4 ms·

I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had r

I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had received legal permission (if not hired actors to pose). If these jerks are filming and posing unwilling participants in their product, that seems pretty easy to remedy. I remember a few years ago pornhub had a decision to get positive consent from people in videos to prevent revenge porn and other types of content. I guess TikTok needs something similar for videos with1M+ views. It seems TikTokpays out between 2 and 4 cents per thousand views [0]. So if this video has 59M views it seems the creator made between $1,180 and $2,360. So should be a simple small claims lawsuit. Maybe add in treble damages. What would be really fun is to use the messed up class action lawsuit apparatus to create a class of victims that are in these videos that are uncompensated and just sue TikTok directly. I like how the creator offered to take the video down, if asked. No apology and no offer to give back the money he made from the video. [0] https://www.thetealmango.com/technology/how-much-does-tiktok-pay/ https://www.thetealmango.com/technology/how-much-does-tiktok...

naillo 4y ago
If you film in public places (depending on the country) it's often legal. Still really rude though and should be socially discouraged.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  Public spaces like malls require a permit/location release for a commercial shoot on the property, and social media is increasingly commercial. I would be surprised if there were no lawsuits to this effect yet.
  - nkozyra 4y ago
    I don't think there's much case for a lawsuit. The mall has a right to kick you out for doing so but once it's done there's not much legal recourse in the U.S.
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      In the US you'd need permission to film the location, and without a release you could be stopped from using the video commercially (social media can count as commercial use if the uploader profits from views) This can cover public places too, some localities require a permit to film a public place for commercial use.
      - duncan_idaho 4y ago
        Some courts have ruled requiring permits and fees for commercial filming constitute 1st amendment violations because they are content-based restrictions on free speech.
        zeroonetwothree 4y ago
        Commercial speech is generally less protected so this seems questionable. Also how is it content based?
        micromacrofoot 4y ago
        Yeah it's definitely questionable... but banning someone using your images commercially feels right to me, especially in the context of this kind of exploitation. It isn't as blatant as creepshots, but it feels abusive. We can't hold so tightly to free speech that it erodes reasonable individual rights, but what's "reasonable" is often a grey area. Worth debating.
      - anotherman554 4y ago
        I think the issue with getting a release is it shields you from litigation. It doesn't necessarily mean you'd lose the litigation if you didn't get the release, but a business is not going to want to take the risk they'd have litigation hanging over their head preventing the exploitation of the intellectual property asset. A journalist presumably isn't going to be getting permission to film, they are going to show up to where the news is and film.
        4y ago
- robg 4y ago
  It’s not necessarily illegal (criminal) it’s the potential damages for the civil offense (using her likeness without her consent causing untold losses to her).
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> I like how the creator offered to take the video down, if asked. No apology and no offer to give back the money he made from the video. I'm sure he would, so long as she gave back the flowers.
- boffinAudio 4y ago
  She should auction off the flowers.
oefrha 4y ago
Stupid hidden camera videos have been viral on YouTube for more than a decade, and YouTube pays out (a lot?) more for views. If no lawyer has milked this angle yet, I highly doubt it’s profitable.
mmcconnell1618 4y ago
The consent issue is even worse with live streaming available on many platforms. It is impossible for people captured in live streams to provide consent until after the content has been broadcast. You can make the argument for fair use in public spaces but once the "host" starts to interact with people, they are forcing people to be participants in their video without consent.
gnopgnip 4y ago
Media releases are really only needed for advertisements. Commercially exploiting a likeness means more than just the video being sold or making money in the US and most western countries. There would need to be an association with a product or brand and the likeness, and it isn’t always clear when this is met
Roguy 4y ago
>I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? Despite using the same terminology as copyright law, the rights photographers have are different and the use of terminology is different. To use the USA as an example because it's easier, photographers always have the right take photos on public property and they do not need consent to do so, and they also have the right to publish those photos and do not need consent to do so. Traditionally publishing would have meant publishing to print or broadcast media (i.e., news) where commercial activity is inherently implied. Today, publishing would also include posting to a blog, social media, sites like YouTube, etc. Where photographers usually need consent is using those images commercially, however since they already have the right to publish (and to profit from) images, what commercial use in this context means is to use those images in advertising, to use those images in merchandise, to sell those photos to image libraries (think stock photography websites), etc. This is in contrast to copyright law where there's no publish/commercial distinction and where a licence prohibiting commercial use prohibits selling that work. Of course none of that applies here, it was filmed on private property where the mall owner likely requires consent before people can take photos, and also because it's Australia which doesn't give blanket permission for people to take and publish photos without consent. However if Australia is anything like the UK the restrictions are that you can't take photos, or publish photos, of people that have an expectation of privacy, although this was filmed in a public place so there's likely no expectation to privacy.

naillo 4y ago

If you film in public places (depending on the country) it's often legal. Still really rude though and should be socially discouraged.

strogonoff 4y ago
Public spaces like malls require a permit/location release for a commercial shoot on the property, and social media is increasingly commercial. I would be surprised if there were no lawsuits to this effect yet.
- nkozyra 4y ago
  I don't think there's much case for a lawsuit. The mall has a right to kick you out for doing so but once it's done there's not much legal recourse in the U.S.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    In the US you'd need permission to film the location, and without a release you could be stopped from using the video commercially (social media can count as commercial use if the uploader profits from views) This can cover public places too, some localities require a permit to film a public place for commercial use.
    - duncan_idaho 4y ago
      Some courts have ruled requiring permits and fees for commercial filming constitute 1st amendment violations because they are content-based restrictions on free speech.
      - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
        Commercial speech is generally less protected so this seems questionable. Also how is it content based?
      - micromacrofoot 4y ago
        Yeah it's definitely questionable... but banning someone using your images commercially feels right to me, especially in the context of this kind of exploitation. It isn't as blatant as creepshots, but it feels abusive. We can't hold so tightly to free speech that it erodes reasonable individual rights, but what's "reasonable" is often a grey area. Worth debating.
    - anotherman554 4y ago
      I think the issue with getting a release is it shields you from litigation. It doesn't necessarily mean you'd lose the litigation if you didn't get the release, but a business is not going to want to take the risk they'd have litigation hanging over their head preventing the exploitation of the intellectual property asset. A journalist presumably isn't going to be getting permission to film, they are going to show up to where the news is and film.
      - 4y ago
robg 4y ago
It’s not necessarily illegal (criminal) it’s the potential damages for the civil offense (using her likeness without her consent causing untold losses to her).

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> I like how the creator offered to take the video down, if asked. No apology and no offer to give back the money he made from the video. I'm sure he would, so long as she gave back the flowers.

boffinAudio 4y ago
She should auction off the flowers.

oefrha 4y ago

Stupid hidden camera videos have been viral on YouTube for more than a decade, and YouTube pays out (a lot?) more for views. If no lawyer has milked this angle yet, I highly doubt it’s profitable.

mmcconnell1618 4y ago

The consent issue is even worse with live streaming available on many platforms. It is impossible for people captured in live streams to provide consent until after the content has been broadcast. You can make the argument for fair use in public spaces but once the "host" starts to interact with people, they are forcing people to be participants in their video without consent.

gnopgnip 4y ago

Media releases are really only needed for advertisements. Commercially exploiting a likeness means more than just the video being sold or making money in the US and most western countries. There would need to be an association with a product or brand and the likeness, and it isn’t always clear when this is met

Roguy 4y ago

>I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? Despite using the same terminology as copyright law, the rights photographers have are different and the use of terminology is different. To use the USA as an example because it's easier, photographers always have the right take photos on public property and they do not need consent to do so, and they also have the right to publish those photos and do not need consent to do so. Traditionally publishing would have meant publishing to print or broadcast media (i.e., news) where commercial activity is inherently implied. Today, publishing would also include posting to a blog, social media, sites like YouTube, etc. Where photographers usually need consent is using those images commercially, however since they already have the right to publish (and to profit from) images, what commercial use in this context means is to use those images in advertising, to use those images in merchandise, to sell those photos to image libraries (think stock photography websites), etc. This is in contrast to copyright law where there's no publish/commercial distinction and where a licence prohibiting commercial use prohibits selling that work. Of course none of that applies here, it was filmed on private property where the mall owner likely requires consent before people can take photos, and also because it's Australia which doesn't give blanket permission for people to take and publish photos without consent. However if Australia is anything like the UK the restrictions are that you can't take photos, or publish photos, of people that have an expectation of privacy, although this was filmed in a public place so there's likely no expectation to privacy.