New Jersey Sues YouTube Over Crash Video

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."

Comments

What copyright?

[russotto]

It's an automated camera system. There's no creative input. Thus, no copyright.

Re:What copyright?

[cortana]

OK then, it is a work of the government, paid for by the tax payers, and so should be in the public domain.

Re:What copyright?

[QuoteMstr]

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.

Re:What copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

That argument was used against cameras before, and it failed. It'll fail now. There might not be much creativity, but the threshold is so low for that, that I have no doubt that it would be found sufficient. I agree that it shouldn't be, partially because the threshold should be a touch higher than that (or at least more carefully analyzed than is usual), and that an additional requirement should be the intent of the author to make a creative work, as opposed to something else, e.g. a mere recording for other purposes (to catch toll evaders, to record accidents, to compile evidence against criminals as to their whereabouts, etc.). But that's not going to help much here.

Re:What copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

I agree, but the current federal statute only prohibits the federal government from getting copyrights on works it creates. It ought to do the same for all governments, at all levels, worldwide. Governments don't need the incentive of copyright to create works; either they have other reasons, or they shouldn't be doing it anyway. So right now it would be up to New Jersey to have a similar policy as the federal government has. AFAIK, they don't.

Re:What copyright?

[John Hasler]

> 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.

Re:What copyright?

[DustyShadow]

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.

Public roads

[Martix]

The turnpike was funded by tax dollars.

So as far as im concerned its public not private

My 2 Watts

p.s. file under DMCA abuse

Re:Public roads

[AlinuxNCSU]

We have other laws to protect private information: privacy laws, theft laws, even classified information laws. The DMCA is a copyright law. Copyright law is not meant to protect secret information, it's meant to protect the copying of published information. However, government works are typically in the public domain.

If they want to stop the dissemination of the video because it's classifiied or private, the NJ government can do that. But they can't use the DMCA (assuming you buy the GP's argument).

video of the crash

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright this

Re:video of the crash

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google Ads for airbags beneath the video seem a bit tasteless!

Re:video of the crash

[lseltzer]

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?

Re:video of the crash

[The Dobber]

Of course said nitwit might have been an off duty police or fireman, perhaps a first responder. Or maybe just an ordinary citizen, more concerned with helping others than the potential of being injured.

You keep to yourself, snug and safe behind the keyboard.

Re:video of the crash

[pedestrian crossing]

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.

Re:video of the crash

[niiler]

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.

How?!

[raylu]

'did not try to prevent the very same video from being uploaded again by users immediately after it was purportedly removed.'

So...what was YouTube supposed to do? Seize control of the internet and delete all copies of the video?

Re:How?!

[gardyloo]

Put sieves with the right-shaped holes in the tubes. Empty periodically. Easy.

Why is this copyrighted at all?

[Maximalist]

This just goes to show that the whole copyright system is absurdly broken.

A more reasonable legal tool for knocking this off the internet might be for the estate of the dead guy to sue under an right of publicity/invasion of privacy theory.

Some stuff doesn't belong in public circulation... but copyright is not the only way to control that sort of thing.

unadulterated video

[Bananatree3]

Copyright this!

Higher quality version

[Anonymous Coward]

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

We must stop this copyright insanity

[QuoteMstr]

This is an abuse of the concept of copyright by the turkpike authority; they're simply trying to censor unpleasant material. That we even entertain this idea is insanity, and is a testament to this idea that everything needs to be fenced off and owned. The turnpike organization is a public authority, and even if it weren't, you can't claim copyright on an automated recording of a public place! There's no creative element, no promotion of the arts, nothing other than a senseless and greedy enclosure of what ought to be common.

what are they trying to hide?

[nanosquid]

This was a public, newsworthy event, captured by a public camera. Not only is there nothing wrong with viewing and posting it, there is something decidedly wrong with trying to hide it. In fact, that's the kind of behavior you'd expect if they are concerned about getting sued (say, over dangerous tool booth design or signage).

Whether or not they are concerned about liability in this particular case, setting a precedent that governments can take down public footage of public, newsworthy events through the DMCA would be bad. This kind of video needs to be open to public scrutiny.

Misleading Slashdot Article

[Shajenko42]

The Slashdot article does not make it clear that the video was taken using NJTP property. On first reading, I thought that someone used their own camera to record this, and New Jersey was somehow claiming copyright on anything that happened on the turnpike.

"and was, therefore, property of the turnpike"

[mary_will_grow]

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?

Background on the crash

[jokestress]

"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

Re:Background on the crash

[Kadin2048]

He shouldn't have. Unfortunately, the restrictions against people who have seizures are so strict, that many people who occasionally have minor seizures fail to report them, because it can be ruinous to lose your driver's license. (Lose license = lose job, lose house, etc.) There's very little middle ground.

This guy shouldn't have been driving, but it's not really surprising that he was. The system as it is, only punishes people who have seizures and are honest about it.