3 ms·
If I read it correctly, the article says "[...] amateur footage of recognizable people posted without consent" (emphasis mine), which changes the situation sign
by filoleg 4y ago
If I read it correctly, the article says "[...] amateur footage of recognizable people posted without consent" (emphasis mine), which changes the situation significantly.
This seems like a reasonable compromise that would allow those who want to stay anonymous while uploading their content to do just that. Most of them blur out their faces and keep face out of the frame for that exact reason anyway.
- Grustaf 4y agoSo you are still able to upload nude video of others, without their consent, as long as they are not recognizable? I don't find that reasonable at all.
- hulitu 4y agoWith cameras (or Android tablets) in every public toilet, i would not say they are not "recognizable". /s
- jwestbury 4y agoGenerally speaking -- no, in many jurisdictions. It sounds like this is about whether the site itself has confirmed consent, though?
- filoleg 4y agoLegally you aren't allowed to upload it, it's just the website won't have to request identity verification from you and won't get in trouble for it (as long as the people in the video are non-recognizable). So if law enforcement pings the website with "hey, this video was reported as being uploaded without consent by the person in it, you gotta remove it", they still gotta take it down, regardless. And the website will still get in trouble if they refuse.