4 ms·

This did bring up a copyright question I haven't been able to resolve - is footage from a private security camera somehow owned by the owner of the camera? AFAI

This did bring up a copyright question I haven't been able to resolve - is footage from a private security camera somehow owned by the owner of the camera? AFAIK copyright is reserved for works of creative expression, so footage taken for non-creative purposes shouldn't be protected - is there some other mechanism to demand someone cease and desist sharing a video or an image once the cats out of the bag? IMO we could use something more flexible than revenge porn laws, that prevent noncensual use of your likeness, inc. impersonations of your face and voice. Fair use exceptions would obviously have to apply for newsworthy events otherwise Luigi could demand the cops take down his image during the manhunt :) (Similar question for Internet comments , since the bluesky-huggingface-kerfuffle I haven't been able to find a definitive answer if internet commentary is copyrighted creative expression or some other public domain shaped thing)

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Edit: I do think it would be good taste to censor death/murder footage in some cases such as this, I’ve not thought about it a tonne because I assume there’s a legitimate public interest case in some scenarios (political oppression footage, etc)
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  > I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Certainly. My layperson view is it would depend on intent. If you were to use trafficcamphotobooth.com to take a selfie on 14th Street, I think the fact that you went out in front of a particular surveillance cam and hit the save button would count as a copyrighted photo even tho the camera belongs to some other entity and was going to take the photo with or without you. (Edited) Edit: going back to remind myself of the basics, creative expression is not the basis for copyright, but "original works of authorsbip', although '''The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity.''' - this in the case determining that phonebooks are merely collections of facts and therefore not protected works. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
- gruez 2y ago
  >Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Not tested in court. >Security cameras, webcams, camera traps and other pre-positioned recording devices capture whatever happens to take place in their field of view. This raises the question as to whether their recordings are an original and therefore copyrighted work. For example, "[i]f a security camera mounted in a lobby, recording 24 hours a day, captured a dramatic event, the video could be uncopyrighted."[2] >This question remains untested in the United States. In the 2008 United States district court case Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman, the casino filed suit for copyright infringement on the use of their surveillance video, but the defendant argued in a motion that the surveillance video lacked the sufficient creativity needed to secure copyright protection.[3][4] However, the case was never heard as a separate tribal court ruled that the tribes, rather than the casino, owned the footage.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Well that settles it, the matter is unsettled! Thanks for the pointer.
  - mh- 2y ago
    Southwest v Flyingman sounds like a parody case from the Grand Theft Auto universe.
gosub100 2y ago
Probably the fact that police released the footage to the media would be enough to remove copyright. Just a guess.
- gruez 2y ago
  That doesn't follow. The police wasn't the author of the work (ie. the footage), so the copyright belongs to whoever created it. The police also can't unilaterally seize the copyright of a random work to help a manhunt, so I'm not sure how the act of them distributing the work puts it in the public domain.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Copyright can belong to the author but still be redistributed on the evening news, fair use makes an explicit carve out for news reporting - whether surveillance footage is 'authored' in the first place is my question, I would argue it lacks originality.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Copyright can belong to the author but still be redistributed on the evening news, fair use makes an explicit carve out for news reporting The parent commenter was actually arguing for stronger than that, ie. "remove copyright". That implies the work loses all copyright protections, not just granting news organizations permission to redistribute.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    >The police also can't unilaterally seize the copyright of a random work to help a manhunt if the suspect is armed and dangerous and public safety is at stake, or they want to use the footage in court, yes they can use the footage without worrying about copyright (which is not seizing the copyright)

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago

Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Edit: I do think it would be good taste to censor death/murder footage in some cases such as this, I’ve not thought about it a tonne because I assume there’s a legitimate public interest case in some scenarios (political oppression footage, etc)

jazzyjackson 2y ago
> I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Certainly. My layperson view is it would depend on intent. If you were to use trafficcamphotobooth.com to take a selfie on 14th Street, I think the fact that you went out in front of a particular surveillance cam and hit the save button would count as a copyrighted photo even tho the camera belongs to some other entity and was going to take the photo with or without you. (Edited) Edit: going back to remind myself of the basics, creative expression is not the basis for copyright, but "original works of authorsbip', although '''The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity.''' - this in the case determining that phonebooks are merely collections of facts and therefore not protected works. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
gruez 2y ago
>Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Not tested in court. >Security cameras, webcams, camera traps and other pre-positioned recording devices capture whatever happens to take place in their field of view. This raises the question as to whether their recordings are an original and therefore copyrighted work. For example, "[i]f a security camera mounted in a lobby, recording 24 hours a day, captured a dramatic event, the video could be uncopyrighted."[2] >This question remains untested in the United States. In the 2008 United States district court case Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman, the casino filed suit for copyright infringement on the use of their surveillance video, but the defendant argued in a motion that the surveillance video lacked the sufficient creativity needed to secure copyright protection.[3][4] However, the case was never heard as a separate tribal court ruled that the tribes, rather than the casino, owned the footage.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Well that settles it, the matter is unsettled! Thanks for the pointer.
- mh- 2y ago
  Southwest v Flyingman sounds like a parody case from the Grand Theft Auto universe.

gosub100 2y ago

Probably the fact that police released the footage to the media would be enough to remove copyright. Just a guess.

gruez 2y ago
That doesn't follow. The police wasn't the author of the work (ie. the footage), so the copyright belongs to whoever created it. The police also can't unilaterally seize the copyright of a random work to help a manhunt, so I'm not sure how the act of them distributing the work puts it in the public domain.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Copyright can belong to the author but still be redistributed on the evening news, fair use makes an explicit carve out for news reporting - whether surveillance footage is 'authored' in the first place is my question, I would argue it lacks originality.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Copyright can belong to the author but still be redistributed on the evening news, fair use makes an explicit carve out for news reporting The parent commenter was actually arguing for stronger than that, ie. "remove copyright". That implies the work loses all copyright protections, not just granting news organizations permission to redistribute.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >The police also can't unilaterally seize the copyright of a random work to help a manhunt if the suspect is armed and dangerous and public safety is at stake, or they want to use the footage in court, yes they can use the footage without worrying about copyright (which is not seizing the copyright)