Slashdot Mirror
Your Personal Facebook Live Videos Can Legally End Up on TV (thememo.com)
Kitty Knowles, reporting for the Memo: Think you control what happens to your personal videos? Think again. One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May, has found out the hard way: he saw the birth of his son replayed on Good Morning America and numerous other media outlets. This week, he lost a high-profile court battle against the broadcasters. If you don't want this to happen to you, don't make the same mistakes. It's one thing wanting to share a life-changing moment with friends and family. But most would understand why Kali Kanongataa didn't want his child's birth aired for all to see. That hasn't however, stopped a US judge throwing out Kanongataa's copyright infringement case against the likes of the ABC, Yahoo, and Rodale, the company that publishes Women's Health. Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording, but decided to leave it that way. Media outlets broadcasting the clips have defended doing so on the terms of "fair use." Legally, "fair use" means that when pictures or videos are the focus of a major news story, selected footage can be used.Heads up, Facebook will soon release a video app for set-top boxes by Apple and Amazon to broadcast Live videos on the big screen.
I'll never understand why so many people think they have privacy when they broadcast/post things to the internet.
©2017 asylumx (881307), all rights reserved.
Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?
You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.
-- RN
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
Oh no - The horror, the horror. Oh wait ...this turns out to be a non-story.
One cannot rebroadcast the "whole" movie without permission - but one can show limited clips. Just like Movie Reviewers do. They are allowed to show clips that represent the review points that they are making. All under fair-use.
Now we'll start seeing more Youtube videos that say "I don't own the video but posted the complete copy here and it is owned by the owner - this statement makes is fair use" Yeah - no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You want to have some fun? Get shocked silly? Compare Gmail's TOS to Live's TOS. In my opinion, Microsoft is considerably less evil than Google (although Bing is still worthless when compared to Google search). Frankly, when I made that particular discovery I'm surprised I didn't stroke out on the spot with a heart attack. Totally not what I expected there.
Back to the main point - I'd love to believe that Slashdot readers are highly likely to have read the TOS before signing on here, at Facebook, on Twitter, via LinkedIn, . . . sadly, I doubt it. C'mon, people - at least the SysAdmins and Engineers out there should have. After all, on the job it's part of what we get paid for, yes/no?
One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May, has found out the hard way: he saw the birth of his son replayed on Good Morning America and numerous other media outlets. This week, he lost a high-profile court battle against the broadcasters. If you don't want this to happen to you, don't make the same mistakes.
The mistake is thinking that instead of sharing something with your friends and family over the internet, that somehow it's a good idea to share it with a massive privacy-invading international corporation and then asking them to share it with your friends and family.
You don't want that to happen to you? Don't be a complete dumbass. There is no reason to insert Facebook or Google or Instagram between you and all of your friends for every shred of communication you engage in.
arguing for your live video rights on facebook is like listening to the cattle argue for ownership over their milk. Its not going to happen.
in the future, consider recording the event, uploading it to something like owncloud or your own personal storage, and editing it accordingly. Once its ready, take the time to upload it (if you so desire) to youtube and select an appropriate license (hint: not youtube.) to share with friends. if and when approached for the footage you may then negotiate the terms of your content.
Facebook has already proven numerous times: blindly clicking the app can have rather dire consequences, and your content does not belong exclusively to you.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Appbook apped this stupid LUDDITE by apping his video because he agreed to the Apps & Appditions when he signed app for Appbook! He should stop being a LUDDITE and only app apps while apping other apps!
Apps!
Only post advertisements for your business. Don't put personal shit on the internet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Can live streaming be set to be available only to friends like most other facebook posts can be? If so, it doesn't sound like a big deal to me, but I would hope that facebook adds a warning to people using its live feature for the first time.
Only post advertisements for your business. Don't put personal shit on the internet.
I know a self-employed gal (belly dancer / teacher) who uses facebook very well as a way to get gigs and keep her classes full. It's about her, of course, but she uses it more like a big-shot CEO uses twitter - promotion and influencing - than as a view on her personal life - she doesn't even list her kid or hubby on relations, nor does she share pictures of them.
That's the right way to use it - it's all potentially public to everyone, but she gets a revenue boost by using it so it's a win/win for her.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Suppose you give birth to a baby by the side of the road. A news crew is in the area and films it. Do they have the right to broadcast it? Because this happened in a public place, the courts have ruled you have no right to privacy. Because it is a newsworthy event, the news people have the right to film it. But, pretty much any court would agree with you if you sued the news people for invasion of privacy if they broadcast it. The case at hand is really no different. The problem is that the courts no longer believe in the rights of individuals, only in the rights of corporations.
When people don't want to post things that are important, personal or have sort of value because of stunts like this, the purpose of the site is diminished.
When the video is running pull out a Gotse picture for a few seconds and just like in Mortal Kombat yell Goatse!!!!
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.
The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.
I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all. And then had the audacity to file a lawsuit.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
No, the problem is Facebook's terms of service.
If you have not read them, you should. Just before you close your account. Or prior to deciding not to open one in the first place. Any other choice is self-destructive.
Seriously this has been the case for a very long time already. And it has nothing to do with website Terms of Service. As the judge explained, this is an actual case of FAIR USE. Period. Not a thing to do with anyone's TOS, nothing at all. This is proper use of Fair Use laws to take clips and segments for commentary and news reporting.
"Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."
Please don't confuse "big corporations" establishing still more Fair Use case law as merely other big corporations stealing content via a TOS paragraph. They are not at all the same thing and actually help us little guys out in the long run as one of the few remaining ways to end-run the insanity we call Copyright Law.
If the judge decided there was no expectation of privacy, then what measures can Facebook implement to provide legal privacy if not practical privacy? If the data is legally private, where would wiretapping laws come into play?
The movie lasted 45 minutes, and the fragments on TV lasted 22 seconds. Fair use; the headline is clickbait.
Everyone here is bitching about privacy, but I wonder why on earth would you publicly broadcast your partner's labour over the internet. I mean, seriously, people has to stop mediatizing their moments. Just enjoy your life.
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
Who live streams a birth anyway? The Father only gets his shorts in a knot when his video gets redistributed, but he was live streaming his child's birth!
It's a messy, painful, and private process. The joy comes after, so share the joy. I'd be most surprised if he had the permission and cooperation of his wife to do this. And if he did they are both idiots, oversharing and underthinking!
acquaintance... just this person I kind of know, just came home with me one day and never leaves.
People get sued for tens of thousands for each download of a torrent on, when a corp broadcasts others material to millions they get of scot free.
Hoohaas on Facebook, who would have thought.
Any other thing is naive, specially if it's free.
It's natural to some of us. It's apparently not natural to some other people, which is why they broadcast their stuff to the Internet.
If you're fucking your wife in your bedroom, you expect privacy. If you're fucking her in the town square, while occasionally making eye contract with strangers and saying, "hey, check out what we're doing," then that suggests that you don't expect privacy.
I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?
No, the problem is that some users don't know the difference between fucking in the town square (uploading to facebook) vs their bedrooms (sending encrypted email).
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Having NEVER been a Facebook member, what are my rights when someone records me at a private event and publishes the video all without my permission? I never agreed to any contract. I never permitted Facebook to collect biometric information about me. I never permitted Facebook to collect or crunch any data about me. In fact, I block all Facebook owned IP addresses and redirect their domains to 127.0.0.1 in my /etc/hosts file.
Imagine being in surgery or giving birth in a HIPAA regulated environment. You are not a public figure, and you are being recorded while exposing private parts. Is it reasonable to have no recourse when someone violates your privacy?
If allowing the public to access your content means that you can no longer exert copyright control over it, then that means that every single open source license ever invented has just been shut down cold.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Time to upload all my scat, tub girl and other deviant porn to Facebook.
I don't know how many times I advised against having a FB account. I could be speaking some long lost pre-Sanscrit language and the effect would be the same: to be ignored.
I don't know how many times I commented about how Windows is broken and hard to use. People keep using Windows (90% of everyone, it seems), keep complaining it does not work and keep saying I'm a Linux fanatic!
The copyright infringement defense here was fair use. I can't think of the circumstances in which a fair use defense for infringing the copyright of some open source software would come into play. Do you have something in mind?
Is a messy divorce and his wife suing him for posting revenge porn.
That'd be fun.
Oracle vs Google re: the Java API comes to mind as one noteworthy example...
But what, exactly, makes their use of this work "fair"? They rebroadcasted the work without permission of the copyright holder, and I'm not sure they even acknowledged the copyright holder in their rebroadcast. Unless facebook live's terms of usage states that they own the content that is uploaded to it, I think that the guy's copyright was most definitely infringed.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So if someone steams a Hollywood movie with closed caption as a creative narration - we are OK to watch it b/c it is a fair use???
If it does, I have a doozy of a case :)
I don't use facebook.
"Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording"
First of all there is no film on the internet.
They streamed it on a social network not social media, the stream itself is the media.
Also who the disgusting fuck records a video of someone's genitals while its extracting an animal. Sounds like some fucked up fetish to me.
No don't think that you as a citzen can do something similar. These laws were made to ensure that the noble class rules over the peasant class for all ... what? Yes? ... ah... ok... sorry to interrupt, there was a mix-up in the time scale. So as I said, these laws were made to ensure that the corporate, legal entity rules over... what? oh? ok, apparently we don't say that anymore, the proper phrase is "can create more jobs".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Video at 720p takes about 2 Mbps (source), or 2 Mbps * 60 s/minute * 1 GB/8000 Mbit = 0.015 GB/minute. Data transfer out of AWS costs 9 cents per GB plus tax (source). If a 10-minute (0.15 GB) video goes viral (which used to be called getting Slashdotted) and gets 10,000 views, that could result in a big AWS bill: 0.15 GB/view * 10,000 views * $0.09/GB = $135. Is the average person expected to afford that without running his own ads?
And now some judge is saying it doesn't apply. Let's extrapolate where this can go. Like to any Internet video content including MSM outlets by anyone. Anyone remember a recent Trump interview by ABC where the network was making all sorts of outrageous copyright claims? Anyway, I see it as another good opportunity to get off FB and have a life.
I'm not on Facebook! Screw that!