Stephanie, I don't know, I forwarded him the same email you read. Yes,
EFF isn't generally down with the MPAA's tactics but that doesn't mean
Jason is going to give incorrect or unethical advice. He just said
'generally' which is a vague enough answer without knowing the specific
details of the case, as he says. It seems like the safe thing to do is
just blur the MPAA goon's face.

Also I believe the private vs public issue involves more than whether an
event is privately run or on private property. If I go to Macworld and
there are no signs telling me I can't take photos and no security
approach me and tell me photos are not allowed, then I don't think
Macworld organizers could demand I remove photos from my website a week
later. I don't know if the Motor City situation is similar at all. The
point I'm making is simply that even in a private space there is some
responsibility on the private owners to proactively try and prevent me
from using my camera.

-eddie



Stephanie Bryant wrote:
> Eddie, does Jason's answer change much when given the information that
> a comic con is NOT a public place? I'm not sure (and Motor City Comic
> Con's website is offline), but most media-centric cons are private--
> you buy memberships to them, and have to wear a badge to get into
> panels, sessions, and the dealers room (where these bootlegs were
> being sold).
>
> Also, Heath: remember that Jason is at the EFF, an organization
> diametrically opposed to the MPAA philosophically as well as
> tactically. Not saying it's bad advice. Just saying it's not objective
> advice-- very little in law is, though.
>
> On 5/22/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I just ran this by my lawyer pal Jason Schultz @ the EFF and he had this
>>to say on the matter. Let me know if you want to talk to him directly.
>>
>>---
>>Interesting.  Generally, I'd say he's fine to post it.  He'd probably
>>be even safer if he blurs out the face of the guy who didn't want to be
>>on camera. But let him know if he wants to talk to me directly, I can
>>give him some real advice when I know more information.  But yeah, he
>>should definitely find a way to put this up.
>>
>>
>>On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:47:01PM -0700, Eddie Codel wrote:
>>
>>>>From what I understand, and I'm no lawyer, if the action took place in
>>>public then it's fair game and you are protected by the First Amendment.
>>>Definitely newsworthy, BoingBoing worthy for sure. I'd love to see what
>>>you shot.
>>>
>>>-eddie
>>>
>>>On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:57:47AM -0000, Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>>I had a question that I was hoping ya'll could help me with.
>>>>
>>>>I just got back from the Motor City Con (it is a comic, toy, TV,
>>>>Movie, convention) and while I was there I witnessed a raid by the
>>>>MPAA on some dealers who were selling bootleg video's and video's
>>>>that are not yet availible (like some TV shows, or shows from
>>>>overseas that have not yet been released here), I got some of this on
>>>>camera.  However, one of the MPAA "guys" saw me and said he did not
>>>>want to be on camera.  He basicly, tried to intimate me.  Anyway,
>>>>what is my legal standing?  It was, to my knowledge a public place,
>>>>and I was "documenting" the MPAA and the local police shut down these
>>>>vendors.  Can I show the footage even though the MPAA guy asked not
>>>>to be on camera.  If I blur him out am I fine?
>>>>
>>>>Like I said I was just hoping someone here may know something.
>>>>Someone said you have to have a release, but I don't nessacary think
>>>>that is true because of all those "hidden" camera things on the
>>>>news.....anyway any help would be apprciated.
>>>>
>>>>Heath - Batman Geek
>>>>http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to