The entire point of my comment is that it’s a spectrum.

That's pretty much the "not all men!!!" argument that jerks use whenever women are on guard against approaches from strange men...

Sure, there's a "spectrum". But if you're videoing people without consent to humiliate them for your TikTok content, then you are a dick. And there are so many of those dicks that if you are walking around in public with a microphone and a friend videoing you, I'm just gonna assume up front that you are a dick. There is zero downside for me doing that, and potentially a huge upside. Maybe you are somehow on the "not dick" end of the spectrum of people walking around with a microphone and a film crew, I don't care. You can cry #notAllTikTikCreators all you like, it's always in my best interest to assume you are a dick.

… and yet there are still counter-examples: Candid photography[1] has long been recognized as art, and I wouldn't feel that the photographer is a "shitty person" for trying to capture a view of the world not affected by knowledge that the camera is trained on them. (And permission after the fact is not always possible. Nor necessary, even to avoid be "shitty".)

Photo-journalism, particularly of politicians, would be greatly harmed by a permission requirement: is a journalist a shitty person for reporting the truth, even truths that a politician might not like? (And let's say it's something public, like capturing a politician giving a public speech that would appear to be whipping a crowd into a mob, not tabloid/paparazzi type stuff.) Someone photographing or videotaping police brutality?

Intent, I think, is what matters in determining if any one photo/capture is "shitty"; there are instances where you can be a good person while creating photos or videos that might be very detrimental to the subject. Some of the examples from TFA are good examples: creators looking to find people on the street to make a fool of.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid_photography#As_an_art_f...

[2]: (I'd perhaps also add the last time I surreptitiously recorded someone was because the person was issuing death threats to those around him. AITA? But there are other, more artistic or journalistic cases that I think also have merit, which is why this is a footnote.)

> … and yet there are still counter-examples: Candid photography[1] has long been recognized as art, and I wouldn't feel that the photographer is a "shitty person" for trying to capture a view of the world not affected by knowledge that the camera is trained on them. (And permission after the fact is not always possible. Nor necessary, even to avoid be "shitty".)

I think if the picture/video is to be posted online or in a gallery, the person in the picture has a right to say how their likeness is being used, regardless of context. If someone's in the background of a video a I would say it's not as relevant, unless the background person becomes the subject unintentionally (as often seen in fail videos).

Surveillance is a different matter. You are notified you're entering a building with cameras, and those also aren't streamed online or displayed publicly.

As for public figures: there's usually separate laws for such things for public figures, AFAIK

Fortunately the TikToker avoided a demonstration of "Ballbreaker" and other gonad-themed AC/DC song titles.