An individual participated in a Zoom meeting that was recorded by the data controller. This was the sporting club’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). The individual made an access request for a copy of this recording. The data controller refused the request stating that it did not fall within the remit of GDPR. The individual believed the data contained in the recording was their personal data. The data controller stated the video recordings of the AGM were no longer accessible due to corruption while saving and the inexperience of the data controller in employing this remote video hosting software. However, they stated the minutes of the meeting would be available for viewing within a space of weeks.

At this time, the DPC proposed the conclusion of this case in light of the apparent inaccessibility of videos sought by the individual, but the individual did not agree with this approach, stating that video conferencing used during the AGM had been common practice for the data controller for some time and so it seemed unlikely to the individual that the difficulties described by the data controller would have occurred . Upon further questioning by the DPC, the data controller confirmed that video footage was in fact available, but advanced Article 15(4) of GDPR as a reason for its restriction . The data controller was now stating that the video footage of third parties visible in the recording could be considered third-party data and the individual was not entitled to this . However, they were willing to provide written transcripts of the footage to the individual . The DPC contested this, coming to the opinion that, in light of the public nature of the original recordings, as they were part of an AGM, they were made with the participant’s understanding that they could be considered accessible at a later date .

Further issues arose when the individual received written transcripts of the video . The individual claimed that the transcripts were inaccurate and did not reflect the contents of the original video .

In light of this, the DPC contacted the data controller once again, both highlighting the DPC’s opinion regarding the advancement of Article 15(4) and seeking sight of the video from which the transcript had been made . The data controller provided the audio of the video only . Upon assessment, it was clear that the transcript was an accurate reflection of the video’s audio content. The DPC recommended that in order to facilitate an amicable resolution at this stage the data controller should release the same audio content, previously provided to the DPC, to the individual . The data controller complied, but the individual was still not satisfied, once again restating their request for sight of the video content . Upon further request by the DPC to state the exemption it relied on to restrict access to the video content, it was decided by the data controller to release the full video content to the individual . The DPC did not receive copy of the full video content, and so was unable to directly assess whether there was any disparity between it and the audio provided . However, upon confirmation of its receipt, the individual stated they were satisfied with its content and thus this matter was concluded amicably .

The above case involved extensive communication between the DPC, the data controller and the individual . This matter could have been resolved by the data controller if they had released the requested video footage on receipt of the access request . If the data controller was aware of its obligations under GDPR in the first instance then this case would not have been lodged with the DPC.