Accessing public CCTV footage about you Near me there is a private property which has CCTV aimed away from their property and towards public walkways. I walk past these cameras on a daily basis and they're literally inches away from my face. What are the UK rights for accessing all the footage captured of me on these cameras? Also, what happens if the owners reject my request, or lie such as 'these CCTV cameras are not working' despite stationing signs in the area indicating they're in use?
You have a right to access per Art 15 GDPR. You can make a request to the data controller (the person managing those cameras) free of charge. In your request, you should mention the approximate time periods during which you might appear, and you should make it possible to identify you in the footage. How the data controller may respond The data controller has one month to respond. The response should include the following items: the purpose of these cameras the retention period for the footage a reminder that you may have a right to request erasure of your data a reminder that you have a right to lodge a complaint with the ICO a copy of the footage, if any exists If the data controller denies your request, they should describe their reasons for doing so. Here, they could at most argue that your request was excessively broad (cf. Art 12(5) GDPR). In principle, they could also argue that your right to access is restricted by an exemption in Schedule 1 Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018, however none of those will fit. The data controller cannot deny your request with the argument that the CCTV surveillance is a “purely personal or household activity” (Art 2(2)(c) GDPR) since the cameras seem to cover a public space. The ICO also writes: If your CCTV captures images beyond your property boundary, such as your neighbours’ property or public streets and footpaths, then your use of the system is subject to the data protection laws. If the data controller has no footage (because the cameras are dummies, are switched off, don't make persistent recordings, or footage was deleted prior to your request) then of course you can't get a copy of your data. The other elements of the response should still be provided, in particular an explanation of the purpose of processing and the retention periods. Remedies If you are not satisfied with the data controller's response to your request, you have the following remedies: you can lodge a complaint with the ICO you can sue the data controller directly Legality of residential CCTV surveillance also covering public spaces It is possible that the CCTV cameras as currently set up are actually unlawful. A basic GDPR principle (Art 5(1)(b)) is that data shall be collected only for “specified, explicit and legitimate purposes”. If there is no pressing purpose for using the camera, it violates the GDPR. In particular, cameras that are directed away from the controller's property and primarily cover a public space are unlikely to serve a legitimate purpose. Additionally, the GDPR requires all such collection to be transparent. As soon as public spaces are involved, there must be a privacy notice per Art 13 GDPR. The ICO asks controllers to Let people know you are using CCTV by putting up signs saying that recording is taking place, and why. A great resource in this context is the Fairhurst v Woodard case from 2021. A neighbour had mounted multiple cameras, all of which were covering public spaces to some degree. The neigbour claimed that some of these cameras were dummies. The court considered the lawfulness of each camera separately. While a Ring doorbell camera that primarily covered the owner's property but would also incidentally record passer-bys was considered legitimate, a camera that was primarily directed at a public space or other homes was not. Further reading ICO guidance on domestic CCTV systems Fairhurst v Woodard: PDF of the judgement, summary facts on the placement of the 4 cameras given in paragraphs 100–106 conclusions about the legitimacy in paragraphs 131–138
This is a broad question about the powers of the police in England and Wales. I have been unable to find any UK legislation which directly addresses 'do not cross' tape (also known as police tape, crime scene tape or barricade tape). However, the police have broad statutory and common law powers, and ignoring 'do not cross' tape could be an offence in the same way as ignoring other police orders. In Director of Public Prosecutions v Morrison [2003] EWHC 683 (Admin), the High Court decided that at common law, the police have the power to cordon off a crime scene. Police had cordoned off an area to preserve evidence using tape labelled "Police: Do not Cross" [9]. The prosecution's case against the respondent was that, having been told not to enter the cordoned area, he challenged the police right to prohibit him from entering the area [10]. There was a dispute as to whether the respondent did cross the tape and other issues, but police ultimately arrested him for disorderly conduct [29]. The respondent was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of disorderly conduct under s 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and wilful obstruction of a police constable under s 89(2) of the Police Act 1996 [1]. His conviction was set aside on appeal to the Crown Court, which found that the only statutory authority for setting up a cordon is in the Terrorism Act 2000, and the cordon had been established without the consent of the land owner or a warrant [17]. The relevant question for the High Court was: Was the Wood Green Crown Court wrong in law to hold that the Metropolitan Police on the evidence in this case had no lawful power or authority to close the public right of way over private premises by a cordon and forcibly prohibit the Defendant from using that right of way on foot against his will [4]? The answer is yes. The police have the power to cordon off a crime scene, but they must act reasonably: [W]hen seeking to investigate crime police officers do not have an unfettered right to restrict movements on private land ... but ... [a]s Lord Denning said [in Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 QB 693] "the police should be able to do whatever is necessary and reasonable to preserve the evidence of the crime" ... provided [the police] do not go beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances, routine scenes of crime searches may assume the owner's consent ... In the present case the police were entitled to assume consent ... we believe that consent could not lawfully be withheld [22]–[23]. So the police have the power to restrict movements on private land and can use this power to cordon off a crime scene. The police can arrest someone who unlawfully enters a crime scene, which may amount to the offence of wilful obstruction. It is harder to answer the hypothetical question where there is nobody around to enforce the cordon. This is a broader question about land rights; the answer would depend on who was trying to enforce the cordon and why.
To preface my answer, this aspect of UK law is unclear at best and I try to set out general principles where available. If you are acting in a private sphere, then the recording of conversations are unregulated, however this is only for personal use – i.e., should you desire to make notes on what was said for your reference at a later date. Should you wish to share it with a third party, then you would need consent from all participants or be able to demonstrate that it would be in the public interest. If you are acting as an employee or a company, then the situation changes. Firstly, you need to check your contract, whilst this does not constitute a crime, it may be against the terms of your employment. Secondly, a company can only make recordings without knowledge under statutory conditions, such as to establish facts, ensure regulatory compliance or demonstrate standards that are achieved or need to be achieved by training. It is a general principle that conversations recorded without consent are inadmissible in court, particularly in terms of a criminal proceedings. In civil matters, it similarly follows the concept that a claimant should come to court with clean hands. However, judges are usually more pragmatic in civil cases and if parties are aware of the existence of the recording, then it often be subject to usual rules of disclosure, though this may open the creator of the recording to subsequent litigation regarding the illegality of the recording under Data Protection Act or others.
You inspected the property online and based on that inspection you signed the lease. You have a legally binding contract. Now, it is not at all like the pictures How? I mean, are these pictures of a different house? If that is so then your contract is void for fraud. However, if the pictures are of the actual house and you just imagined from them that the house would be other than it is then tough luck for you. the stairwell in the house is a huge safety hazard for children OK. Does it comply with relevant building codes? If not then the landlord needs to bring it up to standard: you cannot walk away from the contract. Is it in need of repair? If so, the landlord needs to repair it: you cannot walk away from the contract. If it is compliant and in good repair and you think it is a hazard notwithstanding then you need to manage that hazard: this is not the landlords problem. I refused to move into the house That's fine: so long as you keep paying the rent there is no obligation on you to move in. If you stop paying the rent then it would appear that you have repudiated the contract and the landlord can sue you for damages - probably the costs of finding a new tenant and the rent up until that tenant takes over.
Per your comment responses, Maryland is a two party consent state which means that the other party must consent to your recording IF there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In one's own home is generally considered a place where one has this expectation and thus these recordings are problematic. Depending what you intend to do with them, I would first contact a lawyer to get legal advice as to how to handle this before you publish them. If you are looking to file a criminal complaint (and assuming statute of limitations hasn't run out) the prosecutor may be willing to not prosecute you for violating 2 party consent law because you were trying to gather evidence of someone else's crime, but it's not a guarantee (though this will look bad on the prosecutor come election season). If you are suing your parents it might not be admissible as evidence but I can't specifically say that either. If you are using it to show other people in the same situation what to look for it's probably best to find another set of recordings as these ones carry a lot of legal issues that will come back to bite you if you release them. Finally, while not legal, your parents may not want to pursue the criminal recording side of this matter if they are aware of the &quot;Barbra Streisand effect,&quot; wherein actions taken to ensure something isn't viewed by the public cause that something to gain wider viewership than if they never bothered trying to censor it.
The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to: watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.) download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer. This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder. And What is live TV and when do I need a licence for it? Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on any online TV service. It’s not just live events like sport, news and music. It covers all programmes on any channel, including soaps, series, documentaries and even movies. If you’re watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence: if you’re watching on TV or on an online TV service for all channels, not just the BBC if you record a programme and watch it later if you watch a programme on a delay to watch or record repeats to watch or record programmes on +1, +2 and +24 channels to watch live programmes on Red Button services even if you already pay for cable, satellite or other TV services From the TV Licensing body. Basically, if its playing solely because you hit the play button, its not “live TV” and you dont need a license to view it. If it would be playing at the same time for everyone on a schedule rather than on demand, its live TV. This includes sports on streaming services. So, a Youtube video you can view at any time is not live TV, but a Youtube video you have to see at a certain time is. A subsequent recording of a live stream that you did not make is not live TV for the purposes of licensing. A Twitch or Facebook livestream would also require a TV license to view.
If there is a trade mark and if Polaroid owns it and if you infringed it then yes they can force you to remove it. In addition, they could sue you for either damages (i.e. what they lost because of your infringement) or an account of profits (i.e. what you made because of your infringement). That is what trade mark law is for! If the trade mark is registered then this is trivially easy for them to demonstrate. If it is unregistered then it becomes a question of if the mark is clearly recognisable as Polaroid's; IMO they could probably show that it is - those particular border dimensions were distinctive of Polaroid instant cameras for many years. If you want to republish the app, you could probably avoid trade mark issues by allowing users to set the dimensions of the photograph and border, the colour of the border and the location of the caption.
You can take pictures of any buildings if you are in a public place, and can freely use such photographs without consent of a owner or designer of that building. [Japan Copyright Act, art. 46] BTW, external appearance of buildings in U.S. Armed Forces facilities are NOT confidential under US-Japan Security Treaty and related statutes enacted in Japan.