The growth of social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat has fundamentally changed the way people are photographed and filmed in public. What was once the preserve of professional photographers, journalists and documentary makers has become an everyday activity undertaken by millions of smartphone users. Increasingly, concerns are being raised about people filming strangers without consent and uploading those videos online for entertainment, influence and profit.
In Episode 6 of the Guardians of Data podcast Ibrahim Hasan spoke with Naomi Mathews about the legal, ethical and societal issues arising from this trend. The conversation highlighted a difficult reality: while many people feel uncomfortable about being filmed and uploaded to social media without their consent, there is no single law in the UK that directly prohibits such conduct. Instead, individuals (and content creators) must navigate a complex legal framework involving human rights law, data protection, criminal law and platform policies.
The following is a summary of the podcast:
From the 1970s to TikTok: How Society Has Changed
For those who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, photography was a relatively deliberate activity. Cameras were expensive, photographs were limited and normally only shared with family and friends. If a photograph appeared in a newspaper, it would usually have been taken by a professional photographer or journalist.
Today, nearly everyone carries a high-definition camera in their pocket. Videos can be recorded instantly and uploaded to a global audience within seconds. Social media platforms reward engagement, views and shares, creating powerful incentives for content creators to film members of the public, often without their knowledge.
The emergence of so-called “street content”, “prank videos” and “nightlife content” has intensified concerns about privacy, dignity and consent. Individuals who have done nothing more than walk down a street, visit a restaurant or enjoy a night out can find themselves the subject of viral videos viewed by millions.
Do People Have a Right to Privacy in Public?
One of the most common misconceptions is that people have no privacy rights once they enter a public place; but the law is more nuanced than that.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, protects the right to respect for private and family life. Although public spaces are generally considered less private than homes, the courts have repeatedly recognised that privacy rights can still exist in public settings.
The leading case is Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004], involving the model Naomi Campbell. She was photographed in a public street while leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Despite being in a public place, the House of Lords held that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the sensitive information revealed by the photographs. Similarly, in Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008], J.K. Rowling successfully argued that photographs of her young child taken in a public street engaged privacy rights. These cases confirmed that privacy is not solely determined by location but also by context.
Through these cases and others, the courts have developed the tort of misuse of private information, allowing individuals to bring civil claims where private information has been disclosed without justification. However, each case requires a careful balancing exercise between privacy rights under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10.
Data Protection Law
Many people are surprised to learn that filming an identifiable individual may engage the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Images and videos of identifiable people constitute personal data. Recording, storing, uploading and sharing such footage can amount to the processing of personal data. Where the UK GDPR applies, those carrying out the processing must have a lawful basis, comply with the data protection principles and respect individuals’ rights.
However, the law contains important exemptions. The domestic purposes exemption means that filming for purely personal or household activities is generally outside the scope of the UK GDPR. The difficulty lies in determining where personal activity ends and commercial activity starts. A video shared with close family members is very different from content uploaded to a monetised YouTube channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Once filming moves beyond personal use, data protection obligations will arise.
The law also provides a journalism exemption. This exemption can apply not only to traditional media organisations but also to bloggers, citizen journalists and some social media creators, provided the material is published for journalistic purposes and in the public interest. However, the exemption is not unlimited and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The Manchester Nightlife Videos
The legal and ethical tensions surrounding public filming became particularly visible following widespread media coverage of the “Manchester nightlife” videos.
These videos involved women being filmed during nights out in Manchester city centre, with the footage subsequently uploaded to social media platforms where it attracted substantial audiences. Critics argued that the content objectified women, encouraged online harassment and generated profit from individuals who had never consented to being filmed.
The controversy prompted police investigations and widespread public debate about whether existing laws adequately protect people from becoming unwilling participants in online content.
Greater Manchester Police initially arrested an individual on suspicion of stalking and harassment. However, the investigation was later discontinued, with the police citing limitations within the current legislative framework. The outcome highlighted the gap between conduct that many regard as morally objectionable and conduct that is clearly unlawful.
Criminal Law: Significant Gaps Remain
While some forms of filming can constitute criminal offences, the criminal law remains limited in scope. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can apply where there is a course of conduct that causes alarm or distress. However, a single act of filming is unlikely to satisfy this threshold.
Similarly, offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, including voyeurism, generally require specific elements to be proved. Historically, these provisions have been criticised for failing to keep pace with modern technology.
Recent reforms have expanded protections against the sharing of intimate images without consent and introduced new offences targeting image-based abuse. Nevertheless, many forms of public filming remain outside the reach of criminal law.
The challenge for lawmakers is identifying where legitimate filming ends and harmful conduct begins. Few would support criminalising all photography in public places. Equally, many people are uncomfortable with a world in which anyone can be filmed, uploaded and monetised without their knowledge.
What Can Victims Do?
Individuals who find themselves featured in unwanted online content have several options available.
They can complain directly to the platform hosting the content and request removal. They may also raise complaints with the Information Commissioner’s Office where data protection concerns arise.
In some cases, civil claims for misuse of private information or breaches of data protection law may be available. However, these remedies are often costly and time-consuming. Legal aid is generally unavailable, meaning individuals must fund litigation themselves.
Law Reform
The discussion ultimately highlighted a broader concern: the law has struggled to keep pace with technological change. This is particularly where women and girls are targeted. See for example, the Grok AI controversy and its impact on equality for women and girls. (This is covered in Episode 2 of the Guardians of Data podcast.)
Whether a new law is needed remains controversial. Any reform would need to balance two fundamental rights: freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Neither automatically overrides the other.
Listen to the full Episode 6 with Naomi.
Previous episodes of the Guardians of Data podcast have featured Jen Persson, a privacy campaigner, explaining the privacy implications of the Government’s new plans for children’s data and Tahir Latif discussing how to build responsible and ethical AI systems.
