I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.
For example, California has a right of publicity law. It's my understanding that even photos taken "in public" can't necessarily be used for commercial purposes:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l...
It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act to incriminate him/herself by admitting guilt for the purpose of prevailing on a right-to-publicity action.
Moreover, every case involving right to publicity/right of likeness thus far has had a "famous" person as the plaintiff, where there's a sort of "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness and that goodwill is being misappropriated specifically to recommend or endorse a product. That's not the case here, for sure.
But the person wasn’t caught on camera performing a criminal act afaics. She was caught walking between two cars and pulling at a door handle, the car was locked, person continued. Is this criminal? Kids do that all the time.
It’s alleged that the person did perform a criminal act elsewhere but was not caught on camera.
So it is a calculated risk that they won't sue, absolving Amazon of any actual negative consequence.
If that’s the standard that legal and ok gets measured on, yes, then that’s likely legal and ok.
Hell entertainment/production companies exist just to create shows that run these kinds of stories and solicit information from the public. Think of the host of FBIs most wanted who’s own child was famously kidnapped from a sears department store...you think sears, the FBI, or even the father have no right to show videos/images, public or private, that depict the suspect and solicit information from the public? Or even offer a reward for information leading to arrest?
(And what's the definition of an ad you ask? Good question, I'm not sure if the FTC has a specific definition)
Think like this: what if Amazon was putting the same information into a newspaper?
It's posted by a corporation to sell a product. I think it's disingenuous to claim it's not an ad, though whether the content of the ad is illegal is admittedly debatable.
(As an aside, it's my understanding the "Promoted" tag is added specifically to comply with FTC guidelines that paid content be labeled.)
If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.
That's practically a Black Mirror episode, and I would hope that everyone can see this, but judging from this comment thread, that's clearly not the case. Disturbing.
You asked what the difference was with the social media post vs. TV: The difference is that COPS, etc., don't want to be sued, so they get releases, because they realize that they could potentially be sued (and sometimes for good reason!) I sincerely doubt the person in the post signed a release from Amazon.
If you argue that it's technically legal, the OP wasn't specifically arguing that either.
> Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising.
OJ was tried criminally and was found not guilty (I assure you the state of California has more money than OJ, yet he prevailed).
OJ was then sued civilly for wrongful death by the Goldman’s (OJ probably had more money than the Goldman’s) and yet the Goldman’s prevailed in the civil suit.
The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’.
Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.
Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation
Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement.
The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated.
There are also precedents discussing it
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
This is often brought out as if to imply that the courts are correct. But why wouldn't government courts tend to malinterpret the Constitution in favor of the government?
You have to drive a car to travel interstate.
Uh… Airports? Trains? Walking? Taking the ferry?
You can literally touch four states at once at Four Corners.
Try walking around the nation and see how much police interaction you get :)
No, no they don't. Private property does; and controlled-access highways do; but definitely not ordinary public highways.
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/illinois-state-...
It's orthogonal to the general right to travel freely, but the story does demonstrate how overly broad procedural laws end up being selectively and inappropriately enforced to persecute under the color of law.
Consider attending law school; it's very eye-opening.
Asking the king permission to sue the king seems a bit like what the founders fought against than what they founded.
I doubt I have time to attend law school, get a degree and sue the govt before things change drastically. Not sure for the better.
Enjoyed the discussion.
> The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets
Thompson v Smith
You are prohibited from walking on most rights of ways not to mention if you do you will be harassed by police as a potential indigent.
Undue burden is also a metric ;)
Well, sorta.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution.
You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
I totally agree with that principle, but I think they presumption of innocence ship sailed a long time with modern social media and news cycles.
Not only because under the pressure of competition some company in this sector will attempt to manufacture fear by any means available. If by misdirection, or by direct action of some sort, but we'll all be so much worse for it.