Protecting privacy in a modern competition environment

The Harvey in Harveywetdog!
©Harveywetdog

My time in the Nuclear Industry taught me that we must all learn from Operating Experience (OPEX). Here for the benefit of others, is my experience from what I thought was going to be pleasant day out videoing a bit of dressage. The bottom line learning is:

• Always get permission
• If challenged stick to the facts
• Don't respond to bullying
• You can't intimidate a man who's only got a 50% chance of surviving the next 12 months

Last week should have been a good week. My HB levels seemed to be recovering, the sun was shining and we were due to take our horse out competing on Friday. Given the nature of this blog and subsequent events I wont name the venue other than to say it isn't far to travel, it sits squeezed between a major A road and the M5, with a great view of the waste incinerator and easy access to MacDonald's and Costa (and the notorious "dogging" lane just off the motorway slip road!).

Once times were released by the venue, and noting a number of international riders entered across the day, I e-mailed the venue to ask for permission to take video on the day. I've been caught out too many times in the past to simply rock up and start videoing people without permission so I always ask. To their credit this venue generally responds so I don't have to revert to my "silence is consent" fall-back (see I did pay attention during all that British Energy nuclear professionalism training). I got an e-mail response the next day saying "That's okay, see you tomorrow" and I set about charging my camera batteries and preparing my plans for the day.

We withdrew our horse at about the same time but that didn't change my plans much, simply meant I could get home a little earlier. The weather forecast promised it would be cold and that it might be wet so an early finish wouldn't go amiss.

My basic plan was as follows; get to the venue after the Gloucester morning rush hour had subsided, video a few Novice riders and then head home to see the dogs and edit/upload my first video and then get back to the venue for a couple of the later classes. I executed the first part of my plan without incident and had returned and videoed one more test when I entered into an amicable discussion with a local international rider about whether it was fair to video their young horses or, as I was at pains to point out, it is in the public interest, this was clearly what my viewers liked to see and I was sensitive enough to know when a particular test should not be made public (as I'm sure many of you are aware).

I was slightly put out by the discussion, especially as I'd had to point out my name is not in fact Harvey, and I was just getting my act together again when I saw a representative from the venue making their way towards me at haste with what I suspected was not good news. Sure enough I was informed that a complaint had been made, I was to stop videoing immediately and when I asked if this applied to all future events I was told yes. I wasn't told the nature of the complaint and I wasn't told who the complainant was. But one person's word was enough to get me a lifetime ban - they walk amongst us!

So although I was upset and disappointed that I would not be able to video a couple of my favourite riders in the pyo FEI class I took the immediate ban on the chin thinking that was basically the end of the matter; disappointing, but not all together the end of the world.

How wrong I was. I don't live on my mobile 'phone and later that evening I realised I'd missed a couple of messages from the venue. The first message of significance read:

"You came to REDACTED and have put videos on Facebook without permission.  Please take down immediately"

I replied to say I had been given permission and that when permission was withdrawn I had gone home immediately.

The reply I received was:

 "David, you were only given permission to video the PSG not any other class I urgently request that you take all other videos down now and I am taking this matter further as GDPR is a very important consideration"

To which I replied:

"Dear REDACTED the permission was general and not specific and I am confident that I am not in breach of any regulations videoing with permission at a venue that is open to the public. Kind regards David" 

About the same time, and probably because I'd failed to see the earlier messages, I started to receive a number of e-mails, the first addressed to Harvey (bless). While the content of the e-mails was basically the same as the messages (no permission/GDPR/privacy) they added that I had now been reported to British Dressage. Obviously that was a significant development for me and as a consequence I also provided my side of the story to British Dressage, including that week's e-mail correspondence which clearly showed that I had sought and been given permission to video on "Friday". This was now well into Friday evening and I didn't expect a response from BD but I felt it was important to keep the record straight. The venue also asked me to contact them by 'phone to "resolve the situation" but it was Friday evening, I'd been reported anyway so couldn't see what we had left to resolve.

I stuck by my guns, that I'd been given permission and that nobody had asked not to be videoed, and didn't respond to the obvious intimidation but left the video on YouTube gaining views and likes. The final act of Friday evening was when YouTube contacted me to state that I had a privacy complaint registered against my channel. Although as a YouTube creator this is clearly a very serious concern, we are given 48 hours to address the complaint so all I did on Friday evening was to ask YouTube for more detail (the complaint was in fact very vague and bizarrely only referred to the first three minutes of a six minute video).

Saturday morning we were all dealing with Storm Arwen but I did send off one message to the venue to the effect that, as we had now both contacted British Dressage and as we were in the YouTube complaints process, we needed to let those two bodies arbitrate and resolve. So I sat down and developed my defence, the relevant part of which I sent off to YouTube. 

This comprised

1. Before videoing I asked for and was granted permission to publish video from the event 
2. In line with the British Dressage GDPR protocol the arrangement at the venue is to advise competitors that there are videographers and photographers on site and that they (the competitors) are to inform the organisers if they do not wish to be videoed or photographed

3. I had not been made aware of any competitor who had asked not be videoed 

Furthermore

a The venue had made public via social media details of all riders and their horses and the time that they would be appearing prior to the event 

b There are no signs around the arena saying videoing is not allowed 

c In fact the arena had advertising hoardings all around clearly indicating an intention to provide publicity via public performances (by whatever medium)

d Likewise the video of the competitor in question showed that they had several pieces of sponsorship branding on their tack, again in the expectation that these brands would gain publicity from their performance and consequently to the detriment of the competitor's desire for privacy

e It is in the public interest for the general public to see a horse being ridden in such a sensitive and exemplary manner

f I was not told that there was a GPDR protocol in place at the venue although I was now being told I was in breach of it

g Despite all of the above, I am sensitive enough to know when a video should not be made public

My next communication was on Saturday evening via e-mail. This was from the venue and was to supposedly forward to me the e-mails where I had only asked for permission to video the PSG. A desire for honesty and clarity was even expressed. Unfortunately the e-mail correspondence referenced was from May 2021 when I HAD only videoed a PSG competition (as a break from treatment). I pointed out that for November 2021 I had asked for permission on the previous Wednesday and permission had been given on Thursday. I think the penny finally dropped. I stated that as the matter was now in the hands of British Dressage and YouTube I didn't see how it could be "resolved" by us talking.

On Sunday I made myself aware of the YouTube Privacy Complaint Process, played about with the wording on the video description and even tried to blur out some of the details on the video using the YouTube blur tool. I'd have to say that was a singular failure and you definitely need practice on that tool if you are going to use it in anger. Luckily there is a revert to original function that came in useful. The tool also has this annoying habit of going off to process the modified video for hours so it is neither easy nor expeditious to use.

You may wonder why I tried to change the video if I was certain of my position? Well, first of all that is what the 48 hours is for, to correct your alleged wrongs, and secondly I didn't know how YouTube were going to react. They have a habit of not supporting creators when push comes to shove and they tend to take an American view of the world. Also I didn't have a clue who the privacy complaint had been made by or, as I said above, what the exact nature of the complaint was. I had a discussion on the creator chat line to see if they could provide more detail but was told that they were not able to provide advice on the issue as it was now a legal matter. 

Although the 48 hours expired Sunday evening it wasn't until Monday morning that I got a reply from the YouTube legal team. There was a moment's trepidation as I opened the e-mail but was very pleased to read "The content does not violate our policies and will remain on the site". A stunning victory for common sense in the face of a weekend of intimidation and harassment.

Thank you YouTube!

So what's next; I'm hoping BD will contact me at some point, or perhaps they'll believe the matter is resolved. Clearly privacy concerns are becoming increasingly important but much of GDPR is, as the name suggests, about your data and not the control of your image.

A desire to compete away from the full glare of publicity doesn't necessarily give you the right to compete in private but at the same time no right minded videographer is going to publish video against a competitor's wishes, especially where there is no public interest argument in favour of publishing.

Venues need to have robust protocols in place to address such issues and ensure decision making on these matters is made at the correct level and communicated accordingly. 

Please express your thoughts in the comments below.