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.

Comments

I'll never understand

[asylumx]

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.

Re:I'll never understand

[Applehu Akbar]

Hollywood's IP is zealously protected, while ours is not. This is why we torrent, folks.

Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use

[ripvlan]

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/...

Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use

[BarbaraHudson]

Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Someone shared your sh*t? Too bad - you have ZERO control over it at that point, even if you delete it.

Re:Well, duh!

[omnichad]

the data becomes their property

The data is still your property. They just have an irrevocable right to use and sublicense it. Not much practical difference other than you can still sell your own licenses to it and you can still use it personally.

Re:Get what they deserve

[thegarbz]

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

Good god, fuck no. Sorry but comparing email to a social network is like comparing a telegram to a video conference. The use cases are different. The presentation is different. The way it works is very different. What you can do with it is different.

You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person.

God you bring back nightmares of people trying to share something as simple as a few family vacation snaps via email. 30 people all getting nothing but messages that a sender has tried overloading your inbox, only to have it get resent in a format so badly compressed that no one can make out anything. Not to mention the persistency of things posted to facebook and the ability to modify collections of posts give it features that just aren't possible with email which are none the less great for when you're communicating with family and friends.

I'm not going to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to a medium rare pepper steak with mushroom sauce, and a side of wonderfully spiced wedges, yes you could eat the both but you wouldn't use one in place of the other.

No, you don't get it

[Cajun Hell]

it's natural to expect privacy.

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?

The real problem for the facebook posters is that on the internet, human culture doesn't apply, and they have yet to come to terms with that.

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).