4 ms·
I think you should read the article again. They plaintiffs were not "extras in the background" of the photos/videos they were the subjects.
by Ensorceled 14y ago
I 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.