Does the use of images of a city council require the consent of the people filmed?

The journalist then decided to summon the mayor of this commune before the correctional court. For her, the mayor, in his capacity as controller of personal data, committed a mistake because he did not respect the formalities imposed by the law Informatique et Libertés. According to the applicant, he collected that data by a fraudulent, unfair and unlawful means and diverted it from its purpose.

The mayor is acquitted by the correctional court. The journalist then decides to appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judgment, having accepted that the recording of a video in which the journalist was identifiable and identified constituted personal data. Thus, for the Court of Appeal, its publication on the Facebook page and the YouTube site characterizes automated processing of personal data. However, it excludes the mayor from being at fault. It considers that, although the recording was a processing of personal data, it was made in a public place while the public was still present, and that the journalist was following the event in a professional setting.

The journalist then appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashes the judgment of the Court of Appeal. First, it considers that such misconduct may result from the publication on the internet of the video recording of an identified or identifiable person, even where the filmed scene took place in a public place and/or as part of a professional activity. With regard to the protection of personal data, it considers that the Court of Appeal, in recognizing the existence of processing of personal data, has not controlled its purposes in accordance with the Data Protection Act. It did not ensure that the mayor's collection of this data was done in a fair and lawful manner.

Consent was therefore required even in the context of a public meeting.