4 ms·

Well if we want to go down that road, the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark. And from my understanding (I don’t know since I ref

Well if we want to go down that road, the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark. And from my understanding (I don’t know since I refuse to and didn’t watch the video) there were minors in the footage. Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages. So, yeah, people cannot post and disseminate these videos even if the event occurred here in the US. In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies.

Amezarak 8y ago
Under US law none of that matters - whether it occurred in a private place or whether minors were involved doesn’t matter. Even the shooter’s copyright claim, if he wanted to exercise it, would be irrelevant because of the news reporting aspect.
gruez 8y ago
I was bitten by a sibling comment, so I'll preface this with: IANAL, this applies to US, but could apply to NZ as well. Feel free to correct me (with sources). >the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark The relevant doctrine here would be expectation of privacy[1]. You're right that it's not a public landmark, but I argue it's still a public place considering that there are dozens of strangers around and you can come and go as you please (they don't seem to check membership), thus you don't really have any expectation that it's private. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy >there were minors in the footage There is a legal doctrine that gives special treatment to minors? >Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages This could work, although you could argue that the poster himself isn't making any money so it's okay. Also, if this did work, I'd expect way more public freakout videos to be taken down off video platforms by their subjects, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. At the very least you could sidestep this issue by hosting it offsite or via torrent/ipfs. >In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies. This is only true because the author hasn't yet given explicit permission for people to use it. He's alive in jail right now, so this could easily be rendered moot by him proclaiming (via a lawyer) that he releases the video to the public domain (which I'm sure he would do). Even if he didn't give permission (eg. he got killed), copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the author (or his estate) can go after violators. The state sure wouldn't be able to send takedown requests using this method.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Amezarak 8y ago

Under US law none of that matters - whether it occurred in a private place or whether minors were involved doesn’t matter. Even the shooter’s copyright claim, if he wanted to exercise it, would be irrelevant because of the news reporting aspect.

gruez 8y ago

I was bitten by a sibling comment, so I'll preface this with: IANAL, this applies to US, but could apply to NZ as well. Feel free to correct me (with sources). >the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark The relevant doctrine here would be expectation of privacy[1]. You're right that it's not a public landmark, but I argue it's still a public place considering that there are dozens of strangers around and you can come and go as you please (they don't seem to check membership), thus you don't really have any expectation that it's private. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy >there were minors in the footage There is a legal doctrine that gives special treatment to minors? >Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages This could work, although you could argue that the poster himself isn't making any money so it's okay. Also, if this did work, I'd expect way more public freakout videos to be taken down off video platforms by their subjects, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. At the very least you could sidestep this issue by hosting it offsite or via torrent/ipfs. >In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies. This is only true because the author hasn't yet given explicit permission for people to use it. He's alive in jail right now, so this could easily be rendered moot by him proclaiming (via a lawyer) that he releases the video to the public domain (which I'm sure he would do). Even if he didn't give permission (eg. he got killed), copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the author (or his estate) can go after violators. The state sure wouldn't be able to send takedown requests using this method.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]