Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7338 posts, RR: 52 Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Last night, I came across the video where the girl seemingly by accident(not going to post it), craps in the hot tub with 3 others. Now as funny and as shocking as it is, what are the legal perameters with that appearing on the internet? Does the "victim" have legal rights with this being posted or is it the right of the owner of the video to post it? I can't for the life of me understand how this could get permission from the phantom shitter to post this. I mean it's all over the internet. I might even be staged.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1067 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Thread starter): Does the "victim" have legal rights with this being posted
Our sheriff had a jail cam that was posted on the internet. One of the cameras were posted at the women's holding cell and the public could see the "ladies" do their business; fortunately a "liberal law" agency got involved and the courts ruled the cameras had to be shut down.
Back to the question; unless she signed a waiver and she was truly a victim, I would think that she could get the video pulled.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1057 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Thread starter): Last night, I came across the video where the girl seemingly by accident(not going to post it), craps in the hot tub with 3 others. Now as funny and as shocking as it is, what are the legal perameters with that appearing on the internet? Does the "victim" have legal rights with this being posted or is it the right of the owner of the video to post it? I can't for the life of me understand how this could get permission from the phantom shitter to post this. I mean it's all over the internet. I might even be staged.
A lot depends on the context. Was this a publicly hot tub (such as one at a hotel or on a cruise ship)? Did she know that she was being filmed.
In general there is no right to privacy when one is in public. Therefore, using Seinfeld as an example. If George really was video taped at the US Open eating that chocolate sundae and making a pig of himself, he would have no argument because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. But if he was at his home doing the exact same thing and somebody climbed over his fence and video taped him WHILE TRESPASSING on his property, then yes the claim would likely be actionable.
Now if George were at his home and friends were shooting a video tape (i.e. like at a kids birthday party) and George knew he was on video, again, he had no expectation of privacy.
FlashFlyGuy From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 439 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1029 times:
Quoting AirCop (Reply 1): I would think that she could get the video pulled.
Good luck to her trying to do THAT!!!! It would be pointless.
I know the video being discussed (and it's not something I personally would go searching for on the net), as I received it in an email a couple of years ago. And one viewing was most definitely enough, where it was then consigned to the trash folder. Now I'm sure you know how fast something can travel by email. There would be millions of sicko's that kept a copy of it....so, a couple of websites hosting it is chicken feed. As fast as she could get it taken down, it would be replaced almost immediately...
Really, and people still fail to realise this, once you post something on the internet you no longer have control over it. It's out there for people to do what they want with it. Regardless of copyright issues as well.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7338 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
Quoting FlashFlyGuy (Reply 3): Good luck to her trying to do THAT!!!! It would be pointless.
I think it is. I think it was supposed to be just anonymous footage for a commercial. I mean the look on her face is utter shock embarassment, while everyone else was pure shock and disgust.
Analog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1003 times:
Quoting AirCop (Reply 1): Our sheriff had a jail cam that was posted on the internet. One of the cameras were posted at the women's holding cell and the public could see the "ladies" do their business; fortunately a "liberal law" agency got involved and the courts ruled the cameras had to be shut down.
Wait; if the video is publicly viewable, wouldn't using the bathroom be indecent exposure?
Then they hold someone under 18 and the sheriff becomes guilty of distributing child pornography. If you think that sounds crazy, people have been arrested and convicted for distributing pictures of themselves having sex, etc. while under 18.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7338 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 6): Why would there be a black girl in a hot tub listening to punk rock music if its real?
If someone was paying you to sit in a hot tub, what would it matter what music is playing.
Analog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 958 times:
Quoting AirCop (Reply 8): But under 18 they go to the juvy hall..
Really? A 17 year old? With no ID? What if she won't say anything? At 3AM? What if you're 300 miles from juvenile hall?
Don't tell me 17 year olds never get put in adult holding cells.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4782 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 918 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7338 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 439 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
