4 ms·

I'm not American, so maybe there's something I don't know about here... but cops sue for "invasion of privacy" for being filmed? Aren't they persons in public

by hooby 4y ago

I'm not American, so maybe there's something I don't know about here... but cops sue for "invasion of privacy" for being filmed? Aren't they persons in public practice, while on duty? How can official police work be "private"? A police officer on duty is a public figure. Of course they should get full privacy off duty... but while on the job shouldn't there be transparency about what they do?

kkarakk 4y ago
read the article, they're not suing for being filmed
- hooby 4y ago
  Well they are suing for multiple things, including commercial use of the filmed material. But that's not the "invasion of privacy" part.
prmoustache 4y ago
From a non american perspective, having cops banging a door for a warrant search while they could, you know, ring the bell, is already something weird. I imagine that is why they added the fake kidnapping part, to justify it by some fantasy imminent danger. I'd be curious to know who whas the invented victim in that case.
- ajhurliman 4y ago
  There are probably some situations where breaking down a door is the right move, like serving an arrest warrant against an actively hostile, armed gang that has a history of shooting at the police. It’s likely that they’ll be killed before being arrested so giving them advance warning that police have arrived seems dumb. Afroman, however, doesn’t appear to meet these criteria.
Ekaros 4y ago
All their work product including acting on this film should be in public domain. As it is produce by state or governmentally hired actor.
entwife 4y ago
In the US it is allowed to take photos of people and publish them, in public. Wikimedia commons has a table of laws here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi... The question is whether Afroman's use of the officers' images is for-profit, or if it can be categorized as educational or journalistic. I am in favor of the latter characterization, as I found the videos newsworthy and educational, and illustrate problems with policing that I have primarily heard about by word of mouth.
- public_defender 4y ago
  > “As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including all profits derived from and attributable to Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ personas, and have suffered humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment, and loss of reputation,” the lawsuit said. What is super interesting to me is the damages theory, which is apparently that the cops themselves had the right to profit from their likenesses so Afroman making money damaged them. Let's parse this out: these police personas don't have inherent value--nobody would pay for a picture of one of these people on his way to the laundromat. There is also nothing interesting about their behavior in the abstract. For example, it's not like they broke into his house and recited original poetry, which he then sold in his own poetry book. Afroman repurposed the harmful conduct of police into an artistic work. The value of their conduct to the artwork was that it was harmful to the artist. So their argument is that they were damaged when he profited from the harm they caused because they had the right to profit from that harm instead? It's nothing more than an erotic fantasy of mine, but it is possible to sanction the lawyer who filed this pleading under FRCP 11 or whatever is the local equivalent.

by hooby 4y ago

kkarakk 4y ago

read the article, they're not suing for being filmed

hooby 4y ago
Well they are suing for multiple things, including commercial use of the filmed material. But that's not the "invasion of privacy" part.

prmoustache 4y ago

From a non american perspective, having cops banging a door for a warrant search while they could, you know, ring the bell, is already something weird. I imagine that is why they added the fake kidnapping part, to justify it by some fantasy imminent danger. I'd be curious to know who whas the invented victim in that case.

ajhurliman 4y ago
There are probably some situations where breaking down a door is the right move, like serving an arrest warrant against an actively hostile, armed gang that has a history of shooting at the police. It’s likely that they’ll be killed before being arrested so giving them advance warning that police have arrived seems dumb. Afroman, however, doesn’t appear to meet these criteria.

Ekaros 4y ago

All their work product including acting on this film should be in public domain. As it is produce by state or governmentally hired actor.

entwife 4y ago

In the US it is allowed to take photos of people and publish them, in public. Wikimedia commons has a table of laws here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi... The question is whether Afroman's use of the officers' images is for-profit, or if it can be categorized as educational or journalistic. I am in favor of the latter characterization, as I found the videos newsworthy and educational, and illustrate problems with policing that I have primarily heard about by word of mouth.

public_defender 4y ago
> “As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including all profits derived from and attributable to Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ personas, and have suffered humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment, and loss of reputation,” the lawsuit said. What is super interesting to me is the damages theory, which is apparently that the cops themselves had the right to profit from their likenesses so Afroman making money damaged them. Let's parse this out: these police personas don't have inherent value--nobody would pay for a picture of one of these people on his way to the laundromat. There is also nothing interesting about their behavior in the abstract. For example, it's not like they broke into his house and recited original poetry, which he then sold in his own poetry book. Afroman repurposed the harmful conduct of police into an artistic work. The value of their conduct to the artwork was that it was harmful to the artist. So their argument is that they were damaged when he profited from the harm they caused because they had the right to profit from that harm instead? It's nothing more than an erotic fantasy of mine, but it is possible to sanction the lawyer who filed this pleading under FRCP 11 or whatever is the local equivalent.