No, but unfortunately not wanting to become an internet sensation is not going to protect you from becoming one. I respect him for not wanting to be known, but none of us is in control of that. What we do in public may be seen and shared without us having a say in it.
Comment on All glory to the techno viking.
snooggums@piefed.world 3 days agoExisting in a public space during an event does not imply a desire to become a public figure.
yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
shalafi@lemmy.world 3 days ago
But such activity does not come with an expectation of privacy. I suspect the legal issue was the uploader profiting of it, but even then, don’t think that would fly in America?
We gonna need a lawyer, stat!
Nythos@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
How would you feel going to a parade only for your face to be plastered across the internet for millions to see with you having no say in the matter?
yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Your feelings have nothing to do here, nor mine. We all have a right to our image but it applies to specific cases, not everything. If you are in a public place and someone takes a photo and you are in it, well, that’s how it goes. We might not like it and there is a case to be made for morality but it is not forbidden by law. Remember the case of those two in a stadium or concert or some shit and when they saw themselves in the big screen hugging they hid under the barrier because they were cheating on their respective partners? Wouldn’t they like to say no one is allowed to take their images x) but they can’t. Because there was no malicious intent in the recording, they don’t own the rights of the recording, and even if they own the rights to their image, they were in a public space where cameras are expected. They were not the objective of the camera, they were not the center of attention, so their right doesn’t apply here. Now if someone would try selling shirts with their image from the video, they could legally fight it and stop the seller.
Now for the techno-viking, knowing his wish to remain anonymous I would be on the side of trying to respect it by not sharing even more his video, but in this case, legally it is a bit complex, he is slightly the main focus of the video, but the video is a recording of a public event and might be more than just him but cut to this specific length only. He might not have wanted to be a famous internet sensation but rarely ever anyone can choose whether they are or not, and the right to our image rarely applies to memes. Where the author of the video fucked up is trying to make him into a sellable image.
So the previous comments being downvoted are actually more right than wrong, they are just expressing the reality that so many do not like in Lemmy.
The techno-viking is internet history, whether he likes it or not, and whether some respect his wish or not is up to each person, but legally I wouldn’t bet on him having any ground.
rumba@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Legal vs Moral, he’s obviously a good enough guy, I think limiting his exposure to his own wishes is the moral thing to do. We can probably stop the argument there.