No! I Don't Want to be on YouTube!

[flynnibus]

A TV station reporting news could do that and get away with it. But a vlogger is in a gray area where it would be dependent on lots of other things with the most problematic being the fact that different courts and states have different interpretations of what would constitute a fair use exception

The reason the news station can get away with it is the same reason the blogger would... under the claim of 'newsworthy' or the idea the person is not uniquely identified. There aren't different standards here... just as you say... willingness to pursue.

But again, you just being in the background of a video in the open areas of the park, even doing undesirable things, is not grounds for claims of privacy violations. In fact, the more you are doing, the less likely of a case you'd have.. as you start approaching on the idea of something being newsworthy.

I mean, the first exception in Florida statue on this pretty much gives wide girth to the blogger in this topic:
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes;"

So even if I know it's you thomas998 in the video... and everyone else does too.. it's not grounds to be violating your right to control your likeness if the video were in the purpose of covering the legitimate public interest topic and I'm not singling your identity out as something for me to gain from.

 

[flynnibus]

Laws are quite clear in every state.... every state has its own laws... what isn't clear is how the courts in any of those states might rule. Lawyer live by arguing how a simple law should be interpreted and the only real winners are the lawyers billing the hours.

Well that's why I said "It's simply a matter of judgement/evaluation" . It's not a question of applicability or scope of the law as inferred by the other poster. There is no new laws needed because we are talking bloggers, youtube, etc.. the current law covers that just fine. And case law helps cover interpretations to date.

 

[flynnibus]

Laws are fuzzy if the average person needs to wade through a bunch of non-specific jargon and still not feel confident how it applies to their situation, and where lawyers can have a field day back and forth about the details

Sorry, but that's how all law works. Not all situations can simply be B&W like driving over the speed limit. What matters here is the current laws apply cleanly and without twisting to bloggers, Disney, and youtube.

People commonly know their basic rights for print and commercial use because consistency makes legal grounds obvious

It's ironic you say that because copyright and trademark are probably the most commonly misunderstood legal concepts on the net and the bane of content creators since the dawn of the www.

Most people don't know their rights because they can't be bothered to invest 5mins in learning the scope and applicability of exceptions and rights of others.

 

[allknowingeye]

Not exactly true. Having had a few conversations with Disney legal about this and how it works and their attitudes about it, since I am one of those said vloggers...

(oh, and yes, I do normally carry a copy of said emails with me when I'm in the parks, just in case there is a question, but no, I will not provide them to you because I don't want to make them available for others to edit/ photoshop/ make use of in ways they weren't intended. Hope that's understandable)

Sounds like you are trying to make the story fit the outcome you want. Emails are not contracts. Unless you have a signed legal contract, you haven't got squat. If Disney made a legal statement on their official web sites that this was a policy then you would have something but I have seen no evidence of that.

Now this provision of the Florida law that states "(c) Any photograph of a person solely as a member of the public and where such person is not named or otherwise identified in or in connection with the use of such photograph" may provide some protection but it falls to to the interpretation of that person whether they feel it singled them out or not.

I film all the time, and I make it a living on it, but I also make a concerted effort to ensure I keep members of the public to the bare minimum and preferably none at all. It can be done. It takes more patience, and skill. When I see some clown just wantoningly filming everything under the sun without regard for who they are filming makes me mad. That is rank amateurism, and inappropriate. These people that wear cameras that are running all the time should be banned from the park as far as I am concerned.

 

[trainplane3]

"Wild income" LOL outside of a very small handful of people, they aren't making "wild incomes" from their youtube videos. The vast majority do it for their own fun and pleasure as they aren't making money (or very little of it) from YouTube. Don't fall for the "it's easy to get rich off of YouTube" myth.

Exactly, there's a handful of people that make big $ from doing Disney stuff on Youtube but they likely have third-party ads or other forms of media driven income. And of course once they hit the big time...then their ego flops onto the table and they start swinging it around.

🌶 Personal hot and spicy take🌶: To hell with being a Youtuber. Between the broken copyright system and having to go clickbaity with videos in order to get a following, it isn't worth the effort. Only do it if you like it and don't expect to be some star with hundreds of thousands of followers.


And on topic with being worried about being in someones video. Don't worry. There's a 99.99999999999999% chance they aren't filming you directly and are completely worried about some other topic.

 

[OG Runner]

Has this been mentioned already?


I like Disney; I like Vlogs. What I don't like is being in them. But! This is my fear. Last time I was in Disney World, someone was live streaming on Main Street. Or when I watch food reviews on YouTube, I feel so bad for the people behind the reviewer. This is my nightmare. I'm eating food like a cavewoman, and a vlogger is in front of me. Does anyone else feel like that?

Do you often eat like a cavewoman? Do you often pick your nose? Do you often adjust your "shorts"? Given how many
people have their phones out nowadays in the parks, it is probably just a better idea to not do things you don't want to
see on YouTube when you get back from vacation.

 

[Vacationeer]

Sorry, but that's how all law works. Not all situations can simply be B&W like driving over the speed limit. What matters here is the current laws apply cleanly and without twisting to bloggers, Disney, and youtube.



It's ironic you say that because copyright and trademark are probably the most commonly misunderstood legal concepts on the net and the bane of content creators since the dawn of the www.

Most people don't know their rights because they can't be bothered to invest 5mins in learning the scope and applicability of exceptions and rights of others.

Most people I know:
-know that a newspaper would need their permission to print a picture of their child.
-know that the news has a limited way which it can broadcast someone's image, and could also cite some examples of those limitations.
-know basic copyright and trademark concepts enough to know how to avoid breaching those laws.

Most people I know would scratch their head about rights regarding similar situations online. If they were unfamiliar with the above, it would take 5 minutes learning... Investigating these issues in online content? It'd take 5 days and they'd still be in doubt.

 

[flynnibus]

Most people I know:
-know that a newspaper would need their permission to print a picture of their child.
-know that the news has a limited way which it can broadcast someone's image, and could also cite some examples of those limitations.
-know basic copyright and trademark concepts enough to know how to avoid breaching those laws.

You're just proving the point. Your broad statements above are not accurate. They are accurate only with other conditions applied.

Online doesn't change anything except for geography, distribution, and how easy it is to get in touch with the content owner.

My example was more about ownership of content... while your examples were more about right to publicity and likeness.

Truth is, there are some common CONVENTIONS people are familiar without - but they really don't understand the actual limits or their rights as limited by the law.

This same population you mention would have no problem copy and reposting photographs or quoted content.. and think nothing of it. "its online, so obviously its free to use.."

 

[Vacationeer]

I agree there are already laws in place and online doesn't (or shouldn't) change much.

It's much more complicated online between personal/monetary/commercial/educational use, jurisdiction of footage/owner/non-consentor, recourse options and whatever else. Maybe we can go copyright ourselves to cover any vulnerability and that would get us right back to square one, outlining the terms in a comprehendible manner. It may never be intuitive but I can hope for some clarity

In the meantime I stopped wearing my Speedo on the beach.

 

[Vacationeer]

This same population you mention would have no problem copy and reposting photographs or quoted content.. and think nothing of it. "its online, so obviously its free to use.."

Exactly. Where is the line when it matters and it doesn't? Right now it's a free for all which isn't 100% bad but there are many things that can and should be protected. How do we differentiate?

 

[thomas998]

The reason the news station can get away with it is the same reason the blogger would... under the claim of 'newsworthy' or the idea the person is not uniquely identified. There aren't different standards here... just as you say... willingness to pursue.

But again, you just being in the background of a video in the open areas of the park, even doing undesirable things, is not grounds for claims of privacy violations. In fact, the more you are doing, the less likely of a case you'd have.. as you start approaching on the idea of something being newsworthy.

I mean, the first exception in Florida statue on this pretty much gives wide girth to the blogger in this topic:
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes;"

So even if I know it's you thomas998 in the video... and everyone else does too.. it's not grounds to be violating your right to control your likeness if the video were in the purpose of covering the legitimate public interest topic and I'm not singling your identity out as something for me to gain from.

The problems are what is "bona fide news report"... and of course what is "advertising purposes"... You could argue a vlogger isn't a legitimate news organization and by the fact that a legitimate news organization would need to get permission from Disney to enter the park whereas the vlogger doesn't indicates that Disney doesn't seem to view them as legitimate news organizations in the same category as the reporter from the local network... One might also argue that everything the vlogger is doing on youtube is really just an advertisement.

In the end I think we agree that most people aren't going to go chasing after anyone that captures them in their vlog... And it also doesn't matter if you could win a lawsuit filed against you or not it is still going to cost you lots of money to deal with it. The only way I was ever able to justify working for a firm that specialized in white collar crime was by reminding myself that everyone we got off that was guilty was still paying a huge price to get off which in a couple of instances bankrupted the client.

 

[flynnibus]

The problems are what is "bona fide news report"... and of course what is "advertising purposes"... You could argue a vlogger isn't a legitimate news organization and by the fact that a legitimate news organization would need to get permission from Disney to enter the park whereas the vlogger doesn't indicates that Disney doesn't seem to view them as legitimate news organizations in the same category as the reporter from the local network... One might also argue that everything the vlogger is doing on youtube is really just an advertisement

They don't need to be a 'legitimate news organization' by that statute.. just a 'news medium or publication' who is making a 'bona fide news report or presentation'. Considering the size of the market and number of people reporting on Disney's daily activities and that market easily being bigger than many broadcast TV populations... I think you'd be hard to lose an argument that much of these daily change blogs are not bone fide reports. Now, the person just livestreaming what they ate and poop'd today.. no. But the bloggers tracking activity, changes, crowds, etc in the park? Hell ya.

And just because you are ad sponsored... and do things to drive your viewership.. (the common traits of these people and their channels) I don't think you'd call it an advertisement. Especially if the people are independent of the people they are pumping (Disney) - which virtually everyone is.. even if they are on the teet.

In the end I think we agree that most people aren't going to go chasing after anyone that captures them in their vlog... And it also doesn't matter if you could win a lawsuit filed against you or not it is still going to cost you lots of money to deal with it.

Yes, but where is matters is in driving the automated take-down systems and similar. Failing to properly protect the standard of use leads to building systems that are easily abused and people have to over react to protect themselves from take-downs, etc. We don't need a world where everyone has to blur out every face in a crowd before they post stuff online because some company didn't want to even risk the fear of civil action.

 

[flynnibus]

Exactly. Where is the line when it matters and it doesn't? Right now it's a free for all which isn't 100% bad but there are many things that can and should be protected. How do we differentiate?

Ehh.. the line was WAY BACK THERE.. and that's the point. Most people have no clue that just because you saw it online doesn't make it fair game. How do we differentiate? You start with the rules of fair use and the privacy protections we've been covering here.

Problem is most people simply don't care and its impractical to try to keep up with the whole web all the time... So the mob just gets bigger, and more people see the improper usage and think its ok, just because they see it so much.