Slashdot Log In
New Jersey Sues YouTube Over Crash Video
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat May 26, 2007 11:04 AM
from the express-written-consent dept.
from the express-written-consent dept.
eldavojohn writes "The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) has sued YouTube and a number of other video sites for showing footage of a car crash that happened on the turnpike and was, therefore, property of the turnpike. The NJTA requested the footage be removed under the DMCA — which YouTube complied with — unfortunately, the video was copied to several other sites. The NJTA still seems to be targeting YouTube since YouTube 'did not try to prevent the very same video from being uploaded again by users immediately after it was purportedly removed.' We'll have to watch this closely and see if, even after you take down material violating the DMCA, you are at fault to any extent for people who already copied said material."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
video of the crash (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Higher quality version (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:video of the crash (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Background on the crash (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Background on the crash (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Background on the crash (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy shouldn't have been driving, but it's not really surprising that he was. The system as it is, only punishes people who have seizures and are honest about it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct. My girlfriend had a period of about a year in college where she would occasionally get minor seizures on the left side of her body. She could tell one was coming a few minutes before they occu
Re:video of the crash (Score:4, Informative)
Someone else said that the driver was having seizures several hours before the accident? Why was he driving? It's lucky that the tollbooth stopped him or he could have killed several other people. It's unfortunate he died, but fortunate no one else was hurt.
By the way, watch the SUV that just goes on by through the EZ Pass at regular speed as if nothing happened. Just another day on the turnpike, I guess. Also, the nitwit running towards the flaming car might want to lookup what 'secondary explosion' means.
Parent
Re:video of the crash (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course said nitwit might have been an off duty police or fireman, perhaps a first responder. Or maybe just an ordinary citizen, more concerned with helping others than the potential of being injured.
You keep to yourself, snug and safe behind the keyboard.
Parent
Re:video of the crash (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:video of the crash (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway it's public record and even a news story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:video of the crash (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever even seen anyone actually have a seizure? There are a whole spectrum of symptoms.
I have seen two in the last 15 years. Both times, it was more like the person was just zoned out rather than what we typically think of (grand mal).
One happened to a girl while she was skiing, and she just froze as she picked up speed and went through a fence at high speed without turning (or twitching or anything else). Scary as fuck to watch anyway.
The other happened as I was talking to a co-worker, trying to get through some bureaucracy, and he just kind of zoned out for a couple of minutes and started drooling. Fortunately I realized what was going on and managed to help minimize his embarrassment when the seizure passed.
It sounds to me that it could certainly have been a seizure, cop or not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except the SUV owner, who is probably late to get her kids to school while she talks to the secretary of the PTA on her cell phone, who actively changes lane to avoid SAID FUCKING FIREBALL that HAPPENED WITHIN EYESIGHT, and cruises on past.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't confuse that there is one reason against it with the idea that that would be the only reason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
such as whether police filming police actions (ie. producing wholly state-funded content) is privately-owned or public-domai
Re:What copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me but the rest of the world is not subject to US law.
Re:What copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
>
> is copyright material or not.
This is not true. Nothing obligates you to obey a takedown notice. If you _do_ comply then you are immune to suit for copyright infringment but if you do not the putative copyright owner must still sue you and prove infringment. A takedown notice is just a letter from a lawyer. It isn't any sort of an official document.
Parent
Re:What copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. First, the 17 USC 512 take-down system only covers copyrighted material, to the extent that it is copyrighted. So if you post public domain material, for example, then you can safely ignore a take-down notice. Second, ISPs aren't obligated to comply with the notice, although doing so will help to protect them in the event that the material really was put up in an infringing manner. Third, the person who put the material u
Public roads (Score:5, Insightful)
So as far as im concerned its public not private
My 2 Watts
p.s. file under DMCA abuse
Re:Public roads (Score:4, Insightful)
We have other laws to protect private information: privacy laws, theft laws, even classified information laws. The DMCA is a copyright law. Copyright law is not meant to protect secret information, it's meant to protect the copying of published information. However, government works are typically in the public domain.
If they want to stop the dissemination of the video because it's classifiied or private, the NJ government can do that. But they can't use the DMCA (assuming you buy the GP's argument).
Parent
How?! (Score:5, Insightful)
So...what was YouTube supposed to do? Seize control of the internet and delete all copies of the video?
Re:How?! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The real issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly -- who stole the media to begin with, and why aren't they looking more thoroughly into their own security problems, rather than spit lawsuits? Why are they unnamed, but the video sites are put right out there publicly? Detract attention from the real problem? The above quote is the very last sentence from TFA, and the only mention of how the video was leaked...
Re:The real issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is yet another example of the DMCA being improperly used by some corksoaking lawyer at the behest of another group trying to CYA for being stupid about security of their cameras... You're right... it's a diversionary tactic.
I wonder if a live feed of that camera's used anywhere? You know for TV traffic and that sort of thing?
Parent
Video link (Score:3, Informative)
Video is visible as part of a news report here : http://wcbstv.com/video?id=99739@wcbs.dayport.com& cid=2 [wcbstv.com] (Flash required).
Found through Yahoo! video.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Video link (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Why is this copyrighted at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
A more reasonable legal tool for knocking this off the internet might be for the estate of the dead guy to sue under an right of publicity/invasion of privacy theory.
Some stuff doesn't belong in public circulation... but copyright is not the only way to control that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has little or nothing to do with the copyright system. Just because somebody claims to hold copyright on a video and somebody else jumps to remove it doesn't mean they actually do hold that copyright.
As has been suggested above, there's a very good argument that this is actually a copyright-free video (no creative input was put into making it; it is a straightforward reproduction of what actually occurred), and google is reactin
Who has the right to sue? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think anybody has a right to privacy about something that happens in public.
Why did the guy crash? According to this [newsday.com] the driver had a "history of seizures". If so, then he shouldn't be driving at all, he was a danger to others. Or perhaps it was a suicide, or he could have been drunk or asleep, who knows. But anyway, he was the only one to blame on what happened. It was only luck that made him hit a toll booth
We must stop this copyright insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
what are they trying to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not they are concerned about liability in this particular case, setting a precedent that governments can take down public footage of public, newsworthy events through the DMCA would be bad. This kind of video needs to be open to public scrutiny.
Re:what are they trying to hide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite to the contrary: a compassionate society wouldn't try to hide suffering and death under a blanket of silence. There is nothing shameful about either dying or other people taking an interest in it; in a compassionate society, that is what people do. What is shameful and incompassionate is that people like you are trying to insulate themselves from these natural events.
If one believes that the highest form of art is sneaking up to a window and filming a neighbor in a compromising position, then there is no problem with this video.
Now you have slipped from bad arguments to pure demagoguery and name calling: what, please tell, does voyeurism have to do with documenting a news event on a public highway?
We were such in a hurry to film every innocuous act, that we did not set up a proper legal framework to control the flow of the footage, so we use the DCMA, a blunt and largely ineffective tool, to close the barn door after all the horses have escaped.
We have a legal framework, and it applies here: in some places, you have an expectation of privacy, in others, you don't. If you drive on a public highway, you have no expectation of privacy. And, in fact, the reason this video appeared in the first place is because the NJTA didn't recognize privacy rights in the first place: they released the video to the press, after all. All they are complaining about is that it has received wider distribution than they originally intended.
Parent
Misleading Slashdot Article (Score:5, Insightful)
"and was, therefore, property of the turnpike" (Score:5, Informative)
Showing footage of a car crash that happened on the turnpike and was, therefore, property of the turnpike.
No. They don't claim they own the footage because it happened on the turnpike, they claim it is their footage because it was an NJTA camera that recorded it. The summary's incorrect statement leads people to believe that the NJTA claims everything recorded by anyone on the turnpike is their property. Reading the first paragraph of the actual article dispelled that.
Why do people submit stories and summaries before even understanding the target article?
FOIA (Score:3, Interesting)
May not be copyrightable at all. (Score:4, Informative)
This could be interesting if YouTube fights it. It's an open question under US law whether security camera images are copyrightable. See this legal article [golishlaw.com], note 153. The Supreme Court ruled in Feist vs. Rural Telephone [cornell.edu] that the data in phone books are not copyrightable; "The standard of originality is low, but it exists". So anybody can scan in a phone book and put the info into a database.
That's a famous decision - whole industries are based on it. The Court ruled that originality is a constitutional requirement: "Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright 2.01[A], [B] (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer)."
The output of a security camera has no author. That's the key here. Copyright must start with an author.
unadulterated video (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)