reply to post by Nuke2013
I think there's something similar here in NB. I do know that a child can not be identified if they are under a certain age and are in some way
connected to a crime.
This is how the OP should have conducted the situation. Approach the camera crew, ask to speak to who is in charge, what station are you from, for
what purpose are you filming and what are you filming. Then you kindly inform them that you'd prefer your child's face be blurred out. You don't
march over to them, get in their face while they are doing their job, and violently push the camera away. You don't. That's what people like Alex
From my understanding, the crew was filming from a public street, scenes of the kids leaving school. Nothing any more identifying that you'd get
driving by at that time. In fact, from a perverts perspective, it's useless. you don't have the expectation of privacy once you leave your
property. You are on countless CCTV cameras more than likely, by the time you get to work.
The only time, to my understanding, that a crew would require your permission, would be to use the images captured to make money. Arguably, the news
is a money making scheme, but that falls more in line with movies and tv shows than it does with news footage.
How many times have you turned on the news to see a stock footage shot of people say, walking down a busy street, or going across an intersection
while the narrator narrates? Do you honestly think they had all those people sign off? No, because they don't have to.
In my opinion, the OP should have acted calmly, and asked them not to film the child, or to blur the child's face AND the crew should have (probably
would have) obliged. Instead, i already know how this played out.....
Camera man/woman filming filler and establishing shots for the reporter to talk over. Angry disgruntled parent accosts camera man and assaults
I'd pay the 700$ if I was the OP. The camera man has it all on tape, right? Do you really want to try to fight it, knowing you were in the wrong
morally and legally? They could really lay it on you, battery, assault, vandalism, and depending on what you actually said, probably uttering