Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Jersey Sues YouTube Over Crash Video

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the express-written-consent dept.

eldavojohn writes "The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) has sued YouTube and a number of other video sites for showing footage of a car crash that happened on the turnpike and was, therefore, property of the turnpike. The NJTA requested the footage be removed under the DMCA — which YouTube complied with — unfortunately, the video was copied to several other sites. The NJTA still seems to be targeting YouTube since YouTube 'did not try to prevent the very same video from being uploaded again by users immediately after it was purportedly removed.' We'll have to watch this closely and see if, even after you take down material violating the DMCA, you are at fault to any extent for people who already copied said material."

15 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. video of the crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Copyright this

    1. Re:video of the crash by lseltzer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the news article just above you dipshit. He had seizures. But even if he didn't he might have had a heart attack or some other diabling condition with sudden onset. You going to blame him for that?

    2. Re:video of the crash by aldheorte · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's pretty impressive how the toll booth structure absorbed the impact easily. The structure did not even wobble. It looks like a tollbooth operator would have been okay even in the booth that was hit, at least if there was no shrapnel from the explosion. No doubt concussed and shocked, but alive. I say good engineering on that one.

      Someone else said that the driver was having seizures several hours before the accident? Why was he driving? It's lucky that the tollbooth stopped him or he could have killed several other people. It's unfortunate he died, but fortunate no one else was hurt.

      By the way, watch the SUV that just goes on by through the EZ Pass at regular speed as if nothing happened. Just another day on the turnpike, I guess. Also, the nitwit running towards the flaming car might want to lookup what 'secondary explosion' means.

    3. Re:video of the crash by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Informative

      I find it unlikely that he had a seizure.

      Have you ever even seen anyone actually have a seizure? There are a whole spectrum of symptoms.

      I have seen two in the last 15 years. Both times, it was more like the person was just zoned out rather than what we typically think of (grand mal).

      One happened to a girl while she was skiing, and she just froze as she picked up speed and went through a fence at high speed without turning (or twitching or anything else). Scary as fuck to watch anyway.

      The other happened as I was talking to a co-worker, trying to get through some bureaucracy, and he just kind of zoned out for a couple of minutes and started drooling. Fortunately I realized what was going on and managed to help minimize his embarrassment when the seizure passed.

      It sounds to me that it could certainly have been a seizure, cop or not.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    4. Re:video of the crash by niiler · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could be wrong, but it looked to me like said nitwit had flashing lights on his/her car. I was going to comment on the impressive speed of first response until I realized that most toll-booths have cop cars at the ready.

  2. Video link by Exaton · · Score: 3, Informative

    Video is visible as part of a news report here : http://wcbstv.com/video?id=99739@wcbs.dayport.com& cid=2 (Flash required).

    Found through Yahoo! video.

  3. unadulterated video by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Copyright this!

  4. Higher quality version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.flicklife.com/81920c872c1787382f04/Driv er_slams_into_toll_booth_and_explodes.html

  5. Re:What copyright? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not if it's the obvious way of doing something. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, which held that no, Virginia, you don't obtain copyright protection just because you put some effort into something.

  6. "and was, therefore, property of the turnpike" by mary_will_grow · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the summary:

    Showing footage of a car crash that happened on the turnpike and was, therefore, property of the turnpike.

    No. They don't claim they own the footage because it happened on the turnpike, they claim it is their footage because it was an NJTA camera that recorded it. The summary's incorrect statement leads people to believe that the NJTA claims everything recorded by anyone on the turnpike is their property. Reading the first paragraph of the actual article dispelled that.

    Why do people submit stories and summaries before even understanding the target article?

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
  7. Re:What copyright? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    > I don't know the DMCA and how it relates to take down notices, but I recall from anouther
    > /. post on a different topic that you have to proceed with the take down no matter if it
    > is copyright material or not.

    This is not true. Nothing obligates you to obey a takedown notice. If you _do_ comply then you are immune to suit for copyright infringment but if you do not the putative copyright owner must still sue you and prove infringment. A takedown notice is just a letter from a lawyer. It isn't any sort of an official document.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  8. Re:What copyright? by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Informative

    FYI: It's called the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which allows you to get a copyright in something that is not creative just by putting a certain amount of work/money into it.. Other countries have it for copyright but the U.S. does not.

  9. May not be copyrightable at all. by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    This could be interesting if YouTube fights it. It's an open question under US law whether security camera images are copyrightable. See this legal article, note 153. The Supreme Court ruled in Feist vs. Rural Telephone that the data in phone books are not copyrightable; "The standard of originality is low, but it exists". So anybody can scan in a phone book and put the info into a database.

    That's a famous decision - whole industries are based on it. The Court ruled that originality is a constitutional requirement: "Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright 2.01[A], [B] (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer)."

    The output of a security camera has no author. That's the key here. Copyright must start with an author.

  10. Background on the crash by jokestress · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Killed in the crash last week was Bernard King, 52, of Lower Township, Cape May County... King, a dealer at the Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort, was traveling south on the parkway when he crashed into the Great Egg Harbor toll plaza in Somers Point around 8:30 a.m. on May 10... King's mother, Edna King, said her son had a seizure about three hours before the accident... King's car was traveling an estimated 65 mph when it hit the toll booth." Parkway officials investigate leaked video of fiery crash

    --
    Evil sig is livE.
    1. Re:Background on the crash by Random+Destruction · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought having seizures prevented one from getting/keeping a license. The guy I knew who had them wasn't allowed to get his license until he had been seizure free for a year. Certainly sounds like he shouldn't have been driving.

      --
      :x