5 ms·
It's pretty clearly fair use in the US.
by adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
It's pretty clearly fair use in the US.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoThe cops don't have a copyright claim. Fair use is irrelevant. Afroman owns a recording of factual events. He has the right to do with it as he pleases.
- throwaway290 4y agoIf I take a recognizable photo of you without you signing a model release and then I use it in a commercial work you can sue. Which the cops did in this case.
- duxup 4y agoI wonder how that works, I can photograph you in public, I can sell the photo. That’s legal.
- throwaway290 4y agoAre you a lawyer? It might be much less clear cut than you imply.
- duxup 4y agoIt might be more cut and dry than you imply.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y agohttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#United_States https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_id...
- duxup 4y agoI can’t tell what you want to say from a link. Depending on how much of that you read of that article you could come to different conclusions.
- actionfromafar 4y agoSo, are you saying it's not clear cut...
- duxup 4y agoI'm saying I don't know what you think the link means. The law may be clear cut ... who knows what the court will decide. I was saying I don't know what you think the link means, what you think /= the law.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y agoThe link means that laws may vary by jurisdiction, and so absolute or general statements may reflect your morality more than the facts of Afroman's case in Adams County.
- throwaway290 4y agoOh, another lawyer I see. Here you go anyway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
- duxup 4y agoShould I ask if you’re a lawyer now? Is that how this works? Maybe ask what law you're an expert in? It's sad to see the level of discourse on HN has dropped so low now. As for the actual topic I don’t know what you think the link means. That’s too general a topic to just just know what you’re trying to say.
- throwaway290 4y agoIANAL and that's my point, it's not an easy question with a clear cut answer;) if you say a legal issue is clear then you better know what you're talking about my friend, because they rarely are. If you think the article is too general, I think you have not read it. There is very practical information as to how this law works in various jurisdictions. You can also see Wikipedia for "model release". You will see contradictory information of course, because it's not a clear cut issue. But the takeaway is, if I take a video of you at a mall being weird and use it to make a viral music video on which I capitalize and which makes you uncomfortable, guess what you can (and should) sue me. Will you win? Maybe not, maybe yes, depends on how prominent your role is in the video I guess.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoRight, but they should have never been there in the first place. That warrant was complete bullshit
- throwaway290 4y agoIf you assault me first and then I take a photo of you and use it for commercial purposes it doesn't mean you can't sue. It just means I'd sue you back first for that other thing. But good luck suing cops in US...
- whinenot 4y agoThere may be a 'newsworthy' or 'artistic' exception here. In some jurisdictions, a photograph (or video) used for editorial purposes or for artistic purposes does not require a model release. Afroman has valid claims on both here.
- throwaway290 4y agoIf he doesn't make money from it then perhaps. If he does then idk
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoArtists and journalists make money. That's not a legal problem.
- throwaway290 4y agoThis is not a news agency from what I understand
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoOther than tacticool camoed up Taliban guy, most of the cops aren't recognizable.
- denton-scratch 4y agoHeh! Their names and addresses are public information, because they've gone all Streisand, and sued! It's interesting that so many of them share a surname.
- witheld 4y agoNope- that generally only applies if you’re a celebrity; or if otherwise your job is your image. The cops will lose this.
- VanTheBrand 4y agoThis is incorrect. For example, this happens all the time to celebrities. Someone takes their photo in public and sells it to magazines who publish the photo on the cover. They receive no money and have signed no release.
- 411111111111111 4y agoBad example for your argument, as these magazines constantly break the law by outright lying and publishing fabricated news stories. It's pretty much their business model to publish fake news. While they'll have to redact the articles later, they've already made their money by that time. While I can't speak for the legality of using photographs from people for profit without their consent, I'm sure that the magazines would still do it, even if it wasn't legal using the same tactics.
- DoctorOW 4y agoThere's no law against fake news specifically, just damages to reputation as a result of false claims. The legality of individual photos varies greatly, but overall most of the photos are legal as evidenced by the lack of successful lawsuits on the topic. Lawsuits are easier when you're talking about millionaire/billionaire celebrities.
- 411111111111111 4y agoI wasn't disagreeing with the point, I just felt the urge to be nitpicky and point out that the given example doesn't prove anything. The same excuse the magazines use for the articles would be just as applicable with these pictures, as we thought it was legit transfers directly over to we thought they'd given permission. It's all fine legally as long as the articles are retracted for missinformation What you're thinking of is getting damages/convictions because of the misinformation. That's indeed quiet hard and will require proving that you've actually been harmed, which is extremely challenging, generally speaking.
- anigbrowl 4y agoThat's because I'm a private person. Public servants don't have an expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.
- throwaway290 4y agoIt's not about privacy, you can record anyone in a public place, it's about publishing and monetizing work using someone's identity after.
- anigbrowl 4y agoPlease reread the second sentence all the way to the end.
- throwaway290 4y agoReread mine
- anigbrowl 4y agoI did. It's still wrong.
- gnopgnip 4y agoUsing it in a commercial work doesn't preclude editorial use. Virtually every magazine, newspaper is a commercial work for example
- DoctorOW 4y agoThere are exceptions for recording events on your own property. Do you think every time security footage ends up on the news that the TV station is breaking the law?
- throwaway290 4y agoIs Afronan a news agency?
- loeg 4y agoFair use? It's the man's own recording; he has copyright. He also has a right to record in his own home. The police should lose, but unfortunately Ohio lacks an anti-SLAPP law. (It will likely not be an expensive loss for the cops, and it will be an unnecessarily expensive victory for Afroman.)
- aperson_hello 4y agoOn the bright side in this situation, he's going to monetize the crap out of this. He'll end up ahead in the end unlike the vast majority of people that find themselves as a target of the police.