Great video Nick. Really interesting stuff. I remember filming on Southbank near the Lord Majors HQ and security kicking us away. So many areas in London that are private property. Like most of Canary Wharf, but it’s fairly straight forward to get a filming permit at minimal cost in most cases. Plus, what an odd situation that piano guy was in!
Thanks so much, it’s a crazy situation he found himself in isn’t it! It made me think of all the run-ins I’ve had over the years with people when I’ve had a camera on my hand… that hasn’t even always been on or pointing at anything.
British public domain rights..FYI Conclusion makes your opinion wrong. Sound recordings, films, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years from the date of making or the date of release if the release occurs within 50 years of it being made.
Thanks for your comment, I'm interested to understand more about what you mean. I am aware of the laws around works in the public domain, but as I understand them that is referring to an original author/creator of a published work's ownership of that work, not the in-the-moment rights of someone to being filmed in public. There is a great FAQ about copyright and intellectual property that covers the laws you mention here: www.dacs.org.uk/advice/frequently-asked-questions#FAQ144
@@NickdelaForce UK copyright laws do cover film crew and TV crew and they disclosed this to Dr. K many times. Fact of the matter they did not walk into his livestream. If you go further back into the incident. The Chinese TV crew was there before Dr. K as the piano was getting fix prior their encounter. It was Dr .K that got on the piano first as the Chinese TV crew were wait for complete crew to arrive. All FYI
@@docmartinjnr4281 That part of Copyright law covers the ownership of the actual finished work itself and protects the rights of the artist so that the original artist(s) can make money from their work and not have someone else just take that work and start profiting from it. It is essentially a law that protects the exclusive right of a copyright owner to profit from their work. It does not apply to downtime when a crew or performers are waiting around for people to arrive in a public area. You also can indeed film someone who is shooting something including a feature films or tv broadcasts in a public place and that kind of footage frequently does the rounds online... do you remember all the BTS footage from "The Batman" as it shot in London a few years ago? It was all legally obtained and shared because the film shot in (or in view of) public streets.
If they’re on location in a public place absolutely that is within the law, however if they’re on a closed / private set or shooting on private property that is not in view of the public then no, you would be breaking the law.
Dr.K. is a youtuber and he makes money on his channel by interacting with and filming people, that's the concept and everything is ok as long as people accept it. The Chinese didn't ask Dr.K. to stop filming, but to not end up online on Dr.K.'s RUclips channel with over 2 million subscribers. Regardless of who had asked not to end up online, I think it's a reasonable demand that Dr K should have complied with. Whether Dr.K is breaking the law is unclear to me, but morally I don't think he behaved reasonably. I don't think the law has been updated for this new way of making money. I'm a RUclipsr myself on a much smaller scale than Dr K, but I wouldn't dream of not getting consent from those I might film.
Hey Torben, thanks for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment! I get where you’re coming from and I do believe he knows exactly what he is doing with his content, he does like to showcase confrontations and I think he is well aware of the power of the controversy and the attention it will bring his channel. Dr K absolutely could have handled it more delicately, but I also think both sides are guilty of heavy handedness in this instance. I also personally feel that having a group accompanied by a publicly Identified agent of a foreign government try to make a claim to privacy while carrying out performative activity in a public space quite problematic. But in the particular situation, regardless of who it transpired was there.. the group stepped into what was clearly a public performance and initiated the interaction with the performer. They could easily have waited out of the view of the camera on the piano (which if you know the space is VERY easy to do, all without losing your place in-line to use it) there is also another almost identical piano about 20m away from that one too. Ultimately the law in the UK is pretty black and white, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and I’m sure he knows this and that is why he stuck to his guns. Personally I’m not sure I would characterise it as immoral, as that is probably a bit extreme… was it the nicest way to handle the situation? I would agree NO it wasn’t. But neither was the awkward and very aggressive allegation of touching or leading immediately with ‘you’re infringing my rights’ in their approach to him. On the point about the law not being up to date, people are protected in many ways: laws are in-place ensuring your image can’t be used to sell products, slander or defame you, harass you and more… and if the activity you are engaged in has a “reasonable expectation to privacy” that’s protected too. But I think that would be a very tenuous claim in this situation, as they were indeed about to film themselves at the piano too. On obtaining consent from everyone in a place as public as St Pancras station like a film crew or tv production might for a film or TV show, would be very difficult for most individual RUclipsrs it requires a LOT of work to actually do so (I have worked on those kinds of productions), so to legally be required do so in that kind of setting would effectively render any video of this nature impossible.. robbing us of many outdoor and live recordings. But I think signage is a great way to do so and something I have seen frequently used on larger productions I’ve worked on. Maybe Dr K should invest in some, it's probably the right thing to do If we wants to prove he is sincere about not trying to instigate trouble!
@@NickdelaForce Thank you also for your insight, the whole conflict started with the Chinese politely asking not to end up online, they had probably realised that they would end up on Dr.K RUclips channel with over 2 million subscribers, they did plus on 100 other channels. The whole episode would have had a completely different outcome if Dr K had complied with the Chinese wishes in the first place and blurred them. Don't know if RUclips has now required Dr K to do this? Dr K can't get consent from everyone who walks by, I agree, clear signage could be a good solution, but the fact is that he could have easily complied with the Chinese wishes if he wanted to. Dr.K's channel is a business, probably a big one, he is allowed to film in public, no doubt about that, but everyone should in my opinion also have the right not to participate on Dr.K's youtube channel, regardless of whether you are Chinese with a dubious story and errand that Dr.K did not know about when he purely refused to comply with their request not to be shown online, after that I agree that both parties did what they could to keep the conflict going and many have since helped. In my opinion, the incident has nothing to do with freedom of speech, Dr.K. is using the viewers in his business model, which is perfectly fine if those involved agree to this. Whether Dr K is breaking private law I don't know, I think it must be a borderline case, but he is not a traditional old-fashioned street musician who collects a few coins for a living.
I do understand your point and I agree of course they have the right to not take part, I get the sense we maybe won’t end up in agreement here. Looking again to make sure I hadn’t misinterpreted something in the video I stand by the idea that they are trying to exert unnecessary pressure… they’re barely visible in the background until they approach him, interrupting the performance on the piano coming from being almost out of shot to surrounding him (two of them take places directly behind him while the girl initially approaches him) and then very quickly demand he does not film them and that they have “image rights” watching it back the camera person is actually pretty respectful in how they frame the shots to not capture people who are not directly interacting with him. Whereas the group actually creates what is a pretty confronting situation from the moment the first girl who speaks to him and politely (initially) ask him to stop… but she pretty quickly tells him outright they are “not disclosable because they are filming for Chinese tv” when he does try to respond or ask questions he is told the conversation is over. They use an array of bullying tactics including the allegations of racism & touching and surrounding him in a group too. I think it’s a sentiment echoed by both Kavanagh and multiple bystanders / passers by AND the police officers on arrival, that they should just move on or move away from the camera and I could not agree more with that. It’s a completely unnecessary confrontation the Chinese group could have avoided and exercised that right not to be on video by not standing in front of a camera and by just moving away (there is a spot directly behind the camera / piano at St Pancras they cool have stood in and waited where they would have been almost hidden from view even if the camera had swung their way). Now if he had arrived and they were already there I would have agreed he should not have started filming them, and should have asked if it’s ok before pointing a camera at them (OR if the camera had been pointing at the group before they approached him) but they clearly interrupt his performance, step into the shot and it should not be on him to accommodate them not being on camera, it’s very clear what is going on, and indeed in person it’s very easy to see what is happening, his phone camera makes the space look much wider than it is and there honestly is no way you can miss the person filming him! You mention it’s not clear if he is breaking the law to you, I would draw your attention to the initial reaction from the first police officer who arrived and then the commentary from legal experts like @blackbeltbarrister who is a UK lawyer who comments on legal matters online.
Great video Nick. Really interesting stuff. I remember filming on Southbank near the Lord Majors HQ and security kicking us away. So many areas in London that are private property. Like most of Canary Wharf, but it’s fairly straight forward to get a filming permit at minimal cost in most cases. Plus, what an odd situation that piano guy was in!
Thanks so much, it’s a crazy situation he found himself in isn’t it! It made me think of all the run-ins I’ve had over the years with people when I’ve had a camera on my hand… that hasn’t even always been on or pointing at anything.
Compelling topic & video!
Thank you so much!
Thats crazy, poor guy.. great video mate and good advice, think I'll be ok with my phone!
I’m sure you’ll be right, thanks for watching!
Karen and Darren don't touch this 🇨🇳
British public domain rights..FYI
Conclusion makes your opinion wrong.
Sound recordings, films, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years from the date of making or the date of release if the release occurs within 50 years of it being made.
Thanks for your comment, I'm interested to understand more about what you mean. I am aware of the laws around works in the public domain, but as I understand them that is referring to an original author/creator of a published work's ownership of that work, not the in-the-moment rights of someone to being filmed in public. There is a great FAQ about copyright and intellectual property that covers the laws you mention here: www.dacs.org.uk/advice/frequently-asked-questions#FAQ144
@@NickdelaForce UK copyright laws do cover film crew and TV crew and they disclosed this to Dr. K many times. Fact of the matter they did not walk into his livestream. If you go further back into the incident. The Chinese TV crew was there before Dr. K as the piano was getting fix prior their encounter. It was Dr .K that got on the piano first as the Chinese TV crew were wait for complete crew to arrive. All FYI
@@docmartinjnr4281 That part of Copyright law covers the ownership of the actual finished work itself and protects the rights of the artist so that the original artist(s) can make money from their work and not have someone else just take that work and start profiting from it. It is essentially a law that protects the exclusive right of a copyright owner to profit from their work. It does not apply to downtime when a crew or performers are waiting around for people to arrive in a public area. You also can indeed film someone who is shooting something including a feature films or tv broadcasts in a public place and that kind of footage frequently does the rounds online... do you remember all the BTS footage from "The Batman" as it shot in London a few years ago? It was all legally obtained and shared because the film shot in (or in view of) public streets.
@@NickdelaForce So what you are saying, if a movie is filming on set or TV crew, you are able to livestream it without any legal action?
If they’re on location in a public place absolutely that is within the law, however if they’re on a closed / private set or shooting on private property that is not in view of the public then no, you would be breaking the law.
Dr.K. is a youtuber and he makes money on his channel by interacting with and filming people, that's the concept and everything is ok as long as people accept it.
The Chinese didn't ask Dr.K. to stop filming, but to not end up online on Dr.K.'s RUclips channel with over 2 million subscribers.
Regardless of who had asked not to end up online, I think it's a reasonable demand that Dr K should have complied with.
Whether Dr.K is breaking the law is unclear to me, but morally I don't think he behaved reasonably.
I don't think the law has been updated for this new way of making money.
I'm a RUclipsr myself on a much smaller scale than Dr K, but I wouldn't dream of not getting consent from those I might film.
Hey Torben, thanks for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment! I get where you’re coming from and I do believe he knows exactly what he is doing with his content, he does like to showcase confrontations and I think he is well aware of the power of the controversy and the attention it will bring his channel. Dr K absolutely could have handled it more delicately, but I also think both sides are guilty of heavy handedness in this instance. I also personally feel that having a group accompanied by a publicly Identified agent of a foreign government try to make a claim to privacy while carrying out performative activity in a public space quite problematic.
But in the particular situation, regardless of who it transpired was there.. the group stepped into what was clearly a public performance and initiated the interaction with the performer. They could easily have waited out of the view of the camera on the piano (which if you know the space is VERY easy to do, all without losing your place in-line to use it) there is also another almost identical piano about 20m away from that one too. Ultimately the law in the UK is pretty black and white, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and I’m sure he knows this and that is why he stuck to his guns. Personally I’m not sure I would characterise it as immoral, as that is probably a bit extreme… was it the nicest way to handle the situation? I would agree NO it wasn’t. But neither was the awkward and very aggressive allegation of touching or leading immediately with ‘you’re infringing my rights’ in their approach to him.
On the point about the law not being up to date, people are protected in many ways: laws are in-place ensuring your image can’t be used to sell products, slander or defame you, harass you and more… and if the activity you are engaged in has a “reasonable expectation to privacy” that’s protected too. But I think that would be a very tenuous claim in this situation, as they were indeed about to film themselves at the piano too.
On obtaining consent from everyone in a place as public as St Pancras station like a film crew or tv production might for a film or TV show, would be very difficult for most individual RUclipsrs it requires a LOT of work to actually do so (I have worked on those kinds of productions), so to legally be required do so in that kind of setting would effectively render any video of this nature impossible.. robbing us of many outdoor and live recordings. But I think signage is a great way to do so and something I have seen frequently used on larger productions I’ve worked on. Maybe Dr K should invest in some, it's probably the right thing to do If we wants to prove he is sincere about not trying to instigate trouble!
@@NickdelaForce Thank you also for your insight, the whole conflict started with the Chinese politely asking not to end up online, they had probably realised that they would end up on Dr.K RUclips channel with over 2 million subscribers, they did plus on 100 other channels.
The whole episode would have had a completely different outcome if Dr K had complied with the Chinese wishes in the first place and blurred them. Don't know if RUclips has now required Dr K to do this?
Dr K can't get consent from everyone who walks by, I agree, clear signage could be a good solution, but the fact is that he could have easily complied with the Chinese wishes if he wanted to.
Dr.K's channel is a business, probably a big one, he is allowed to film in public, no doubt about that, but everyone should in my opinion also have the right not to participate on Dr.K's youtube channel, regardless of whether you are Chinese with a dubious story and errand that Dr.K did not know about when he purely refused to comply with their request not to be shown online, after that I agree that both parties did what they could to keep the conflict going and many have since helped.
In my opinion, the incident has nothing to do with freedom of speech, Dr.K. is using the viewers in his business model, which is perfectly fine if those involved agree to this.
Whether Dr K is breaking private law I don't know, I think it must be a borderline case, but he is not a traditional old-fashioned street musician who collects a few coins for a living.
I do understand your point and I agree of course they have the right to not take part, I get the sense we maybe won’t end up in agreement here. Looking again to make sure I hadn’t misinterpreted something in the video I stand by the idea that they are trying to exert unnecessary pressure… they’re barely visible in the background until they approach him, interrupting the performance on the piano coming from being almost out of shot to surrounding him (two of them take places directly behind him while the girl initially approaches him) and then very quickly demand he does not film them and that they have “image rights” watching it back the camera person is actually pretty respectful in how they frame the shots to not capture people who are not directly interacting with him.
Whereas the group actually creates what is a pretty confronting situation from the moment the first girl who speaks to him and politely (initially) ask him to stop… but she pretty quickly tells him outright they are “not disclosable because they are filming for Chinese tv” when he does try to respond or ask questions he is told the conversation is over. They use an array of bullying tactics including the allegations of racism & touching and surrounding him in a group too.
I think it’s a sentiment echoed by both Kavanagh and multiple bystanders / passers by AND the police officers on arrival, that they should just move on or move away from the camera and I could not agree more with that. It’s a completely unnecessary confrontation the Chinese group could have avoided and exercised that right not to be on video by not standing in front of a camera and by just moving away (there is a spot directly behind the camera / piano at St Pancras they cool have stood in and waited where they would have been almost hidden from view even if the camera had swung their way).
Now if he had arrived and they were already there I would have agreed he should not have started filming them, and should have asked if it’s ok before pointing a camera at them (OR if the camera had been pointing at the group before they approached him) but they clearly interrupt his performance, step into the shot and it should not be on him to accommodate them not being on camera, it’s very clear what is going on, and indeed in person it’s very easy to see what is happening, his phone camera makes the space look much wider than it is and there honestly is no way you can miss the person filming him!
You mention it’s not clear if he is breaking the law to you, I would draw your attention to the initial reaction from the first police officer who arrived and then the commentary from legal experts like @blackbeltbarrister who is a UK lawyer who comments on legal matters online.
I will just ask a question. Are you allowed to livestream a movie in action in public or a TV crew in the same manner?
@@docmartinjnr4281 Special rules apply TV news and repotage