Article: Qantas Bans Filming People On Flights Without Consent

[RichardMEL]

I know this is OT a bit, but from the NP content I've watched over the past six or so months while he doesn't fully hide pax next to him sometimes, he also does make an effort I think. Other places not so much eg he'll walk into a hotel in Armenia or in transit and just film anyone and everyone including interactions. I suppose if someone says hey no camera or something he'd want to edit it out or stop or something (I think while he can be a whinging pom at times he's reasonably respectful). I sometimes wonder, specially in some of the out of the way places some vloggers like him wind up, that people aren't a bit more against this kind of thing, but he seems to get away with it (also see someone like the now infamous Bald & Bankrupt)

For airline review type videos I avoid SC for a number of reasons, but there's a few out there who definitely attempt to be respectful of others. I'd count someone like Nonstop Dan as one of these, even someone like Will from Trek Trendy though he can have lapses at times. Another I enjoy who doesn't tend to have a lot of "unpaid extras" is Jeb Brooks who focuses on himself and his delightful wife more than anything else - and that's appreciated from this point of view.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Flew QF519 today (BNE > SYD) and part way through the flight I was hassled by a flight attendant that I can’t have my GoPro suction cupped to the window. Not the first time I’ve heard it on other airlines but a first for me on Qantas (I enjoyed capturing the scenery for my TRs)

 

[RooFlyer]

Flew QF519 today (BNE > SYD) and part way through the flight I was hassled by a flight attendant that I can’t have my GoPro suction cupped to the window. Not the first time I’ve heard it on other airlines but a first for me on Qantas (I enjoyed capturing the scenery for my TRs)

I assume the objection was that it was suction cupped to the window, not the GoPro filming outwards (I assume).

If so, you can still use it - just hold it.

 

[Lynda2475]

I assume the objection was that it was suction cupped to the window, not the GoPro filming outwards (I assume).

If so, you can still use it - just hold it.

Extremely rare that I agree with RooFlyer, but yes the objection would be about attaching to the window which is unnecessary, and may present a safety issue if during turbulence it comes unstuck and hits another passenger.

If you were holding the camera Im sure there would have been no issues, if it was genuinely pointing out the window.

 

[encryptededdy]

I don't think SC gives a fark.

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/11uma38

 

[tdimdad]

Something that may not have answered yet (or I missed it in this thread) is whether the photos or footage can be freely taken in a public place for your own personal and private use? I'm usually adverse to being visible in people's photos and videos but whenever you walk in a place full of tourists, you are bound to appear in a million of photos eventually. Consequently, I'm OK with being in the background among other people - when the material is used privately only with family & friends as in "this is what the fountain / museum / street / you-name-it looked like", "see this fancy airport concourse", etc. Or, if you ever find my feet on the bulkhead, anything waist down in that photo thread is a fair game. But would definitely not want to find myself identifiable in YouTube, TikTok, etc.

Back to the question: can visual or audio material be captured for your own private use (as per the Australian legislation)? Where @RichardMEL very sensibly refers to the context, to me a part of that is also the intended use of the material. This should also guide how stringently or when QF may want to enforce their policy.

 

[jb747]

You’re not supposed to attach anything to any part of the aircraft. It’s trivia, I know. It also leaves marks on the window, which will be there years later.

 

[RichardMEL]

You’re not supposed to attach anything to any part of the aircraft. It’s trivia, I know. It also leaves marks on the window, which will be there years later.

That will frustrate the next youtuber wanting to have a clean window to take their video through!

 

[RichardMEL]

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/11uma38

Just wanted to single out this:

He has the self awareness of a toaster. And not a sunbeam. One of those overpriced Smeg ones

great line by that poster!

but I digress....
(thanks for the link!)

 

[Kremmen]

I think there needs to be a degree of common sense when interpreting these rules… security incidents would clearly override the need to ask permission. For example security incidents on board MH as Sydney recently… you wouldn’t need to ask permission to take photos and send those to the police, who would benefit from real-time information.

Why do you think that? The rules clearly give no such exemption. As soon as you break them, you are in violation of the conditions of carriage.

 

[kiwitripper64]

There are so many laws and rules in society. a quick search found this
Dumb Laws (List)
Alabama:
• Anniston: You may not wear blue jeans down Noble Street.
• Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
• Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
• It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.

My point is just because it is a law or rule, it isn't always going to be enforced. I cant see anyone getting arrested for playing Dominoes on Sunday. But this does give QF staff the right to stop people filming others in an annoying manner or playing music at volume with no headphone. And yes, if someone is using their insulin pump to threaten or hurt others ( although I cant imagine this scenario), it could be impounded.
As for the debate of public Vs private, it seems to be public as anyone can buy a ticket, but private in you must stay in your seat section. Imagine a vlogger in Y going for a walk through J and F and filming staff and customers. The comment, "Im just going for a walk in a public space", wouldn't work.
Its sad that companies are feeling the need to even think about requiring these policies, but I do appreciate a peaceful flight.

 

[kiwitripper64]

I missed a good law pertaining to bloggers
In Alaska even though it is legal to hunt a bear, it is illegal to wake a bear and take a picture for
photo opportunities.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

I assume the objection was that it was suction cupped to the window, not the GoPro filming outwards (I assume).

If so, you can still use it - just hold it.

Extremely rare that I agree with RooFlyer, but yes the objection would be about attaching to the window which is unnecessary, and may present a safety issue if during turbulence it comes unstuck and hits another passenger.

I would understand that if it was a cheapo suction cup but this is the GoPro sanctioned suction cup. I've had it suctioned to planes going through heavy turbulence no problem.

If you were holding the camera Im sure there would have been no issues, if it was genuinely pointing out the window.

That's fine if holding it for a minute or two but naturally your arm will get sore if holding it for hours on end. What I think is needed here is a rethink. So they won't let me mount it to the window? Fine. What if I suction it to the tray table and have it extended out to the window? In that way I could still hold it down during turbulence if need be!

You’re not supposed to attach anything to any part of the aircraft. It’s trivia, I know. It also leaves marks on the window, which will be there years later.

The marks on the window are precisely why I know the suction works and can survive turbulence. If it was a weak suction there wouldn't be any suction marks! With that being said I suspect the suction marks could be removed when the airline cleans their windows every day or so.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Mattg]

I would understand that if it was a cheapo suction cup but this is the GoPro sanctioned suction cup. I've had it suctioned to planes going through heavy turbulence no problem.

That's fine if holding it for a minute or two but naturally your arm will get sore if holding it for hours on end. What I think is needed here is a rethink. So they won't let me mount it to the window? Fine. What if I suction it to the tray table and have it extended out to the window? In that way I could still hold it down during turbulence if need be!

The marks on the window are precisely why I know the suction works and can survive turbulence. If it was a weak suction there wouldn't be any suction marks! With that being said I suspect the suction marks could be removed when the airline cleans their windows every day or so.

-RooFlyer88

Does it really matter? The flight attendant asked you to remove it, and you're required to comply with their reasonable and lawful instructions, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Does it really matter? The flight attendant asked you to remove it, and you're required to comply with their reasonable and lawful instructions, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

Just to clarify. I did comply with them. I'm just thinking aloud of how I can continue filming the flying landscape whilst remaining compliant.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Mattg]

Just to clarify. I did comply with them. I'm just thinking aloud of how I can continue filming the flying landscape whilst remaining compliant.

-RooFlyer88

The new rule doesn't prohibit photography of landscapes out the window, though. It sounds like the issue was with the suction cap/attaching the camera to the window.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why do you think that? The rules clearly give no such exemption. As soon as you break them, you are in violation of the conditions of carriage.

Not too worried about breaching the conditions of carriage if there was a security incident and the police were asking me for details.

I’d either assume there was an exception for immediate danger or public safety, or I was acting under instruction from the police, or else that the conditions wouldn’t be enforced under the circumstances.

I wouldn’t want people to refuse a police request worried that they might be breaching the conditions of carriage.

 

[tdimdad]

I would understand that if it was a cheapo suction cup but this is the GoPro sanctioned suction cup. I've had it suctioned to planes going through heavy turbulence no problem.

How would we reasonably expect a FA to distinguish between a genuine part vs an 'el cheapo'? Given the FA's key role is the safety of the cabin & pax, they'd be interested in mitigating or eliminating risks where they appear, including whizz-bang GoPro stands.

 

[RichardMEL]

As for the debate of public Vs private, it seems to be public as anyone can buy a ticket, but private in you must stay in your seat section.

To me this raises the point in that QF "owns" (let's ignore leasing and all that) the aircraft (or lounge) one's paying to use - or has access via company policy (eg: status benefit). And, an airline can decline to sell to pax (no fly list, banned, whatever) and/or remove customers from their services (intoxicated, abusive/unruly, not compliant etc) so does this make aircraft more "private" in the sense that the airline provides access in line with terms and conditions - and part of those now include rules on photography?

 

[Bolt]

QF would have no idea that someone is using an insulin pump, nor would they care.
It would be good to keep the thread on topic and leave aside far fetched interpretations.

And I am sure that as a resident here you should be well aware that Australia does indeed have a constitution.

Well.... Australian airport security in Melbourne recently had a diabetic child remove their insulin pump for their security screening. Despite the vast bulk of medical documentation and airline regulations being presented.

Whilst I agree with your logic. Think about how dumb some people can be. Corporately, people can be even dumber. QANTAS isn't exactly know to be doing the smart thing lately. What, with selling cancelled flights and all.

I'm not commenting on the merits of this policy, just the struggle of diabetics and those with medical conditions in airports.