Opinion It should be legal to whack anyone's phones away if they're recording you without your consent

tenniswhiz said:
Germany has better laws:
https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

“
What happens if I don't follow the rules?
The punishment is a fine, or up to 2 years in prison1, 2. People rarely go to prison, but fines and lawsuits are common1. In some cases, your camera can be confiscated1.

The subject of the photo can sue for damages1. They have 3 years to do this1. The 3 year period starts from the last time the picture was distributed1. Both the photographer and the publisher (including websites) can be sued1. You might have to pay for the victim's legal costs1, 2.”
Click to expand...



Literally disgusting. Why do you have freedom?
 
HereticBD said:
Not sure about that. You have to get releases under certain circumstances. I'm not 100% sure on what those circumstances are, but I imagine it has something to with profiting from from it. You'll see faces blurred out on "reality" based shows, like "The Eric Andre Show" for instance, because they couldn't get releases from those people, even if they were just in the background. They didn't give their consent to be broadcast, and could sue if they showed their faces on TV.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's typically that they aren't allowed to profit off your image without your permission. Variation from nation to nation of course, but usually strictly defined as commercial use. So they can't use it in an advertising campaign or sell it in a commercial production, but youtube/tiktok views and news wouldn't count. At least not in any developed nation that I'm aware of.
 
No.

How ever there might be a legal way to get back at them. If you can prove they made any money in anyway from your likeness you may be able to take them to court to get compensation. Depends on how bad you want to get back at them. Make a deal with some lawyer they can have all the money they win except for a dollar if they make their life miserable.
 
Ruprecht said:
Yeah, I think it's typically that they aren't allowed to profit off your image without your permission. Variation from nation to nation of course, but usually strictly defined as commercial use. So they can't use it in an advertising campaign or sell it in a commercial production, but youtube/tiktok views and news wouldn't count. At least not in any developed nation that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...

It would be a test case but like I said if you can prove they profited from it in anyway you might have a case.
 
It depends on what the laws of your state say about first-party recording.
 
We just need brainlets to stop watching stupid shit like that in the first place. 50m views because you gave someone flowers in public? When shit like this gets millions of views (and more importantly, money) it will never stop.
 
oldshadow said:
It would be a test case but like I said if you can prove they profited from it in anyway you might have a case.
Click to expand...

I know here it wouldn't count unless they introduce an amendment to the privacy act. The sort of indirect income that news broadcasters get from advertising revenue for instance, doesn't count.
 
Ruprecht said:
Yeah, I think it's typically that they aren't allowed to profit off your image without your permission. Variation from nation to nation of course, but usually strictly defined as commercial use. So they can't use it in an advertising campaign or sell it in a commercial production, but youtube/tiktok views and news wouldn't count. At least not in any developed nation that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...

I always wondered that about social media, and where that line is drawn, since people are profiting off of such things, and they're not all "news" shows, and Youtube is far from no profit "public access" shit. Like, I don't see a big difference between a prank show on Youtube and one on Comedy Central. Yet, it seems like the one on Comedy Central has to follow a lot more rules, even though the other channel is doing the same thing.
 
HereticBD said:
I always wondered that about social media, and where that line is drawn, since people are profiting off of such things, and they're not all "news" shows, and Youtube is far from no profit "public access" shit. Like, I don't see a big difference between a prank show on Youtube and one on Comedy Central. Yet, it seems like the one on Comedy Central has to follow a lot more rules, even though the other channel is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...


WTF is "news" vs entertainment? It is all the same. And it is all protected under freedom of press. How do people not understand the 1st Amendment? It is the first fucking law of the land. LMAO.
 
Strychnine said:
It depends on what the laws of your state say about first-party recording.
Click to expand...


State laws cannot supercede the Constitution. States can be sued, will have to go to Federal court and will lose and have their laws changed.

But because most states are bitches, they settle and pay after someone's rights have been violated to keep their illegal laws on the books. They don't want to get destroyed and exposed.
 
They at the very least should not be able to monetize your likeness, which is exactly what they're doing.
 
HereticBD said:
I always wondered that about social media, and where that line is drawn, since people are profiting off of such things, and they're not all "news" shows, and Youtube is far from no profit "public access" shit. Like, I don't see a big difference between a prank show on Youtube and one on Comedy Central. Yet, it seems like the one on Comedy Central has to follow a lot more rules, even though the other channel is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with the companies involved just wanting to make sure no sues and ties up unnecessary time/money in legal expenses.
 
25 characters said:
protest-kick.gif
Click to expand...
He gave him a chance to leave with all that starting lag, that guy filming deserved to feel the force of the Rainbow Roundhouse.
 
When in public, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you're out and about, anyone can film you for any reason.

Smacking their phones out of their hands would be considered to be assault and would subject you to arrest.
 
I think the law should simply change to you can’t monetize film without participant consent. If people want to film those committing a crime or random people in public oh well. If they bait an unsuspecting person they should need signed consent to make money off it.
 
DanSavage said:
When in public, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy. If you're out and about, anyone can film you for any reason.

Smacking their phones out of their hands would be considered to be assault and would subject you to arrest.
Click to expand...
Lol, you think you can run around taking upskirt photos of chicks because they left their house?

You also can't install toilet cams in public bathrooms either.
 
Ruprecht said:
Yeah, I think it's typically that they aren't allowed to profit off your image without your permission. Variation from nation to nation of course, but usually strictly defined as commercial use. So they can't use it in an advertising campaign or sell it in a commercial production, but youtube/tiktok views and news wouldn't count. At least not in any developed nation that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
But it should count on YT and TT. Those are the same thing and just an evolution of commercial production. Those videos are often highly edited with high production value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hog-train
Social Based Breakdancing Dad vs Spoiled Influencer Daughter
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
Blunderbuss
Blunderbuss

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,159
Messages
55,472,051
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top