4 ms·
Wouldn't it be similar to any copyright protection claim, similar to YouTube (or Napster, or LimeWire, or MegaUpload, or...)? If they don't legally have the ri
by OnlineGladiator 7y ago
Wouldn't it be similar to any copyright protection claim, similar to YouTube (or Napster, or LimeWire, or MegaUpload, or...)? If they don't legally have the right to share the media, the default action is to remove it without even investigating the claim (because of the scale Facebook and YouTube operate at).
Assuming Facebook cannot legally host the media, and they choose to do so after being informed of its contention, they are choosing to say they are legally in the clear (or that they don't care about the law, which seems a lot more likely).
IANAL, but it seems simple enough on the surface. Of course Facebook will claim otherwise, and without being required to make it easy to report contentious media very few people will actually do so, and sharing a photo without permission is not the same as copyright protection. I still think the same basic logic applies though.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoCase law already exists on the right of people who appear in photos to stop the photographer from publishing the photos; the issue is not original to the internet at all. If I recall correctly, there is no such right, because it would effectively eliminate photography.
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoThis only applies in a public setting though (or anywhere where privacy is not to be expected). So any photos taken of friends/strangers in the privacy of one's home (or car, or work, or...) would be exempt, as I understand it.
- bilbo0s 7y agoThere is no right if the photograph was taken in public, in private it's a much different story.