Filmed in Public and Posted Online (UK): How to Get the Video Taken Down

Finding a video of yourself online can be distressing, particularly if it captures an embarrassing moment or has been shared with a large audience. You may also be concerned that the person who published it is earning money from footage you did not agree to have shared.

You may have been told that filming in public is legal, but the right to record something does not, by itself, resolve the separate questions raised by publishing it. Publishing identifiable footage of a person is processing their personal data, and the platform hosting it will also have its own rules on privacy, harassment and monetisation.

There are two routes to consider: contacting the person who published the video, and reporting it to the platform. You can pursue both at the same time. Neither guarantees removal, but each gives you a way to explain your concerns and ask for the publication to be reviewed.

Before making contact, preserve the evidence. Keep a copy of the video and record the account name, the post's address and date, and any signs of monetisation, such as advertisements, sponsorships or affiliate links. The sections below explain the rights and exceptions that may be relevant, the reporting routes, and when to seek legal advice.

Why publication brings data protection law into play

Data protection law does not apply to what individuals do in their private lives, because Article 2(2)(a) of the UK GDPR excludes processing by an individual "in the course of a purely personal or household activity". Keeping a clip on your own phone, or sending it to a few friends, will usually fall within that exclusion.

Publishing the footage to the public generally does not, as the ICO's guidance explains in answer to a question about dashcam footage:

"If a customer posted the footage online so it was publicly available (available beyond their friends and family), this would no longer be purely personal use, and the UK GDPR would apply."

Once the footage is posted to a public account, the person who posted it is a controller of your personal data and is subject to the obligations that come with that role.

Where the account earns money from the footage

Where the account earns money from the footage, its commercial purpose is relevant in three ways.

It confirms that the processing is not personal or household activity. Recital 18 of the GDPR describes the household exemption as covering activity "with no connection to a professional or commercial activity", and a channel that earns from advertising, sponsorship, paid memberships or merchandise has that connection.

It is relevant to the balance of interests. The uploader is most likely to rely on legitimate interests as their lawful basis for using your data, which is available only where their interests are not overridden by your interests, rights and freedoms. Where the purpose of publication is commercial, that purpose forms part of what is weighed against your privacy.

It does not, by itself, decide whether the publication is journalism or in the public interest. In 2008, before Brexit, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that publication for profit does not in itself exclude journalism, since most media organisations operate commercially. Earning money from a video does not, however, create a public interest in it, and in 2019 the same court held that not all information published on the internet counts as journalism.

Record the evidence of monetisation, including advertisements on the video, sponsor mentions, a membership or "join" button, and merchandise or affiliate links in the description, and take a dated screenshot of each.

Your rights under the UK GDPR

Two rights under the UK GDPR are relevant, and they operate together.

The right to object. Article 21(1) allows you to object to processing based on legitimate interests. Once you object, the controller must stop unless it can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds that override your interests, rights and freedoms, or it needs the data for legal claims.

The right to erasure. Article 17(1)(c) requires erasure where you have objected and there are no overriding legitimate grounds. Where the controller never had a lawful basis for the processing, Article 17(1)(d) requires erasure without the objection step.

The controller may rely on the exception in Article 17(3)(a), which disapplies the duty to erase to the extent that the processing is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, subject to the limits explained in the next section.

The controller must respond within one month of receiving your request. It can extend that period by up to two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of requests, but it must tell you about the extension, with reasons, within the first month. Making these requests does not require a solicitor, a court application or a fee.

The limits of the free speech and journalism exemptions

If you ask for the video to be removed, the person who posted it may rely on freedom of expression, and two provisions are relevant.

The first is the Article 17(3)(a) exception described above, which applies only to the extent that keeping the video is necessary for exercising freedom of expression, and the fact that a video earns money does not make its continued publication more necessary for that purpose.

The second is the special purposes exemption in Schedule 2, Part 5, paragraph 26 of the Data Protection Act 2018. It covers journalism and academic, artistic and literary work, and three conditions must all be met:

1. The processing is carried out with a view to the publication of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material.
2. The person reasonably believes that publication would be in the public interest. In reaching that view, they must take into account the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression and information, and have regard to any relevant code, such as the BBC Editorial Guidelines, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code or the Editors' Code of Practice.
3. The person reasonably believes that complying with the provision in question would be incompatible with that purpose.

Journalism is not limited to professional journalists: in the 2019 case, the Court of Justice held that a man who filmed police officers in a police station and published the video online may have been processing data for journalistic purposes, if the sole object was to disclose information, opinions or ideas to the public. If you were filmed while carrying out a public role, such as a police officer or an official dealing with the public, the exemption may well apply.

Where a private individual is filmed and the footage is published to embarrass them, however, the uploader is likely to find it difficult to establish the second condition, a reasonable belief that publication serves the public interest.

Reporting the video to the platform

The platforms decide whether a video remains available and whether it earns money, and you can report to the platform while writing to the uploader. Because a platform report is assessed against the platform's own rules, it can be the quicker route.

YouTube accepts privacy complaints where you are "uniquely identifiable" in the content, which it says can result from a combination of image, voice, full name or other identifying information. A fleeting image, or a first name without other context, would not likely qualify. YouTube considers public interest, newsworthiness, consent and whether the information is otherwise publicly available, and it reserves the right to make the final decision. It may give the uploader the opportunity to remove or edit the content first. Making a video private is not treated as removal, because the uploader can make it public again.

YouTube's monetisation rules are stricter than its rules on what may be posted: channels that earn must comply with its Community Guidelines, and a breach of its monetisation policies "may result in monetisation being suspended or permanently disabled". Its advertiser guidelines state that content which "disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people is not suitable for advertising", that "Stating your comedic intent is not sufficient", and that "Malicious shaming or insulting of an individual" will receive no advertising revenue.

Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram, accepts privacy reports about photos and videos of you, of your child under 13, or of another person for whom you are the legal representative or guardian. It states that "we can only remove content in specific circumstances". On monetisation, it states that "content appropriate for Facebook in general is not necessarily appropriate for monetisation", and creators who earn must meet and continue to comply with its monetisation policies.

TikTok provides an in-app reporting route and a separate privacy reporting portal. Its published policy does not address reports made on someone else's behalf, so you should expect to file the report in your own name.

Although you cannot remove the advertising on someone else's video yourself, you can report the video under each policy it appears to breach, privacy first and harassment as well if it targets you, stating in each report that the video is monetised. If the video is of your child, YouTube accepts complaints from a parent or legal guardian, and Meta accepts reports about a child under 13.

Steps to take, in order

1. Preserve the evidence before you complain. Content is often edited, re-uploaded or deleted once the uploader knows it has been noticed, so take screenshots of the post, the account name, the web address, the date and the number of views, and make a screen recording of the video. Record any signs of monetisation, such as advertisements, sponsor mentions, membership buttons, merchandise or affiliate links.
2. Report the video to the platform. Use the privacy reporting route rather than the general report option, and report harassment separately if it applies. State that the video is monetised.
3. Write to the uploader, if you can contact them. State that you object to the processing, that you require erasure, and that you are complaining about their use of your personal data. If the account earns money, state that their use of your image is commercial rather than personal. Keep the letter short and factual. Since 19 June 2026, controllers have been required to acknowledge a complaint of this kind within 30 days.
4. Keep a record of the dates. The one-month period for responding runs from the date the uploader receives your request, so keep evidence of when you sent it.
5. Complain to the ICO if you do not receive a satisfactory response. Complaints are free and made online, and the ICO will ask for a copy of what you sent to the uploader. Its published guidance sets out its approach: it prioritises complaints where there is clear evidence of serious harm, a common outcome is that it logs a complaint and may only keep a record of it, and complaints that need closer examination are currently reaching a case officer around ten months after submission. A complaint to the ICO is therefore best treated as a final step, after the platform report and the letter to the uploader.

Limits of this approach

Neither a complaint to the uploader nor a report to the platform guarantees that the video will be removed, because the platforms state that they retain the final decision on their services and an uploader may dispute a request.

This approach is also not designed to obtain compensation. You can claim compensation for damage, including distress, caused by a breach of data protection law, but you must establish the damage, and the ICO cannot award compensation. In Lloyd v Google (2021), a case under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages requires proof of material damage or distress. Court proceedings also carry costs and risks of their own.

Some situations call for legal advice rather than the steps above. Repeated filming and posting aimed at one person may amount to harassment. Sharing an intimate image of someone without their consent, including a fabricated image, may be a criminal offence. If a post makes a false statement about you, that is a question of defamation rather than privacy. In any of these situations, it is advisable to speak to a solicitor at an early stage.

The data protection rights on this page apply throughout the UK. The points on harassment, intimate images and defamation describe the law of England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own law on these matters.

The law in this area continues to develop, through court decisions on the exemptions, changes to the ICO's approach to complaints, and changes to platform policies. Leave your email in the box below to receive a short note when something on this page changes.