Selling accident video

[FIRSTSCENE]

For me, I should provide it free of charge.

 

[SawMaster]

@randy

Well after spending 2 1/2 hours on the SC Code f Laws website it appears that you are correct. However I do know that this was on my driving test- I specifically remember it as the multiple choice answer wording was tricky, and when I was involved in crash about 5 years ago the cop and my lawyer both told me the same so I believe the law has changed since I last researched it. I do sincerely apologize for this. When I can I'm going to dig deeper into the matter as it seems that everyone here believes as I did I'm really missing my ex-Paralegal friend who used to get me access to Westlaw etal to make my research easier

SC has some weird laws, many of which were rescinded around 1980, including one which regulated which pocket a person had to keep their whisky bottle in With that kind of thinking going on in Columbia, anything is possible here and nothing surprises me anymore I did come across some other info while searching that will be of future benefit to me so thanks for prodding me unto digging around

I still believe that in giving any legal advice in DCT one should preface it with the exact location you are referencing and also recommend that the person asking seek a local legal opinion. In our vast nation are vast differences in laws, and while I champion State's Rights I also see where we really need to do as most other nations do and have only one set of road use laws nationwide. Fat chance we'll see it but it would be good anyway. And when not illegal, I believe in making the best moral decisions as a good morality will always lead to better results than any law can lead to

Phil

 

[randy]

@randy

Well after spending 2 1/2 hours on the SC Code f Laws website it appears that you are correct. However I do know that this was on my driving test- I specifically remember it as the multiple choice answer wording was tricky, and when I was involved in crash about 5 years ago the cop and my lawyer both told me the same so I believe the law has changed since I last researched it. I do sincerely apologize for this. When I can I'm going to dig deeper into the matter as it seems that everyone here believes as I did I'm really missing my ex-Paralegal friend who used to get me access to Westlaw etal to make my research easier

SC has some weird laws, many of which were rescinded around 1980, including one which regulated which pocket a person had to keep their whisky bottle in With that kind of thinking going on in Columbia, anything is possible here and nothing surprises me anymore I did come across some other info while searching that will be of future benefit to me so thanks for prodding me unto digging around

I still believe that in giving any legal advice in DCT one should preface it with the exact location you are referencing and also recommend that the person asking seek a local legal opinion. In our vast nation are vast differences in laws, and while I champion State's Rights I also see where we really need to do as most other nations do and have only one set of road use laws nationwide. Fat chance we'll see it but it would be good anyway. And when not illegal, I believe in making the best moral decisions as a good morality will always lead to better results than any law can lead to

Phil

1. Thank you for doing the research.
2. Again, I established the area I was talking about (USA) you just disagreed.
3. That was not a law here 5 years ago or now. When I say it doesn't make sense, I mean that. That was either a miscommunication (maybe they thought you referred to an involved party) or both of them told you that because they felt it was the right thing to do, as you see here with the people of the thread. The only other thing I can think of is maybe a witness who refuses to provide help like calling 911 for a serious accident, maybe they can be held civilly liable. I know good Samaritan laws relieve one of liability in providing help to encourage them to help, because they are not required to.
4. Two of our basic constitutional rights are the right to remain silent and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Not giving a statement after witnessing an accident is not a crime anywhere here. I have seen witnesses on a state and federal level refuse to cooperate for very serious criminal charges.

 

[c4rc4m]

In the UK, under CCTV law you must provide the footage if requested by people in the video and can charge up to £10 to cover your inconvenience. I believe it would be illegal to actually sell evidence to those that need it.

If selling it to the press then charge as much as you can, but in most cases that will be very little and not worth the bother!

According to this: https://www.griffinhouseconsultancy.co.uk/dashboard-cams-need-notify-ico/

UK Dashcams are not considered CCTV and so are not covered by data protection laws.

I also believe data protection laws only apply to commercial usage which means private individuals are not bound by the regulations or duties even with CCTV. I stand to be corrected but I believe that's why private individuals don't need warning signs or to keep registers and appoint data protection officers etc.

I see no reason why you couldn't legally sell dashcam footage in the UK as you own the copyright, but only if it was newsworthy, in which case it would probably net you only a nominal fee, which as Nigel said, wouldn't be worth it. News outlets only pay huge fees for majorly important footage eg. a major air crash happening, a monarch or politician being assassinated, a building collapsing in a major disaster, and even then it only fetches big bucks if no one else has captured the event.

As for accident footage, just offer it to the other party. Ask yourself, how would you feel if it were you and the other party refused the footage unless you paid? Also, I'm pretty sure they can eventually get the footage anyway for free by using a subpoena, to requires it's production to the Court as evidence. Destroying it after that because you're not getting paid, would probably constitute contempt of Court.

 

[Nigel]

According to this: https://www.griffinhouseconsultancy.co.uk/dashboard-cams-need-notify-ico/

UK Dashcams are not considered CCTV and so are not covered by data protection laws.

I also believe data protection laws only apply to commercial usage which means private individuals are not bound by the regulations or duties even with CCTV. I stand to be corrected but I believe that's why private individuals don't need warning signs or to keep registers and appoint data protection officers etc.

I see no reason why you couldn't legally sell dashcam footage in the UK as you own the copyright, but only if it was newsworthy, in which case it would probably net you only a nominal fee, which as Nigel said, wouldn't be worth it. News outlets only pay huge fees for majorly important footage eg. a major air crash happening, a monarch or politician being assassinated, a building collapsing in a major disaster, and even then it only fetches big bucks if no one else has captured the event.

As for accident footage, just offer it to the other party. Ask yourself, how would you feel if it were you and the other party refused the footage unless you paid? Also, I'm pretty sure they can eventually get the footage anyway for free by using a subpoena, to requires it's production to the Court as evidence. Destroying it after that because you're not getting paid, would probably constitute contempt of Court.

Your link does say:

"...However, if the Dashboard Cams are on work or commercial vehicles, then a member of the public has the right under Section 7 of the DPA to make a Subject Access Request to view the footage which contains their image; ..."

which is what I was saying in my previous post.

There is an exception for domestic use in Part IV:

"36 Domestic purposes.
Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."

Which means that for private dashcams we don't legally have to register our data collection, or provide it on request.
Not sure if an insurance claim or legal proceedings count as household affairs, I guess they do?

The rule of providing it on request and charging no more than £10 for expenses/time seems reasonable to me, not doing that just because you have an exemption under Part IV section 36 seems unreasonable even if legal.

 

[c4rc4m]

You're quite right in that it's different for commercial vehicles. However, for private motorists, there's seemingly no right of access.