Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category
An important case in online video sharing was decided last week. In Universal Media Group v. Veoh Networks (PDF) the federal judge dismissed the case on the grounds that he believed Veoh Network Inc, a popular video sharing website, fell under safe harbor clauses within the DMCA. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is the act that protects copyrights in the online realm. An Electronica Frontier Foundation spokesperson felt that this case would also apply to YouTube in that their terms of services and procedures are similar.
This case allows video sharing sites to fend off liability for copyright infringement from it’s users given they use a rather low standard of procedures in handling reported infringing use. The case seems to acquiesce that works may be ‘performed’ and the sharing sites don’t need to ‘pre-check’ the videos before it displays them. This burden on video sites to remove infringing works strikes a balance between IP rights and video dissemination. While it’s still a considerable financial burden on sharing sites the costs aren’t as bad as facing copyright litigation.
What discussion of online videos and applicable law would be complete without an embedded High-Def video?
The ubiquity of concealable camera phones and the popularity of DSLRs with telephoto lenses often poses the question “What am I allowed to photograph legally?”
The Right to Photograph:
In general you may take a photograph of whatever subject you want when you are in a public place or you have express permission. In general You don’t need consent to photograph somebody unless they have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” examples including dressing rooms, public bathrooms, in their homes, etc. Other limits may include military and nuclear sites. Permissible subjects include: law enforcement officers (but you may not interfere with law enforcement activity, investigations or risk officer safety) children, airports and more.
A lot of great photos are captured when the subjects aren’t aware that a camera is around. It captures people in their natural state.
Nobody can confiscate your film/photographic data without a court order or warrant or a law enforcement officer that has arrested you. If an individual threatens or ‘detains’ you, you may have a case for legal action against them.
A great resource on the subject is “Legal Handbook for Photographers” By Bert P. Krages and his “Pocket Guide” (PDF)
Next time you take a photo and the subject asks to see the photo to check if they blinked, or they “look funny” and demand you delete it, you can assert your rights
Next weeks photography law post will discuss copyrights and sharing licenses.
UPDATE: My photographer friend asked me about commercial uses of photographs. There is a distinction between Publisher and Photographer, but they can often be the same individual. Most often if you publish a photograph with a person (model) and the predominant purpose is for monetary gain,(Ex.advertisements) then you must get a release from the model. News articles and non-monetary uses don’t require a release.
This post is not legal advise and does not establish an attorney/client relationship. For specific fact situations consult with an attorney. please read our Disclaimer.
These days sharing your images online and protecting them from undesired/unlawful use has been seen as a misnomer. Luckily there are methods to protect your works if you desire to retain all your rights to your photos.
Display with Flash Viewer
There are plenty of free and easy methods to display photographs. Many of these methods require yout to have a basic understanding of html, but many have clear instructions on how to set them up on your website. The one’s I’ve previewed don’t have “save as image” protection automatically, so you’ll have to choose one that makes it the easiest
While this method is helpful, it doesn’t stop the infamous “Prnt Scrn” method of copying visual works. It also requires that you have a web host and website/blog with considerable coding freedom. (aka not Flickr/Picasa Web etc) Comes to play two other methods.
Use Tiny Thumbnails
Most “infringers” will want to enlarge photos for social media and background use. While this method doesn’t allow users to see details, it gives the viewer a visual “summary” of the works.
Watermark your Images
My friend Jillian Betterly used this method to preview wedding photos for her clients. She would display samples of photos she took with a heavy watermark of her logo. She placed the watermarks right above the subject of interest within the photo, such as smiling faces.Clients or anybody wanting a copy of the photos would submit orders and she would deliver their memories without watermarks. The watermark would still allow prospective purchasers to see the areas of interest within the photos, but make it indesireable for them to copy it for their personal use without paying for her ” visual memory capturing” and printing services. This method is also used by many stock photo purchase services.
Using all three methods together and tweaking them to your liking you’ll make it difficult for would be infringers to take your works.
I’ll often argue that artists should be able to desire how their works are licensed or ultimately used. The methods mentioned above are for artists who desire to retain their rights completedly under copyright law.
For the people who desire that art be ‘released into the wild’, with no desire for profit, there are alternative licensing schemes. We’ll discuss Creative Commons Licensing schemes in the next post!
San Francisco, CA — Delving into privacy concerns in the age of the smart phone, the California Supreme Court determined today that after police take a cell phone from a suspect during an arrest, they can search the phone’s text messages without a warrant.
The majority in the 5-2 decision reasoned that U.S. Supreme Court precedents call for cell phones to be treated as personal property “immediately associated” with the suspect’s person.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that information stored on cell phones shouldn’t be examined without a warrant and warned that the majority sanctioned searches that violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.
In 2007, a Ventura County deputy sheriff arrested Gregory Diaz after watching an Ecstasy deal go down in the backseat of Diaz’s car. About an hour and a half later, after Diaz denied knowing anything about the transaction, the deputy looked at Diaz’s cell phone text message folder and found a text that seemed to set a price for six Ecstasy pills. When confronted with the message, Diaz admitted to participating in the drug sale.
Diaz tried to suppress the evidence from the cell phone search, but both the trial court and the Second District Court of Appeal held that the search was proper.
In weighing whether perusing the text messages constituted an illegal search, the Supreme Court relied largely on United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973) — which held it was legal for an officer to search a cigarette pack found in an arrestee’s coat pocket — and United States v. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1977), which invalidated federal narcotics agents’ warrantless search of a 200-pound foot locker after they arrested the men loading it into a car.
Diaz’s lawyer, Lyn Woodward of Pacific Grove, had argued that the quantities of personal data cell phones contain are “unrivaled” by items traditionally considered “immediately associated with the person of the arrestee,” such as clothing or a cigarette pack. She also argued that cell phones should be treated like the foot locker in Chadwick because they’re not necessarily worn on the person.
But in an opinion written by Justice Ming Chin, the majority said the high court has held that it doesn’t matter what the item is — it can be searched without a warrant if it’s been properly seized.
“Nothing in these decisions even hints that whether a warrant is necessary for a search of an item properly seized from an arrestee’s person incident to a lawful custodial arrest depends in any way on the character of the seized item,” Chin wrote in People v. Diaz , S166600.
Werdegar, joined by Justice Carlos Moreno in the dissent, argued there’s no need to search a cell phone immediately if it’s in police control, and that instead a warrant can be obtained to conduct the search properly. She wrote that the majority gave “police carte blanche, with no showing of exigency, to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person.”
And, in a footnote, Werdegar reasoned that the facts of the case — because of increasingly ubiquitous cell phones and handheld computers — differ enough that the precedents the majority cites “provide no basis for evading this court’s independent responsibility to determine the constitutionality of the search at issue.”
But if the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions should be revisited “in light of modern technology,” Chin wrote, “then that reevaluation must be undertaken by the high court itself.”
The New Jersey Judiciary recently began using SMSs, Facebook,Twitter and RSS feeds in the following manners:
This article poses the interesting question of whether using social media violates Attorney ethics codes. This question is currently up in the air in New Jersey and Texas.
NJ Courts Press Release
Is the Texas Judiciary ready for social media? I would recommended first it’s e-filing systems standardized by county.
UPDATE: The Texas Bar Association actively uses social media such as Facebook and Twitter. I can only find “7.07″ rules regarding online videos and firm websites.