Hacker News Reader

Comment by dontbenebby | Hacker News Reader

The difference is this is an ad. Commercial speech is subject to more regulation than private speech in America.

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...

View on HN

(Attorney here, but this is not legal advice.)

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.

> It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act

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.

The point is that this person would have to sue. There is no district attorney or third party that would sue Amazon for this action.

So it is a calculated risk that they won't sue, absolving Amazon of any actual negative consequence.

> 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.

So perhaps this is a suspect due to other factors that aren't mentioned. Maybe the location of this video is near other documented break-ins and it fits a profile.

Yes, possibly. That would make it fine for law enforcement to use it. That doesn’t make it fine for a for-profit company to use it in advertising.

Attempted burglary is a crime.

Now, if you can prove that. I’ve pulled on door handles of cars that I believed to be mine. I’ve tried to enter apartments and hotel rooms because I took the wrong floor. The acts described in the video certainly look suspicious, but as a stand-alone video are a bit low as standards for convictions should go.

Businesses post images and video of suspects all the time and solicit information.

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?

Amazon should have instead paid an actor, created a fake video and then use that as an ad. Might have even gone viral like this one did.

Yes, the tweet is promoted. But I'm not sure if it would fit the definition of an "ad"

(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?

> Yes, the tweet is promoted. But I'm not sure if it would fit the definition of an "ad"

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.)

It fits the definition of marketing, but not advertising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com