Unauthorised use of CCTV accident footage - DPA breach?

ReadingTim

glentoran99 wrote: »

at least they get paid for it though

The person submitting the tape gets paid - whether they share it with the [STRIKE]idiot [/STRIKE]person they were filming is anyone's guess...

bugslet

BorisThomson wrote: »

Mocking which makes someone feel uncomfortable is bullying, and not acceptable.

Absolutely. And it does depend on what the video shows and other variables.

But if you cause trouble for someone, it's not going to lead to a more harmonious relationship. I'm not saying it's right, it's just a fact of life.

paddyrg

I'd have words with the employer - forget DPA etc as it's not what it's about, and let the employer hand out the bollockings.

lincroft1710

geoffken wrote: »

Try Streisand as in Barbara

Try Streisand as in Barbra

ReadingTim

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Try Streisand as in Barbra

Birth name or stage name?

Undervalued

ReadingTim wrote: »

The person submitting the tape gets paid - whether they share it with the [STRIKE]idiot [/STRIKE]person they were filming is anyone's guess...

That is for the most part very different. There are special rules regarding CCTV installations and an employer's duty of care to their employees.

For the most part You've been framed videos are taken by private individuals with hand held cameras ( or phones) either in a public place on on their own property. In such circumstances you do not generally need the consent of the person you are filming or photographing even if you later sell the image. Actually, if the person consents to be photographed or filmed they then technically become a model or actor, even if they are not being paid, and acquire more rights than if the just happened to be photographed unaware.

ReadingTim

Undervalued wrote: »

That is for the most part very different. There are special rules regarding CCTV installations and an employer's duty of care to their employees.

For the most part You've been framed videos are taken by private individuals with hand held cameras ( or phones) either in a public place on on their own property. In such circumstances you do not generally need the consent of the person you are filming or photographing even if you later sell the image. Actually, if the person consents to be photographed or filmed they then technically become a model or actor, even if they are not being paid, and acquire more rights than if the just happened to be photographed unaware.

That's lovely, but the point is that people have been laughing at someone else falling over or suffering some mishap for time immemorial. Call it bullying, call it slapstick, call it what you will, but you won't stop it happening - it's human nature. Equally true of human nature is that if you're the subject of such mirth/mockery, you rarely improve the situation by escalating it.

The OP's "viral video" will blow over as fast as it blew up if he ignores it: yes, it's probably a bit embarrassing being today's Crazy Frog, but someone else is going to be tomorrow's grumpy cat, angry orange, badger, badger, badger, etc....

Samsung_Note2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI

Undervalued

stator wrote: »

I don't think you have a DPA case.
Start an internal complaint against the colleague

I disagree.

The OP almost certainly does have a valid claim against their employer. They have a legal duty to safeguard the CCTV footage and it is their responsibility if another employee misuses it. The employer can (and probably should) take disciplinary action against the employee who misused the CCTV to mock a colleague.

That said, whether it is wise for the OP to pursue such a claim may be another matter.