19 ms·
Dad who live-streamed his son’s birth on Facebook loses in court
- ahassan 10y agoSo they're mad that the stream they shared publicly was seen by the public?...
- phkahler 10y agoIt was rebroadcast on TV. Try doing the same by posting a broadcast TV show on the net...
- stordoff 10y agoIf you post 22 seconds from a 45 minute TV show[1], adding commentary on how it was in some way significant, I suspect you could make a reasonably strong case that it constitutes fair use (assuming the use of the footage is even challenged, which seems somewhat unlikely for a 22 second clip). [1] "ABC used a tiny fraction of the footage—22 seconds from the original 45 minute Video", per https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Kanongataa.ABC_.fairuse.motion.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Kanongata...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- phkahler 10y agoDo a 22 second highlight clip from an NFL game and see how far you get without their consent.
- freehunter 10y agoIf you do it just to show the video, that's not fair use. That's just copying. If you do it to highlight something newsworthy that you're currently reporting on? That's fair use. That's exactly what the court ruling says, that it's fair use because something newsworthy was happening.
- rhizome 10y agoRead the article: CPS took their baby away.
- freehunter 10y agoBut if they hadn't shared the video publicly, that person likely wouldn't have seen the video and wouldn't have reported them to CPS. If you've got any kind of legal problems, you should probably be a little more protective of your privacy.
- cr0sh 10y agoIf you read the comments below the article, the reason CPS was called was because someone recognised the couple from an earlier case. In 2015, they both were apparently arrested after blowing up a shed in their backyard while attempting to make "honey oil" (hash oil made using a solvent, typically butane or propane). Dome's kids (at the time) were taken away by CPS after the incident. Both Dome and her (now) baby-daddy were arrested, along with some other person.
- rhizome 10y agoSure, but my point is that it's more complicated than "mad because FB streamed the thing they were streaming."
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dec0dedab0de 10y agoGood to see a win for fair use. Don't broadcast publicly if you dont want it to be public.
- fenwick67 10y agoTell that to the NFL.
- AckSyn 10y agoEveryone has broadcasting rights. This man should as well.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoHonest question: Do you think Facebook's ToS grants him exclusive rights to anything Published or Broadcast to the General Public by way of their platform?
- fenwick67 10y agoThere is this to the contrary: " When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)"
- 6stringmerc 10y agoThanks for posting that - I was genuinely curious and I'm fairly certain what you quote is legally supportable against the personal broadcast rights notion in this case. The "newsworthy" threshold in Fair Use almost isn't needed, but certainly seems to help. I don't have any expectation of Copyright Ownership on whatever I broadcast on Periscope...different rights might be entailed (e.g. endorsement, use of likeness) but that public visible thing is hard to reconcile in this instance...and I think that's totally okay.
- 10y ago
- sciurus 10y agoCould we change the link to a better article, like https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/dad-who-live-streamed-his-sons-birth-on-facebook-loses-in-court/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/dad-who-live-str... ? The article on thememo.com leaves out key information, such as the fact that ABC broadcast only 22 seconds of the 45 minute video.
- swsieber 10y agoThe linked article also leaves out the fact that somebody recognized the mother and called CPS on him (for her history of domestic violence), while the Ars one includes it. It gives a different view to the incident. Edit: Recognized the mother, not the father.
- Avenger42 10y agoActually, they recognized the father, it seems: > Someone from a past relationship had recognized Kanongataa on Facebook and reported to CPS that he had domestic violence allegations against him. Kanongataa denies those allegations.
- stordoff 10y agoThe accuracy of the information it does include also seems somewhat suspect. For instance, it includes: > But most would understand why Kali Kanongataa didn’t want his child’s birth aired for all to see But according to http://www.mamamia.com.au/live-streamed-birth-by-accident/ http://www.mamamia.com.au/live-streamed-birth-by-accident/ (linked from the ArsTechnica article): > The Californian dad says he had only initially wanted his family in Tonga to be a part of the experience but once he realised [the video was publicly viewable] he decide to keep going. > Kanongata'a said that "for a second” he hesitated before leaving it for all to see.
- dang 10y agoSure. Url changed from http://www.thememo.com/2017/02/17/facebook-live-law-facebook-live-streaming-case-death-birth-kali-kanongataa/ http://www.thememo.com/2017/02/17/facebook-live-law-facebook.... Thanks! It's best to email hn@ycombinator.com with these requests because then we're sure to see it. I only saw this one randomly.
- pjc50 10y agoIt's become common practice for news organisations to just lift video and pictures from people's social media without permission, attribution or payment. Perhaps an effective technique against this is to make sure there's copyrighted music playing in your livestream. (Or does that get auto-killed by content watermarking?)
- amelius 10y agoAnd I have the feeling that if you would use public content from said news organizations without permission, things would turn out rather differently.
- djrogers 10y agoI dunno - youtube is filled with clips from newscasts...
- xenihn 10y agoIs the content featuring those clips actually being monetized by the uploaders?
- ThatGeoGuy 10y agoYes, there are numerous examples of "news channels" on Youtube which report on things that more mainstream sources have said or reported on already. Some examples would be Philip DeFranco, Scarce, etc.
- will_pseudonym 10y agoThis issue was a plot point in an episode of 30 Rock. "Meanwhile, Tracy Jordan (Tracy Morgan) pushes Liz Lemon's (Tina Fey) buttons as usual by not showing up to rehearsals and leaving work to do something insane. However, Tracy's demeanor instantly changes when a camera crew starts to follow him around for his wife's new reality show. He starts to act responsible and respectful in front of the cameras, as not to ruin his chances of winning an Oscar. Liz has the idea to use Tracy's fake good behavior to get him to do things he blew off in the past, knowing that he can't refuse while taped. This works until Tracy finds a loophole. When Liz tries to get Tracy to do more things, he refuses and insults Liz to the melody of "Uptown Girl" by Billy Joel. Since the song is copyrighted, any footage containing that song can't be used. Therefore, Tracy's irresponsibility wouldn't be aired on the show."[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Righteous_Cowboy_Lightning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Righteous_Cowboy_Lig...
- naskwo 10y agoAnd this is exactly why, 2 weeks ago, I put Famipix for Schools online. Free for all schools and institutions: Info & docs here: http://support.famipix.com/category/47-famipix-for-schools http://support.famipix.com/category/47-famipix-for-schools Signup here: https://famipix.com/schools https://famipix.com/schools Available in 8 languages.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago>This week’s ruling can therefore be taken to mean that if you use social media in a newsworthy way, it could be seized and shared, however personal the content. Good. This isn't a terribly high bar to clear, and it's directly related to public sharing / public performance type issues. Not even close to violating privacy rights like with a mistaken email forward - this was done by the person, intentional or unintentional, they opened it up. I'm glad to see Copyright still have merit in the court system when the case being brought - this one - clearly doesn't meet the standards for the purpose and intent of the law. Ex-post-facto-cash-grab still not strong legal strategy.
- npizzolato 10y ago> Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording, but decided to leave it that way. It would be one thing if he never realized he was broadcasting publicly. Once you realize something is public and decide to leave it up, I think you lose any moral authority to claim others shouldn't have any fair use claim to your public work.
- anigbrowl 10y agoI disagree. Here's a moral (not legal) argument: he was streaming something for free to share with friends and family, and decided that he was OK to share it with interested parties that were interested to witness a live birth. ABC is a corporate entity that exploited the footage for purely commercial purposes, as a way to attract attention to their news broadcast so they could sell advertising in the middle. This is a fundamentally different purpose from sharing it freely, and seeks to privatize what was previously given away unselfishly. I'm not going to spend time looking up individual cases now, but I can think of several examples of big media companies suing over equivalently short excerpts of their broadcast product were used by someone else, eg that time Fox demanded the producers of a documentary fork over some $$$ because one of the interviews took place in a room where a TV was displaying an episode of The simpsons in the background of the shot. So the moral argument rests on the vast disparity in wealth between the two entities. An individual human of modest wealth shared something freely in a spirit of generosity, and a aggregate entity of vast wealth exploited it for its commercial value but selfishly kept all the benefit to itself, callously ignoring the financial burden to the parents that typically entails upon childbirth. A firm run on more moral principles would have split the proceeds of the commercial activity with the creators.
- icebraining 10y agoLarge media companies are not very ethical; news at 11. How is that relevant to whether he should have a claim on it?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nicholasjarnold 10y agoThis story shouldn't surprise anyone here, but I can understand that the general public doesn't fully understand the implications of using a free platform to host/display their private information.
- partycoder 10y agoIn the Facebook terms of use it says: "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post" ...in addition to: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)."
- danieltillett 10y agoAm I the only one that thinks that taking a baby away from their mother one day after birth because of a domestic violence accusation by a third party against the father (and denied by him) is over the top?
- DanBC 10y agoThat might be over the top. Does the US publish these court cases? It would be interesting to see what the case actually is. Don't forget that infanticide is a leading cause of death of children under one Accidental death is another, and some of those are because the parents need help and support.
- danieltillett 10y agoWe have a situation where a third party has made an accusation of domestic violence, nobody has yet been convicted, the father denies it, and CPS takes one day to take the baby away from its mother? I would hope it would take more than an accusation from a potentially disgruntled ex-partner to cause this trauma on a mother and a baby.
- watwut 10y agoNo. Babies should be taken out of dangerous situation, but third party accusation should not be enough. Likely to harm the kid on itself.
- danieltillett 10y agoI agree that that babies should be taken out of dangerous situations, but was there any evidence that the baby was in harm? How could this possibly be determined by CPS one day after the birth? How much damage is done to the baby and mother by removing the baby from its mother. If this is SOP for CPS imagine how much damage a vindictive ex could cause?
- caltelt 10y agoLooks like you're both on the same page. "...but third party accusation should not be enough."
- jakobegger 10y agoThe last paragraph mentions that apparently child protective services took the baby after a day because the father was alleged to have a history of domestic violence. I was shocked when I read that. Does that actually happen? Is it common in the US that the authorities take newborn babies from their mother?
- DanBC 10y agoRemember that infanticide is a leading cause of death of infants, and accidental injury is another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services#Child_Protective_Services_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services#Chil... > On September 30, 2010, there were approximately 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S. of which 36% percent were ages 5 and under. During that same period, almost 120,000 birth to five year-olds entered foster care and a little under 100,000 exited foster care.[41]
- kapauldo 10y agoThat's gross and egotistical. For events like birth, privacy is what makes them special. Too much vanity in social media.