3 ms·
> He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera
by chipotle_coyote 5y ago
> He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely.
IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
- jollybean 5y agoJust the opposite. The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material. There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself. This thread is full of absurd arguments.