Having strayed pretty far off this topic, I did want to say Josh, that I don't in any way mean to devalue self-fufillment - self fufillment is something that I hope all of here have as a component of what we are doing with all of this.
On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:52 AM, andrew michael baron wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------ 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/
