Scenario: during a strike, a group of workers smashes the gate and threatens guards. Management films everything to “evidence-sue the agitators.” Days later the footage leaks onto social media with each person’s name and workshop — and the company receives privacy-violation complaints. Filming to gather evidence is legitimate — but how you film and what you do with it decides lawful versus violation. Many companies cross this line unknowingly.
May you film? The principle from Article 32, Civil Code 2015
Article 32 governs personal image rights: using someone’s image requires their consent, except for national, ethnic or public interests or as otherwise prescribed. Distinguish two acts:
- Filming/recording in public places (factory gates, strike areas) to gather evidence protecting the company’s lawful rights — generally permitted, as self-protection and evidence collection;
- Using images (posting online, sending to press, name-and-shame notices) — this is what Article 32 tightly controls: consent required, save statutory exceptions.
In short: filming for internal evidence, provided to authorities when needed — lawful. Filming then posting workers on Facebook to “expose” them — violation.
Images are personal data: Decree 356/2025
Decree 356/2025/ND-CP on personal data protection (replacing Decree 13/2023, effective 01/01/2026) treats personal images as personal data — collection, storage and use (“data processing”) need lawful grounds and must follow purpose-limitation, minimization and security principles. Applied to strikes:
- Collecting (filming) to protect lawful rights and interests (proving aggression, protecting assets) — grounded;
- But further processing (storing, sharing, publishing) must stay within that purpose — public dissemination exceeds the original collection purpose;
- Security required: safe storage, restricted access, no leaks.
Five rules for lawful strike filming
- 1. Announce openly: post “area under video recording for security” notices — upfront transparency cuts later complaints.
- 2. Film within scope: focus on violating acts (smashing, threats), not private-life close-ups or sensitive areas (restrooms, clinics).
- 3. Use only for legal purposes: provide to police, courts, mediators when needed — never social media, never press, never to threaten workers (“strikers get broadcast”).
- 4. Secure storage: restrict viewers, store safely, delete when the purpose ends.
- 5. No name-and-shame: never publicly identify filmed persons beyond proceedings — the most-sued behavior.
Frequently asked questions
Does filming striking workers violate the law?
Filming to gather evidence protecting lawful rights is generally permitted. Violations happen at the use stage: dissemination, naming, intimidation — breaching image rights (Civil Code Article 32) and personal-data rules (Decree 356/2025).
Is the footage admissible in court?
Yes, if lawfully collected and relevant. But footage obtained through serious personal-rights violations may be rejected — and the company may face counterclaims.
What about workers filming management?
Same principles: workers may equally gather evidence protecting themselves (e.g., filming guard violence). Companies can’t ban workers from filming in public while filming them.
Drone filming of the strike area?
Allowed under the same limits: security/evidence purposes, no privacy intrusion, no dissemination. Note separate UAV regulations — flying over industrial parks must follow aviation rules.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
