I’m doing a rather large machine install in a big empty factory at present. I have asked the customer if I can set up a camera on a tripod, located on a mezanine floor in the corner of the factory, and have been given permision. I am using a 10mm wide angle lens and have set the camera up to take a picture every 60 seconds throughout the course of the day. This will continue in three, two week blocks until my part of the installation of three machines is completed. I have explained that this is for my own personal enjoyment and I am receiving no financial gain or reward. The camera is set up and taken down, in my own time, before and at the end of my paid shift. I had a complaint from another engineer (from a different company) who went off on one today telling me he doesn’t give permission to publish any of the footage anywhere, and that I have to stop recording. I tried really hard to be polite and explain that once completed, the photos would be put into a timelapse. This along with the lens and distances means that nobody would be identifiable. We got into a bit of a heated debate and I eventualy told him, quite literally, to fuck off and that I’ll do what the fuck I want until the site manager tells me otherwise. I already have some drone footage/pictures of the empty factory, and I plan to capture more as the install progresses, and also once complete. The management have asked that if I get anything useful could I share with them for their own publicity. I’m used to working in public spaces so know my rights in that situation, but this is a first for me. Private land, but with permision. No money or other incentives involved, but other contractors on site?
Anybody have a clue where I might stand legally on this? I’ve know this engineer for many years and for the most part get on quite well with him, so I know he’ll go home and hit google, arrive tomorrow and try to tell me I’m getting a letter from his solicitor. Thing is, it would also be a great bit of free publicity for his company and engineering team that I would have been happy to share with him, but for now he can bite my shite
I am not a lawyer.
There is likely to be no problem with recording images within the factory with permission.
The problems may come when those images are published, at that point you will need to comply with GDPR legislation.
If you lose control of the images by giving copies away then you also lose control of how they are used.
Have you considered obscuring the image of the person who has withdrawn their permission to be photographed?
I think he’s well within his rights to ask you not to film him Darren, especially if he’s in his work space (might not be where he works normally). He’s probably worried that his company will see that he’s doing toss all for most of the day 
Why? I am not filming for a company, profit, or gain, I am filming for myself, for my own entertainment as a private individual. GDPR surely doesn’t involve me as a private individual?
He’s within his rights to ask me to stop. But that doesn’t mean he has a legal standing and can order me to stop? I’m not specificaly filming him by the way. I’m filming me, it’s just that some of his work is next to mine.
using that great phrase “i’m not a lawyer … but”… seriously… nothing is against the law until proven in a court of law… whilst some things may be obvious… they still require investigation and due process…
setting all that bs aside…
it comes down to identifiable data… if you film in a place of privacy (toilet / changing room) then one has a right of privacy … anywhere else you have no right of privacy.
That being said… if you anonymize the data (which will be very easy with timelapse) given every image will be different and none will show for very long. then there is no identifiable data.
its like filming a car park or a hospital… provided it is not possible to ascertain who the persons are (i.e. number plates are masked + faces are masked) then you can film or photograph
The GDPR legislation may apply to you if you are not using the personal data (his image which can be used to identify him) for a purely personal or household activity.
Do you have a model release form signed by this person permitting you to publish images of him?
Could you reasonably obscure his image in any published photos?
Also not a lawyer here, but my gut feeling would be provided you have landowners permission, and you’re not recording any identifiable personal information (faces) which is sounds like you aren’t, then you should be good to go on a legal point of view.
I imagine the building has CCTV? In which case this individual is being filmed anyway.
That being said, my personal rule of thumb is don’t do something if it bothers someone - which is why I get frustrated at the auditors but that’s a whole other topic!
Could you perhaps do the time lapse with a GoPro or something more discreet than a tripod maybe?
I thought GDPR only applied if the photographs / film, were taken for commercial purposes ?
Rather sounds like the engineer doesn’t want to be caught skiving 
Edit, I wonder how these “Street photographers go on complying with GDPR ?
It’s one of those situations where law, common sense and personalities don’t mesh.
You say “I’ve know this engineer for many years and for the most part get on quite well with him” so is it possible to show him what you have taken so far over a pint or a coffee?
You could offer to pixellate him on film so he is unrecognisable . There seems to be a load of apps available to do just that from a quick Google search.
Apparently the management of the building have asked for a copy to use in their publicity. At that point the images are being used for commercial purposes.
It is not necessary to be able to see a face clearly to be able to identify someone. They might be identifiable from the uniform they are wearing if there is only one person in that uniform at that place and time.
Street photographers have it easy as there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
I would not publish any photos of a person who has specifically asked me not to do so.
From a GDPR perspective
The company where you are installing the kit should have a GDPR policy (even better if they have a CCTV policy) which should cover you.
If they don’t then you should really be approaching each individual who may be captured (or obscure the wanker if he is ever captured in the finished edit)
It’s not the same as filming in public
What if it was some celebrity caught in public in a compromising situation and the red tops were offering 6 figures
So, just to be clear, you’ve set a camera up in workshop and are taking photos of the room every 60 seconds all day every day for six full weeks.
You’re going to stitch that together in to a timelapse that, at one-minute intervals, will show pretty clearly what people have been up to. Even if you can’t identify the individuals from their faces you’ll probably be able to work out who’s who by what they’re doing.
You’re then going to share that with the client, who will be able to see just how hard all their other contractors have worked for their money.
I can understand why one of the other contractors on site might have a problem with that.
Lots of builds use Timelapse nowadays
See my post above.
It’s not a workshop, its a huge window factory. Wide angle lens ie 10mm. People will be no bigger than a lego figure moving at 30fps. Plus, as I’ve known him for many years, I know he is no slouch when it comes to work and I’ve worked direcrly with him on many installations over the years. He has nothing to worry about in that regard. Yes the place is crawling with CCTV and will have a GDPR policy, I’ll need to check this.
I’ll keep all of the above in mind and continue the project. If at the end it is useable, I’ll show them a copy and get their thoughts before sharing it. I think that’s fair enough? Anyone wanting a copy for commercial reasons will need to do whatever they need to do to comply with GDPR.
The main reason I got annoyed was that he told me he knows all the laws as he researched them. Then went on to tell me it’s even illegal to take pictures of people in the street without their permission.
Pease tell me he has a dash cam ;o)
The key words here are “in public”. There is no right to privacy in a public place in the UK.
There are also different rules which apply to news photos rather than photos used for entertainment or commercial purposes.
He does, and whats worse is he is using his mobile phone to take photos of the installation process as well. I guess my fancy dslr camera being on a tripod makes him feel inferior?
GDPR applies to individuals as well as commercial entities. It’s more to do with how you will process the data. See this excerpt from cookieyes.com
Does GDPR apply to individuals?
Yes, individuals can be subject to the GDPR, if their data processing is beyond the scope of “purely personal or household activity” as defined in Article 2 of the GDPR. The regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person for purely personal or household activity.
The definition of what constitutes a “personal or household” activity is contested. An often-cited and relevant case (C-101/01, paragraph 47) by the European Court of Justice notes that: “That exXception must therefore be interpreted as relating only to activities which are carried out in the course of private or fanmily life of individuals, which is clearly not the case with the processing of personal data consisting in publication on the internet so that those data are made accessible to an indefinite number of people”.