Comment on All glory to the techno viking.
shalafi@lemmy.world 3 days agoBut 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 2 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 2 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 2 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.
yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Way to reduce the conversation to nothingness… Good enough guy? We literally know nothing about him, not even the name. The only thing we see from him is his (awesome techno) dancing and him threatening a guy for bumping into a girl, probably with the intention of protecting the girl but he doesn’t seem to check on her or anything. We don’t know anything.
I already said that each individual can choose to follow his wish or not, but the conversation is clearly around the legal aspect, he is not requesting to be left alone (not himself literally), his lawyer said for him he doesn’t want to be a public figure to defend him from the author of the video profiting from his image (and I’m glad he succeeded). Since what we have is the word of a lawyer, this conversation refers mostly to the legal aspect, which is what the first comment downvoted implied, good luck defending a client to not be a public figure after being recorded in a public place. No one can control that, no matter what we would like to think or what we feel about it.
You are free to drop the conversation at any time you feel is right, I’ll be glad to continue commenting on this topic with whomever because for me (who absolutely knows the bare minimum of law) it is fascinating. The idea of being anonymous is such an abstract concept (one that I very much like to protect) that strange situations occur when law and the internet collide.
A few countries have tried (and some succeeded I think) to pass laws to protect the public image of individuals, such laws that I’ve seen are called the right to be forgotten. It’s an easy idea to defend, we all want to be able to remove ourselves from the harsh view of society and something important to people suffering all kinds of abuse. But the law was pushed by assholes that wanted to use it to censor news and search engines to hide their history of corruption or whatever else. The right to anonymity doesn’t override everything else, and such is this case, and unfortunately for our techno viking it won’t remove him from the internet, at least I’m glad he managed to keep his name hidden.