Zostałem zatrzymany obywatelsko i zwyzywany? "Prawo naszego LG" wciąż żywe? #239

Summary

In this tense interaction, a person is confronted for recording in a private area. The speaker argues that their actions are protected by law, while security personnel and bystanders question their intentions and request the removal of any footage. The discussion revolves around the legality of recording, privacy concerns, and the enforcement of company rules against filming on the premises. Emotions rise as both sides exchange sharp words, with the speaker insisting on their right to record and others demanding the deletion of any images or videos that feature their likeness.

Takeaways

• 😀 A private property is being filmed, and the individual filming is asked to stop due to copyright protection on the site.
• 😀 The person recording is confronted with a demand to turn off their phone and stop filming, citing a violation of the law.
• 😀 The recording individual responds by defending their appearance and suggesting they are not overweight.
• 😀 The security staff threatens to involve the authorities and claims that they will take action to stop the recording, including a potential citizen's arrest.
• 😀 The discussion highlights that the location is private property, and photography is prohibited by law, though the filmer is not on company grounds.
• 😀 The security personnel ask the filmer to respect privacy and avoid publishing their image without consent.
• 😀 The filmer insists on their right to record and questions the legality of prohibiting the recording outside company premises.
• 😀 Security staff confirms that recording is prohibited within the company’s premises, but the filmer is currently on public property (sidewalk).
• 😀 A discussion occurs around the legality of filming, referencing Polish law that does not specifically prohibit recording in public spaces, even military sites.
• 😀 The filmer is repeatedly asked to explain the purpose of the recording, with several individuals questioning the intent behind it and expressing concerns about their privacy.

Q & A

What is the main issue raised in the conversation?

The main issue involves a person filming or photographing on private property without permission, which is met with resistance from the individuals present, citing copyright laws and privacy concerns.

Why does the person filming the objects face opposition from the others?

The opposition stems from the fact that the area being filmed is private property, and there is a claim that filming is prohibited due to copyright laws and the individuals' right to privacy.

What legal argument is presented by the individuals confronting the person filming?

They claim that the property is protected by copyright law, and that there is a prohibition on filming, especially regarding private or protected areas. They also assert that the person's image is their private property and cannot be used without consent.

What response does the person filming give to the accusations of violating privacy?

The person filming responds by stating that they have the right to record since they are outside the private property, where no specific prohibition signs are in place against filming, according to Polish regulations.

What happens when the situation escalates?

The confrontation escalates when the individuals involved start threatening to call the police, mentioning possible citizen’s arrest, and making remarks about the filming person's behavior and intentions.

How do the security personnel respond to the filming?

The security personnel try to assert control by explaining that filming is prohibited on the company's property, but they also clarify that filming outside the premises is not forbidden. They express discomfort about being filmed and request the filmer to stop.

What is the key point about Polish laws in this situation?

Polish laws allow for filming outside private properties unless there are explicit signs prohibiting it. There is also an emphasis on respecting personal privacy and avoiding the use of images without consent.

What does the filmer intend to do with the footage?

The filmer does not directly clarify the purpose of the footage, but hints at the possibility that it might be published or shared in some form, which becomes a point of contention when others are concerned about being filmed.

What is the role of the individual mentioning Delta Security?

The individual mentioning Delta Security is likely a security personnel member trying to manage the situation by asserting the rules of the property and attempting to prevent the filmer from continuing to record.

How does the conversation end?

The conversation ends with the security personnel suggesting the filmer might face consequences if they continue recording and warning about potential intervention from a response group, followed by a farewell that indicates the situation is unresolved.