3 ms·
It definitely seems like a spray and pray tactic, suing the host, site and users to see what sticks. I actually have no idea if there's any law one way or the o
by alanctgardner2 14y ago
It definitely seems like a spray and pray tactic, suing the host, site and users to see what sticks. I actually have no idea if there's any law one way or the other about using someone's likeness without their consent. If I was in an embarrassing, nonsexual video, could I have it taken down on any grounds? That seems like it would restrict free speech excessively.
That said, I hope they find something to nail these guys for.
- venomsnake 14y agoI think they have standing on copyright issues. Since they are (involuntarily) models and not signed a release.
- alanctgardner2 14y agoI suppose. But does every person in a video have copy right to it? For example, if I film a public street and put it on youtube, can anyone walking on the street take it down? Is there a test for a particular person performing some sort of act which is inherently creative, or otherwise the focus of the video, having more rights than say the extras in the background?
- Ensorceled 14y agoI think you should read the article again. They plaintiffs were not "extras in the background" of the photos/videos they were the subjects.
- alanctgardner2 14y agoWhat I meant was, what, if any, legal standing does someone have for being in a frame of video. If there was prior case law regarding this, they would have established an objective test which granted copyright or some protection to those deemed 'critical actors'. This is all speculation, I doubt if any such test exists. If it doesn't, the subject of videos and the extras in the background have the same standing. I don't know what standing that is. I'm just flailing my metaphorical arms hoping for a real lawyer to show up.