thread was nothing more than a suggestion that people bear in mind that descriptions on their videos carry real implications.

No matter what, there is no 100% formula to ensure that you won't have the "wronged" party attempting to have a video taken down or file a law suit. It is not exactly unheard of for people to use the threat of defamation/libel laws to bully others into not publicising their actions due to the cost and hassle involved in dealing with such cases. Speech may be free and the truth is a defence against libel but defending a libel case is most certainly not free and the truth is only the truth if you can prove it in a court.

You've touched on the point I'm making. I'm not limiting what I say the legal risks are to the risk of suit for defamation but it is one of a number of concerns. However, taking the approach that there's no bullet-proof way of avoiding action on foot of a YouTube video, therefore, you might as well say what you like is lazy.

It's very simple not to end up on the wrong end of a defamation suit - don't publish a defamatory statement. In the context of the dashcam videos, they speak for themselves. There's no need to try and grab the headlines with outlandish video titles and descriptions. I know there's a tendency nowadays to try and reach as many YouTube views, get as many Facebook likes, Twitter re-tweets etc. as possible but when it comes down to the potential hassle that can arise from "telling it like you see it" in this context, I think people would be best off avoiding it.

cormie

Vic_08 wrote: »

Sounds like some very flimsy excuses for not co-operating. Is it not the court's place to decide on any charges brought and to take into account the circumstances of the individual concerned? You are not being asked to pass judgement only to give an honest account of what you witnessed and to verify the accuracy of the video. A video that you had no problem publishing in order to publicly highlight the poor driving you captured.



Your witness statement and testimony is part of their case, by not co-operating you are making their job more difficult. Something worth remembering next time you wag your finger at bad driving or stick a video up on boards while complaining about how bad driving is endemic and it all being down to the lack of enforcement.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh on you but I have a bit of an issue with this type of thing. Watching a bunch of people trying to weasel themselves out of passing a guilty verdict on someone they were in no doubt was guilty because they did not want to be the ones to send him down probably has something to do with it.


hullaballoo in the dashcam thread you mentioned a Data Protection Commissioner CCTV case, do you have links for that?

Regarding the points you made in that thread I would agree that people should be careful how they describe uploaded videos, particularly with statements that assign a criminal act to someone.

Things such as "drunk driver" are obviously problematic as the person taking the video usually has no way of knowing that to be true short of the other party having been convicted of the offense. If the offense is clearly shown on the video then I would say it is reasonable to describe it as such, for example "driver on mobile while driving" if the video clearly shows that.

No matter what, there is no 100% formula to ensure that you won't have the "wronged" party attempting to have a video taken down or file a law suit. It is not exactly unheard of for people to use the threat of defamation/libel laws to bully others into not publicising their actions due to the cost and hassle involved in dealing with such cases. Speech may be free and the truth is a defence against libel but defending a libel case is most certainly not free and the truth is only the truth if you can prove it in a court.

I agree with what you've said above. I think I've been pretty good in the wording of my titles, the video in question did have a key word in it that would lead to suspicion of an offence, but it was questioned rather than stated. The video was uploaded and posted without accusation and to show the Gardai had intercepted the vehicle, not to prosecute anyone for what I was only suspect of. Anyway I haven't been contacted again since by the Garda dealing with the case so I'm not sure if they even need it after all.

Kenny Logins

A CRIME victim who created a website showing CCTV images of criminals caught in the act has been ordered to take them down or face a €100,000 fine or jail term.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/crime-victim-faces-fine-of-100000-over-cctv-website-30005589.html

MarkAnthony

aphex™ wrote: »

hullaballoo a car reg # does not identify someone. The examples you listed were where the person was named.

6.— (1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—

(a) shall cease to be so described, and

(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.

(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.

(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where—

(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and

(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.

(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage.

The owner of 09-D-11234 couldn't get someone from work to pop along to the defamation hearing and say that 'John Doe' is the only person who drives that car and I see it in the car park every Monday-Friday, so I know it's his.

hullaballoo

aphex™ wrote: »

hullaballoo a car reg # does not identify someone. The examples you listed were where the person was named.

There is a body of case law on top of what MA has pointed to above that says you don't have to call someone by name in order to defame them. Once their identifiable, even by reference to a class of persons, that can be enough if an individual meets the description. A car reg plate is about as good an identifier as any.

Zambia

Just an aside question

If someone lets say joe blow sues bob smith for defamation.

Bob smith posted a video on YouTube of joe blows car reg visible driving on the m50. The video shows blow failing to stay in his lane. Tailgating, honking other drivers waving his arms out the window and giving other drivers the fingers. Not indicating his lane changes and driving terribly.

The clip is titled asshole on the m50!

Now what defence does bob smith have. I mean what bob says is true blow was being an asshole

234

Zambia wrote: »

Just an aside question

If someone lets say joe blow sues bob smith for defamation.

Bob smith posted a video on YouTube of joe blows car reg visible driving on the m50. The video shows blow failing to stay in his lane. Tailgating, honking other drivers waving his arms out the window and giving other drivers the fingers. Not indicating his lane changes and driving terribly.

The clip is titled asshole on the m50!

Now what defence does bob smith have. I mean what bob says is true blow was being an asshole

Truth is the defence for any defamatory statement that the video combined with the identification might create. In respect if the"asshole" comment, vulgar abuse is normally considered not to be defamatory as there is no allegation of fact that is capable of reducing your standing in the eyes of right thinking members of society.