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/
 


Reply via email to