500k Youtube Lawsuit???
In case you haven't heard, Youtube user Nalts recently put up a video of an Icecream man (and the video has since been taken down) which I assume has not gone viral, but the video is not the main point. The point is that this Ice Cream Man has gone and brought up a lawsuit suing BOTH Youtube and Nalts for 500 grand due to the fact that this video was put up without his permission and that it is a "violation of his privacy". And no, this is in no ways a joke (there's even this picture dealing with the case).
My opinions:
1. Why does a man have the job of an Ice Cream man, yet have 500k of money?
2. There's a reason why people who are featured in viral videos don't make lawsuits: It's not a violation of privacy because anyone could video tape anyone in public easily. Take the "Bedroom Intruder Man" for instance.
3. Although YouTube could help out financially, there is no reason why they should be involved in this as well. They only provide the player and the upload tool: they had nothing to do with filming the video.
What do you all think? I think it's an outrage for sure.
My opinions:
1. Why does a man have the job of an Ice Cream man, yet have 500k of money?
2. There's a reason why people who are featured in viral videos don't make lawsuits: It's not a violation of privacy because anyone could video tape anyone in public easily. Take the "Bedroom Intruder Man" for instance.
3. Although YouTube could help out financially, there is no reason why they should be involved in this as well. They only provide the player and the upload tool: they had nothing to do with filming the video.
What do you all think? I think it's an outrage for sure.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
He needs to learn that owning a camera doesn't mean you can film everyone just because you own a youtube channel.
His argumentation "It's only for my youtube channel" which he likes to use in discussions like this falls flat if one person just doesn't want to be on his tape. He has to respect it. Simple as that.
Edit:
Forgot to mention that I do think however 500k are to much
I'm going with what I know of French laws about it, mind you.
Oh, and yeah, 500k is a ridiculous amount.
Isn't that how much he's demanding rather than how much he already owns?
500k is a truly ridiculous number, and if this guy actually DOES win the court over, they will most likely lower the sue amount WAY down.
Because if Nalts does lose and the sue amount hasn't been touched, that will be depressing. First off, it's a ridiculous amount, and second off: what will Nalts have left for him? He's married and has 2 kids, it'd be truly, REALLY sad if he goes into debt (which I assume will happen) at this moment.
Nalts took down the original video when the ice cream man complained originally, then reuploaded it with blurred faces so that he wasn't identifiable. I'm pretty sure that's still legal. I'm no lawyer, but I can't see Mr. I Scream winning this one. I bet $500k on it.
By the way, I don't think the offending video was uploaded that recently.
Well if he blurred the guy's face, I'd guess that it'd be okay. That's why you see people's faces being blurred on TV; they didn't sign a release.
Yeah that was a "loophole" we were taught in one of my classes. Be it a good use of blur or not. Like, they censored this one guys face but the blur didn't move with him untill his face fully left the orignal blur. It counted.
I don't agree with the use of exploiting random people over the net, but I'd hate to see the ice cream man win. Like someone posted above me, if the ice cream man wins it sets preccedent(?) for following cases that will happen.
As soon as someone realises they can sue for something minor and win a fair share of money it's going to happen.
Some of us peeps really like our privacy
Yours Sincerely.
John T. Hawthorne
22 Accacia Avenue
Swaziland
He was asking for it though.
In one of his video rants he even insults some Best Buy employee for being such a spoilsport and calling the police.
The situation was, Nalts making fun of some Geek Squad guy. He didn't like being filmed. He told him to stop, several times. Nalts was all like "Hey its cool. It's only for youtube." But he did not stop. Something like that was bound to happen. It is just something he has to learn.
Although it is a shame that he has to learn it so late in the process of his channel and not early on like every other (good) filmmaker.
And yeah. It is a big amount of money.
The guy does sound like a dick, and sounds like he should be taught a lesson. I've never heard of this guy untill now.
Well, that is bad. There are a bunch of Youtubers I don't care about (Nalts being one of them) that are just annoying, but I bring this lawsuit up because, yes, it is a big amount of money.
I could see a lawsuit of 5k or less with this situation.
Oh, you.
I agree, the whole thing is ridiculous.
EDIT: OKAY SO. Not sure how legit this is, but according to this link, it's perfectly legal for this Nalts fellow to tape people in public - that includes retail stores and the like, unless the store says taping isn't allowed. So yeah!
Eh...
"The best way to protect you from being sued for invasion of privacy is to obtain the subject's permission or consent to be photographed. "
As soon as one or more persons (like a group) is the focus of the recording, NORMALLY! you have to ask them for permission. This is their (and also your) right of privacy. If you film a whole place, it's fine if you have a crowd of people in there.
I can't believe that people make such a big deal out of this one. It isn't a law that suddenly popped up yesterday. It is something that has been around for some time. It's just how things work if you publish your videos or pictures online (like youtube).
Edit:
I did a bit of research and it turned out it is actually like this in germany.
In germany you have the right to forbid publishing of your image if you don't like it being published (aka what I wrote above).
In USA however it seems to be ok if it is in an art context (because your guys first amendmands covers your right of free speech).