@neil
I've read the replies but not your blog.

I resent that my privacy is routinely violated by anyone and everyone - because -commercial anti-social media has blinded everyone to its creating a place of no-privacy for reasons of profit and control.

I turn my face away from passers-by who want to photograph or video me as part of their 'day out', because I expect that content to be made available *globally* without a thought for me. Soon
#UKLabour will make live face recognition compulsory.

@neil love the last bullet point, very important

@neil What is your view about dashcam footage being published to youtube? I oddly watch quite a few of these; no idea why. I think it's mostly about recognising places - the other day I was watching one and I saw both Sevenoaks and Bracknell in one video.

Anyway...

In the very vast majority of cases individuals won't be directly seen (faces). But that isn't to say an individual wouldn't be able to be "very probably" identified.

1/2

@neil while they could take photos of you in a public place (which an airsoft range is very much /not/) that still does not give them the right to then redistribute (monetised or otherwise) that image of you. That is what a model release is for, and if they don't have one for everyone in their videos, they need, at the very least, to be making those people unidentifiable. I don't think this is contentious. Is it?

@neil This would bug me a little too.

I think something wearable, like the purple lanyard you mentioned would be a good trade-off as it allows for easy editing (compared to remembering faces and choices).

@neil I’ve always liked the way my archery club does it. When they want photos or videos of an event for the website, they ask for volunteers to be in them. Opt in rather than opt out.

@neil I’m lucky in that the hobbies I do which are similarly photogenic (laser-tag, free form LARPing, and Bridge Command) are organised by people who care about consent (and some include people with security clearances and/or Important jobs who are very aware of the optics of public photos with imitation firearms in them) so they all have systems in them that either require consent or have a clear opt-out mechanism.

@neil I share your concern. It's tiresome to have to consider this sort of thing when you're trying to relax and enjoy yourself.

When Facebook became a thing, photos that included me (some taken well before FB existed) started being shared in public without consent. In the early 2000s most photos were still on film and we could reasonably expect that they would rarely be seen by anyone other than the photographer, not fed into a global surveillance and AI training system.

@neil
I'm not sure it would be making a fuss to just ask "can I indicate if I don't want to be in the final video?" Others may be feeling the same as you and are only waiting for someone to broach the subject.

If you wear something unobtrusive that is clearly visible when reviewing footage, you're not taking anything from the game itself, you just ask to be cut out of the final edited and published version.

@neil I would also draw a quite major distinction between still photos and video. I think there is a lot more arguable invasion and involuntary disclosure in even a 30s/1min video than in the vast majority of still frames.

@neil It is interestingly why I am now quite enjoying the genre of street photo where the photographer actually asks the person if they'd mind being photographed, builds a rapport, then takes the shots.

Of course, in a way, this could be almost argued to be more invasive to some people, and I guess it's safe to assume non-good interactions never see the light of day (so how many were there?)

But it seems healthier than unposed/candid street photography which is/was more common.

@neil Yes, shooting people is somewhat frowned upon!