3 ms·
That makes no sense. If I have the right to record a video, I also have the right to publish the video as well. Otherwise news outlets would never be able to
by bb88 8y ago
That makes no sense. If I have the right to record a video, I also have the right to publish the video as well.
Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
- detaro 8y agoThat's not a logical argument. I did not say you never have the right, you don't necessarily have it, so news publishing video doesn't mean anything about other cases. In most jurisdictions, news explicitly have "high-priority" rights (freedom of press etc) to publish things related to current issues even if they can't be published for other purposes. There's a reason things like model releases for photography and film exist: Having the copyright for something does not mean you have full freedom to use it. Again, in the US these rights tend to be limited, but even there they exist. E.g. while you can freely photograph in public (which is not the case everywhere in the world), you can't use people's image for advertising without permission, you can't freely use photos of artwork in public places or of some buildings, ..., all despite having the copyright on your images.
- bb88 8y agoWhile those are very good points, none of them seem to apply here in this specific case. In fact it's hard to see how his behavior is illegal, given today's laws. It might be creepy, but a lot of creepy things are not illegal.