Hacker News Reader

Comment by micromacrofoot | Hacker News Reader

In the US you'd need permission to film the location, and without a release you could be stopped from using the video commercially (social media can count as commercial use if the uploader profits from views)

This can cover public places too, some localities require a permit to film a public place for commercial use.

View on HN

Some courts have ruled requiring permits and fees for commercial filming constitute 1st amendment violations because they are content-based restrictions on free speech.

Commercial speech is generally less protected so this seems questionable. Also how is it content based?

Yeah it's definitely questionable... but banning someone using your images commercially feels right to me, especially in the context of this kind of exploitation. It isn't as blatant as creepshots, but it feels abusive.

We can't hold so tightly to free speech that it erodes reasonable individual rights, but what's "reasonable" is often a grey area. Worth debating.

I think the issue with getting a release is it shields you from litigation. It doesn't necessarily mean you'd lose the litigation if you didn't get the release, but a business is not going to want to take the risk they'd have litigation hanging over their head preventing the exploitation of the intellectual property asset.

A journalist presumably isn't going to be getting permission to film, they are going to show up to where the news is and film.

I think the intent should matter, but how to capture this in the letter of the law is the question.

The intent is wildly different between actual journalism, and indie film or art project shoot, and behaving obnoxiously towards bystanders in order to directly convert attention into money.

Does TikTok require a business account or something like that in order to be paid? That could be a useful indicator.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com