7 ms·

I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not. For example, you c

by qha34h 6mo ago

I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not. For example, you cannot just use public material with recognizable people in advertisements without their consent. Meta is likely to use material from these spy devices to build real world networks and use it commercially. These "glasses" should be outlawed. The only useful purpose is to immediately identify the wearer as an asshole.

dataflow 6mo ago
Are all commercial uses illegal or only those that display your likeness?
- shagie 6mo ago
  A news broadcast for a commercially run news network does not need releases nor does it need to compensate people who walk through the background. Likewise, journalistic photographs (for commercial use) are legal and don't require releases or compensation for people who are part of the scene. https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf (note the credentials in the lower right corner - and if you want to know more I'd suggest https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm ) The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
sebmellen 6mo ago
Is it really true that commercial use of film taken from public places is not allowed without consent? Is there a case law or a specific statute on this? Would love to read more.
- recursivecaveat 6mo ago
  Are far as I can tell: people in the footage can collect damages as long as they're identifiable. Meaning that you could easily tell afterwards that the complainant is the one in the footage used. So a shot of a sports crowd is probably okay, though I imagine they have people sign off on some kind of T&C that covers that anyway. On the other hand walking-down-the-street footage you would need releases from those people.
  - repiret 6mo ago
    Assuming you mean in the United Stares, can you cite a specific law or court case to support your position? It occurs to me that the existence of paparazzi seems to be evidence against your position.
    - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
      Paparazzi get sued for crossing lines all the time. Good ones know exactly how far they can push the boundary and are careful to stay close to it
    - recursivecaveat 6mo ago
      Not federal, but this: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ To be clear by 'commercial purposes', it's advertising/promotion/marketing. Paparazzi photos would be alright by that bar. I presume the idea is to avoid any implied endorsement by those photographed.
    - mminer237 6mo ago
      It's called the right of publicity. Basically the idea that you're entitled to compensation to for commercial use of your likeness. AFAIK, you always have to be recognizable to sue over it as you have to see your likeness, and damages would be pretty minor if you're not famous or an actor anyway. It depends on the state but generally it does have to be in advertising.
- hackingonempty 6mo ago
paxys 6mo ago
So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?
- neya 6mo ago
  Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?
  - 0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
    If you're a TikToker, absolutely
    - probably_wrong 6mo ago
      I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1]. He was definitely filming everyone without our consent. [1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol
      - kstrauser 6mo ago
        “Hey security, I think that guy was filming young girls. Please eject him.”
      - probably_wrong 6mo ago
        The link is missing an e: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole
    - neya 6mo ago
      TikTokers aren't exactly the gold standards of society nor is being a TikToker a free card to violate people's privacy though. What's to say if someone confronts and requests the TikToker to stop recording them without their permission?
DoneWithAllThat 6mo ago
> I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not As a general statement about the law this is not correct. And that’s even before we get to the next paragraph where you just wildly speculate and use that as buttressing the already false premise.
justkys 6mo ago
[dead]

by qha34h 6mo ago

dataflow 6mo ago

Are all commercial uses illegal or only those that display your likeness?

shagie 6mo ago
A news broadcast for a commercially run news network does not need releases nor does it need to compensate people who walk through the background. Likewise, journalistic photographs (for commercial use) are legal and don't require releases or compensation for people who are part of the scene. https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf (note the credentials in the lower right corner - and if you want to know more I'd suggest https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm ) The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

sebmellen 6mo ago

Is it really true that commercial use of film taken from public places is not allowed without consent? Is there a case law or a specific statute on this? Would love to read more.

recursivecaveat 6mo ago
Are far as I can tell: people in the footage can collect damages as long as they're identifiable. Meaning that you could easily tell afterwards that the complainant is the one in the footage used. So a shot of a sports crowd is probably okay, though I imagine they have people sign off on some kind of T&C that covers that anyway. On the other hand walking-down-the-street footage you would need releases from those people.
- repiret 6mo ago
  Assuming you mean in the United Stares, can you cite a specific law or court case to support your position? It occurs to me that the existence of paparazzi seems to be evidence against your position.
  - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
    Paparazzi get sued for crossing lines all the time. Good ones know exactly how far they can push the boundary and are careful to stay close to it
  - recursivecaveat 6mo ago
    Not federal, but this: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ To be clear by 'commercial purposes', it's advertising/promotion/marketing. Paparazzi photos would be alright by that bar. I presume the idea is to avoid any implied endorsement by those photographed.
  - mminer237 6mo ago
    It's called the right of publicity. Basically the idea that you're entitled to compensation to for commercial use of your likeness. AFAIK, you always have to be recognizable to sue over it as you have to see your likeness, and damages would be pretty minor if you're not famous or an actor anyway. It depends on the state but generally it does have to be in advertising.
hackingonempty 6mo ago

paxys 6mo ago

So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?

neya 6mo ago
Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?
- 0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
  If you're a TikToker, absolutely
  - probably_wrong 6mo ago
    I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1]. He was definitely filming everyone without our consent. [1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol
    - kstrauser 6mo ago
      “Hey security, I think that guy was filming young girls. Please eject him.”
    - probably_wrong 6mo ago
      The link is missing an e: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole
  - neya 6mo ago
    TikTokers aren't exactly the gold standards of society nor is being a TikToker a free card to violate people's privacy though. What's to say if someone confronts and requests the TikToker to stop recording them without their permission?

DoneWithAllThat 6mo ago

> I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not As a general statement about the law this is not correct. And that’s even before we get to the next paragraph where you just wildly speculate and use that as buttressing the already false premise.

justkys 6mo ago

[dead]