On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: > I think you are making an err if you think the overall intent of all > of a persons works are the main key to whether they can invoke a 'fair > use' defense for anything that might otherwise be questionable. >
I dont think its the main key. But I do think it is very important in the formula. We all have a different intent, and as you agreed before, it also comes down to intent. Since vidobloggers tend to be transparent about everything (a good thing I think) we really get to know each other. I would say, knowing Josh through this medium, his intentions with videoblogging are ultimately self-fulfilling. Thats not to say all or even most the personal videoblogs share that. In fact, I think most video bloggers are out to democratize the world for the benefit of humanity overall. > If the law is even half-sane then it will come down to stuff like > intent with that particular piece. I could have a site with 1000 > videoblogs that are purely designed to make me famous, but if I videod > a cop beating someone, Id be ok to use that because the purpose of > that particular video was different. If I then went on to try to sell > tshirts featuring the victims bloody face and my website address, > maybe the victim would have grounds to sue me. Using peoples likeness > for product advertising is certainly an issue, people are protected > against unauthorised use of their image (& voice) for such things. > > Likewise I dont think Rocketboom is immune from all of these issues > just by shouting 'parody parody'. Parody can be protection because it > is a kind of free speech, but there are many examples of free speech > that are not parody, parody is not superior to them, does not have > more rights, jsut the sam. Also satire isnt parody. Even if most > Rocketboom content could be classified as parody, its not a cast iron > defense against non-parody items being accused of libeling someone. In > general people who have decided to lead public lives are deemed to > have less privacy rights on certain fronts, you can get away with > being ruder about them etc > Josh's defense in this case would come down to what the case was, not > enough detail here to say. If the innocent bystander was just captured > walking past, what case is there to answer? Which of thir rights has > been infringed? If they were captured talking to a friend about a > serious medical complaint they are suffering from, then you need a > defense. If this conversation was captured because they were standing > next to a cop beating someone, you could defend by saying that there > was public good in the newsworthy item being broadcast, and that > factor overrode the privacy concerns of the bystander. > > In other words, there is no blanket answer and many scenarios are very, VERY gray. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/