Anti-islam Film Ban Lifted For Google

[thunderous71]

Bear with me, here is the full story...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32794163

Now what does this have to do with us you ask...

An "actress" that appeared in the film got youtube to take it as she featured in it. Anyone on any clip on youtube can get the clip taken down via a privacy complaint. So anything you film regardless of copyright under youtubes terms of service can be removed via a privacy complaint.

Now Google have gone to court to say their own terms are not fair?

"Google had argued that only the film-maker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, owned the copyright, and, therefore, Ms Garcia had no right to demand its removal - and the appeals court agreed"

Figure that one out?

 

[Lurch]

Assuming it's a proper film (cha reading the full article yet), then there will be terms and agreements between the cast and the producers as to where the film can and can't be shown/sold/distributed. If her contract says it's only for cinemas and DVD, no online media, then she will win the case as that's the initial terms of her contract with the publisher. So she can ask to have it taken down based on that, and also because of Google's privacy policy, it kinda trumps that, I think Google have a fair point if the person is legitimately shown on YT with permission.

For example, your angry man who nearly had you off the bike then got your video taken down didn't consent to being on camera, nor to any footage being published, so (in a way) that is a legitimate use of the T&C. If someone says film me for YT doing "this", whatever they want to do, and you put it up and they get upset then indeed they should, quite frankly, go bollocks.

 

[Andrew]

For example, your angry man who nearly had you off the bike then got your video taken down didn't consent to being on camera, nor to any footage being published

What did I miss?

 

[Lurch]

T71 posted a vid where a car nearly pulled across him while filtering, clipping his foot. No damage done, but T71 stopped and Mr Man got out his car and ended up on YT to then complain and get the vid removed.

 

[thunderous71]

T71 posted a vid where a car nearly pulled across him while filtering, clipping his foot. No damage done, but T71 stopped and Mr Man got out his car and ended up on YT to then complain and get the vid removed.

Oh the video is back online again be it somewhat altered

My point was it seems more to do with money than privacy.

 

[dandoolittle]

She signed a waiver and didn't own the copyright, it's not really a privacy issue at all

 

[thunderous71]

She signed a waiver and didn't own the copyright, it's not really a privacy issue at all

But the problem arises because of YouTube's own rules.

"We're serious about protecting our users by addressing potential privacy concerns. Our privacy guidelines apply to all users across the world. In other words, while the video in question may not violate your country's privacy laws, it may still violate YouTube's privacy guidelines.

How does YouTube determine if content should be removed for a privacy violation?
For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely identifiable by image, voice, full name, National Insurance number, bank account number or contact information (e.g. home address, email address). Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags, avatar names and address information in which the individual is not named. We also take public interest, newsworthiness and consent into account when determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation. YouTube reserves the right to make the final determination of whether a violation of its privacy guidelines has occurred.

What does uniquely identifiable mean?
To be considered uniquely identifiable, there must be enough information in the video that allows others to recognise you. Please note that just because you can identify yourself within the video, it does not mean you are uniquely identifiable to others. A first name without additional context or a fleeting image, for example, would not likely qualify as uniquely identifiable.

How YouTube's privacy process works
If a privacy complaint is filed, YouTube provides the uploader with an opportunity to remove or edit the private information within their video. We issue notification of the potential violation and provide the uploader with 48 hours to take action on the complaint. If the uploader removes the video during these 48 hours, the complaint filed will be closed. If the potential privacy violation remains on the site after 48 hours, the YouTube Team will then review the complaint."

Now there is no mention of copyright etc here and this is why Google went to court over their OWN terms or service. It's a weird test case so google/youtube can circumvent their own terms of service if they so wish else a court case would not have been needed.

 

[Lurch]

We also take public interest, newsworthiness and consent into account....

Consent, there's a good one when you got paid to be in a film in the first place.

 

[SwissMotard]

Google will always err on the side of caution, which is rather sensible for their risk.

 

[biker1968]

How did that guy manage to find himself in T71's video ? Bet he had to watch a lot of motovlogs hahaha...