Mintona
Established Member
She went about that in the wrong way; she could have done it much better. But she is quite fit, so she must be let off.
...there is no need for losing it like she did, after all we, the rail users pay their wages, there is no need for the rudeness. She could have a bad day or the night before. The suggestion of her pursuing legal channel will be laughed out of hand, simply because the intention of the video was to film the train, and she deliberately walked into front of the camera. However some website such as Channel M did blur her image, I'd say just as well, as it might scare children under 16.
me123 said:For the legal channel, I would be speaking to a lawyer regarding my face being plastered over the news channels without my permission if I were her
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but if you read the comments on the Manchester evening news site, we have 80 comments so far and you will see only 1 or 2 agree with your line of thinking. Sorry but this is how it goes.
I agree, I am sure the BBC, being such the large and important organisation it is, is fully aware of the legal consequences of publishing videos and photographsIts called 'Public interest'. If its deemed by the newspaper to be in the public interest, then she cannot stop ANY publication of her image... nor can she claim damages as she/ Virgin will find.. Not even Royalty or film stars are immune to the papperazzi...
There are no published requirements to sign in for photography or videos, or to seek permission if you are a member of the public unless it is for commercial use.
The only guidelines - not requirements - are for enthusiasts and even they do not state you need to request permission.
As usual the guidelines for enthusiasts asking them to sign in is turned into a requirement for photographers to ask permission. Yet this is not stated anywhere.
The woman behaved in a manner that is not acceptable to speak to a potential customer and there is no legal reason why the video cannot be put on the BBC site. It is in the public interest as she is making up rules that do not exist and she is in a public facing job. The claims that she can sue are utterly ridiculous and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the law. Sue for what? Some imaginary law that only one person agrees with? Hmm...
The legal nonsense about her suing should be ignored.
I am not supporting going up to people who do not want to be filmed and start filming them - if he went up to her and started filming her and harassing her then she could sue for harassment (it´s not the filming itself it is the harassment potentially being caused by it) however clearly that is not the case here as he was already filming trains and she walked into it by being abusive when the film was being taken, that´s just dumb and she has no legal grounds to complain.
Virgin have made a PR blunder and I suspect someone is in trouble for that already because Virgin are usually very good with PR and dont like any negative press.