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

[thomas998]

Actually, being one of those vloggers, I have to laugh at the number of times people have reacted thinking they were on camera when they weren't. Quite amusing when people think you're videoing when you're actually in "selfie" mode in which case most of what is in the screen is the vlogger and not much else behind them.

Keep in mind, when you go to Disney you agree that your image and likeness can be used in any publicity video, photos or other items that may happen in the parks while you were there. That includes vloggers which Disney uses as free publicity.

Nope. You are allowing Disney to use your image, a visitor has no such agreement with any vlogger and if you were to use the image of someone and you were not Disney you could be sued and would lose in court.

Just because Disney is getting free publicity doesn't mean that Disney has extended to you their rights to use the images of visitors, that would require them to enter into a contract with you the vlogger which they have not done and which I seriously doubt they would ever do as they would then be opening themselves up to any problems that might occur from what you were doing with the images which may or may not be what they would deem acceptable. Imagine a worse case scenario where the vlogger gets into an agreement with Disney and then uses some of their footage for something like a o video... That would be the Disney lawyers worst fears and the reason they wouldn't jump in bed with a vlogger unless that vlogger had given them lots of assurances on what would and wouldn't be used and most likely would require the vlogger to get Disney to sign off on anything before it was used.

 

[thomas998]

Personally (with having a basic understanding of laws surrounding this issue and not reading their entirety in current form), I have this expectation in WDW for myself and family:

My likeness can be broadcast by anyone as long as I'm not the focus of scene, or I'm not "upstaging' the scene unintentionally.

If a vlogger captures me in the background eating my hotdog, ok. If I drop the topping all over myself or do anything to become a distraction to the scene and there's a reasonable possibility that viewers could focus on it, then it's the broadcaster's responsibility to cut that part or censor my image to not be identifiable.

This is not possible during live-streaming, so more caution needs to be taken by the broadcaster. As long as the broadcaster is performing due diligence to avoid such things, then it's acceptable if something slips past unintentionally. If it becomes a pattern of slips, it needs to be addressed/reported/whatever. If they never show concern or are using these unaothorized images to gain interest and profit, it is a big no-no and they crossed the legal line.

They cross the legal line as soon as they use any image of you that is identifiable of you for commercial gain whether realize or not. Give these vlogger are usually doing it to gain views and try to make money off youtube, you could sue any of them that had you in their video, of course most of the time no one is going to be aware that they were in any of those videos so the odds of anyone suing anyone is very low.

 

[Vacationeer]

They cross the legal line as soon as they use any image of you that is identifiable of you for commercial gain whether realize or not. Give these vlogger are usually doing it to gain views and try to make money off youtube, you could sue any of them that had you in their video, of course most of the time no one is going to be aware that they were in any of those videos so the odds of anyone suing anyone is very low.

What you said is how I understand laws and protections for news or any public reproduction. If the people in the background are not out of focus and unidentifiable, then they need to give consent before publication.

I guess personally I'm less concerned being a part of the background in a video where I'm one of a million details as opposed to being part of a focal point in print where much more attention is garnered. I do see people make comments on youtube like "Hey, that's me there by Jungle Cruise" but don't seem to mind. What would happen if someone requested to be removed from a public youtube video?

 

[jloucks]

What would happen if someone requested to be removed from a public youtube video?

I know for a fact that youtube can and does pull videos.

But, not based on what you said above. Crowd shots where you are identifiable are not an issue and totally legal. Only if you are the focus of the shot, and it is generating revenue, is it an issue.

So, understanding that, yes, if there is a video of you barfing in a bush on you tube that is generating a lot of revenue, you can request to have it pulled. They might very well pull it. (hint: claim ownership of your own likeness).

Video of you standing around watching the person barfing in the bush, you have no case. ...unless you start sympathy barfing.

How do I know this? A very small part of my job is proving I have peoples permission to post content on you tube. Yes, youtube has bots or whatnot that sniff out possible infringements. I get to deal with that. It stinks.

 

[thomas998]

What you said is how I understand laws and protections for news or any public reproduction. If the people in the background are not out of focus and unidentifiable, then they need to give consent before publication.

I guess personally I'm less concerned being a part of the background in a video where I'm one of a million details as opposed to being part of a focal point in print where much more attention is garnered. I do see people make comments on youtube like "Hey, that's me there by Jungle Cruise" but don't seem to mind. What would happen if someone requested to be removed from a public youtube video?

You wouldn't just request to be removed your lawyer would also file a suit against whoever put the video up. I do remember when I was taking a bar exam class that the guy given a refresher on tort mentioned that a company doing bar reviews used a photo that happened to have someone that was taking their class in it and they didn't realize no one got a release. The guy sued and the company had to pay him off because they knew they would lose in court. If you get caught using someone's image without permission you're pretty much at their mercy. Only thing will save you really is if you are poor enough that your judgement proof because no lawyer would chase after someone if they knew they could get their cut of a pound of flesh.

 

[flynnibus]

They cross the legal line as soon as they use any image of you that is identifiable of you for commercial gain whether realize or not.

Not quite... they can post crowd videos. Even those where you are clearly identifiable. The key is not that you are identifiable, but how you as the individual are being used. You dont have the expectation of privacy there, and your right to control your likeness and right to publicity do not prevent people from using video of the public where simply you could be identifiable... even for commercial gain.

 

[Vacationeer]

Protecting your identity - YouTube Help

We want you to feel safe when you're on YouTube, which is why we encourage you to let us know if videos or comments on the site violate your privacy or sense of safety. If someone posted your persona

support.google.com

Protecting your identity
We want you to feel safe when you're on YouTube, which is why we encourage you to let us know if videos or comments on the site violate your privacy or sense of safety.
If someone has posted your personal information or uploaded a video of you without your consent, you should contact the uploader and ask them to remove the content. If you can’t reach an agreement with the uploader, or if you're uncomfortable contacting them, you can request to have the content removed based on our Privacy Guidelines.
Criteria for removing content
Our Privacy Guidelines provide a detailed explanation of our privacy complaint process and the factors we take into account when evaluating privacy claims.
For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely identifiable. If you want to use the privacy complaint process, make sure that you are uniquely identifiable within the content you seek to report before proceeding. When assessing if an individual is uniquely identifiable, we consider the following factors:

• Image or voice
• Full name
• Financial information
• Contact information
• Other personally identifiable information

When you report a privacy complaint, we consider public interest, newsworthiness, and consent as factors in our final decision.

YouTube Privacy Guidelines - YouTube Help

YouTube Privacy Guidelines 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 vid

support.google.com

What does uniquely identifiable mean?
To be considered uniquely identifiable, there must be enough information in the video that allows others to recognize 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.

--It looks like Google/youtube consider your privacy has only been violated if a viewer is able to track you somehow, like people who don't know you can find out from the exposure?

 

[Vacationeer]

Public Place
In general, any footage shot in a public place can be uploaded to YouTube without permission from anyone you may have captured on film. There are exceptions to the rule -- for example, airport restrooms are public places, but shooting strangers in this setting will likely get you in trouble. The rule that applies here is "expectation of privacy." If a person can reasonably expect privacy in a location, then you cannot film him without his permission. To protect yourself from any legal liability, extend this idea to places where people wouldn't want to be identified, such as in a court room, a doctor's office or a strip club. Filming in a public place is covered by the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean you won't be sued by an angry and unaware participant. If there's any question, ask your subjects to sign a standard release form which you can find online (link in Resources).

from https://itstillworks.com/need-subjects-permission-put-video-youtube-18161.html

 

[flynnibus]

Youtube policy is not the definition of the law... this is a state issue.

Florida ‘s right to control your public image. - http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/540.08

And notable exception that applies here 4c
“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.”

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

What does any of this have to do with the Falcon Ramp?

 

[Vacationeer]

Youtube policy is not the definition of the law... this is a state issue.

Florida ‘s right to control your public image. - http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/540.08

And notable exception that applies here 4c
“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.”

I just meant to show how youtube spins it since most of the concern here is with those vloggers. That FL law is interesting-
1 "No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent... "
2 "...may bring an action to enjoin such unauthorized publication, printing, display or other public use, and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained by reason thereof, including an amount which would have been a reasonable royalty, and punitive or exemplary damages."

Does this directly apply to public spaces where there is not a reasonable expectation to privacy? I'm just wondering how youtube doesn't have big problems over this matter.

 

[flynnibus]

I just meant to show how youtube spins it since most of the concern here is with those vloggers. That FL law is interesting-
1 "No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent... "
2 "...may bring an action to enjoin such unauthorized publication, printing, display or other public use, and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained by reason thereof, including an amount which would have been a reasonable royalty, and punitive or exemplary damages."

Does this directly apply to public spaces where there is not a reasonable expectation to privacy? I'm just wondering how youtube doesn't have big problems over this matter.

You have to read the exceptions along with the limits on use.

 

[MinnieWaffles]

Personally (with having a basic understanding of laws surrounding this issue and not reading their entirety in current form), I have this expectation in WDW for myself and family:

My likeness can be broadcast by anyone as long as I'm not the focus of scene, or I'm not "upstaging' the scene unintentionally.

If a vlogger captures me in the background eating my hotdog, ok. If I drop the topping all over myself or do anything to become a distraction to the scene and there's a reasonable possibility that viewers could focus on it, then it's the broadcaster's responsibility to cut that part or censor my image to not be identifiable.

This is not possible during live-streaming, so more caution needs to be taken by the broadcaster. As long as the broadcaster is performing due diligence to avoid such things, then it's acceptable if something slips past unintentionally. If it becomes a pattern of slips, it needs to be addressed/reported/whatever. If they never show concern or are using these unaothorized images to gain interest and profit, it is a big no-no and they crossed the legal line.

pssh. I would find it hilarious to accidentally find myself in the background dropping my hotdog down me, even though at the time it would be terribly annoying. God knows I've probably been in hundreds of random photoes and videos over the years because that's what happens when you go to a very popular theme park.

 

[Vacationeer]

pssh. I would find it hilarious to accidentally find myself in the background dropping my hotdog down me, even though at the time it would be terribly annoying. God knows I've probably been in hundreds of random photoes and videos over the years because that's what happens when you go to a very popular theme park.

The hotdog topping is an example used from the beginning posts. Is there a line it would ever cross for you? Say a scenario where your 12yo niece or nephew crapped themselves on ToT or was caught puking on StarTours and a vlogger refused to remove them from their footage background.

I'll probably never run into any issues in this area but all people are different. If someone in my family did have issue, the recourse could be as simple as a removal request or a huge headache calling/paying a lawyer. Right now the laws aren't very straightforward because not much action is currently being taken in this specific area to commonly define it.

 

[Jedi Stitch]

I found myself on Fresh Baked Disney, and loved it. I could let friends and coworkers know to look up the VLOG and see us. I was even hoping to run across, one of them so I could get a chance to have a lasting memory, I can go back to by hitting their site.

 

[flynnibus]

Right now the laws aren't very straightforward because not much action is currently being taken in this specific area to commonly define it.

The laws are very clear here - this does not need new legislation. It's simply a matter of a judge passing a judgement if a situation meets the judgement criteria.... which is pretty much the case in ever law. It's simply a matter of judgement/evaluation.. and not something binary like 'dead' or 'not dead'

 

[OG Runner]

I keep trying to get into one of running vlogs done by Lee Hoedel or RezRuns. Unfortunately,
even with them posing with characters, I never seem to catch up to them. I need to train harder.

 

[thomas998]

Not quite... they can post crowd videos. Even those where you are clearly identifiable. The key is not that you are identifiable, but how you as the individual are being used. You dont have the expectation of privacy there, and your right to control your likeness and right to publicity do not prevent people from using video of the public where simply you could be identifiable... even for commercial gain.

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. Using random people in your vlog that might live in a state with a different rule than what you are expecting could lead to an expensive problem. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a vlogger that lives in say Georgia to visit Disney get video that includes someone from Idaho and then end up getting sued by the people in Idaho. Even if you had a good case against the lawsuit would you want to spend the money trying to fight a lawsuit... You could waste more on the lawyer fees proving you were with your rights to use the video than you would ever make from your Youtube account.

 

[thomas998]

The laws are very clear here - this does not need new legislation. It's simply a matter of a judge passing a judgement if a situation meets the judgement criteria.... which is pretty much the case in ever law. It's simply a matter of judgement/evaluation.. and not something binary like 'dead' or 'not dead'

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.

 

[Vacationeer]

The laws are very clear here - this does not need new legislation. It's simply a matter of a judge passing a judgement if a situation meets the judgement criteria.... which is pretty much the case in ever law. It's simply a matter of judgement/evaluation.. and not something binary like 'dead' or 'not dead'

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. I don't want my fate riding on the whims of 1 judge.

People commonly know their basic rights for print and commercial use because consistency makes legal grounds obvious. Youtube has a huge window for bickering back and forth over interpretation and application. Job security for lawyers