I thought it was legal to film police?
The funny thing is this is basically the exact same story for J. Cole's "Neighbors"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY
Basically he moved to a new bougie neighborhood and the neighbors called the cops on him accusing him of "selling dope" (the primary hook of the 1 minute song). So he took his security footage and made a music video out of it
You can see the SWAT team members casually talking to the neighbors peeking over the fence too lol
Is this a misspelling (perhaps purposefully?) of “bourgeoisie”?
It looks mostly like a claim about using their likeness commercially —- their personality rights. i.e. the rights someone would sign over in a modeling contract.
…Like how you can’t put Tom Hanks face on a box of cigarettes and sell it without permission. He may sue and claim that you’ve tarnished his image.
But yeah, it’s a stretch here too given the circumstances, but these laws vary by state so I have no clue how this state handles it.
> Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2741.09 (A)(1): Right Of Publicity In Individual's Persona: Exceptions.
> (A) This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
> (1)(a) A literary work, dramatic work, fictional work, historical work, audiovisual work, or musical work regardless of the media in which the work appears or is transmitted, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement not exempt under division (A)(1)(d) of this section;
> (b) Material that has political or newsworthy value;
> ...
Source: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09
These count as news, right?
https://www.wlwt.com/article/afroman-adams-county-home-raid/...
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/08/23/afroman-hou...
https://reason.com/2022/12/05/cops-return-cash-seized-from-a...
https://hightimes.com/news/afromans-ohio-residence-raided-by...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-oh...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/30/afroman-cops-stole-missing-mo...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/afroman-calls-police-raid-hom...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11135971/Afrom...
All prior to releasing the song (the "commercial use"). This isn't exhaustive.
Afroman just might have a case...
Although, that might not cover the T-shirts…
I believe the reason he has a right to publish this work is because he is not profiting from their likeness. He is profiting from his work of criticism. (Edit: a sibling comment points out that Ohio exempts audiovisual and political works)
Also, as a public servant in official duty, in a place where they found themselves likely to be recorded, they had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I disagree, mostly because it isn't hard to get fringe cases. Drunk folks, folks with memory issues, and so on. Even if they break in, I don't think this is the sort of thing they should face public ridicule for.
I think the homeowner has the right because the folks breaking in are cops. If a cop cannot handle these facets of their job being public, they should act better. A cop in uniform is a public figure, even if they are in a private residence. An ununiformed cop is a public figure if they are doing cop stuff, especially if they are in your house.
They should be acting like someone is always watching. They should be able to handle being told bad words from people. They should be expected to always act professional. That is part of the standard we set for call center employees, after all, and we should expect folks that can ruin other people's lives to live up to better standards.
Still, it seems to me (IANAL) that the suit doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in hell. In particular, they reckon their damages not based on any actual damage, but on the earnings Afroman made from publicising them.
Well, that's what the report says; but it's from The Grauniad, and the quality of reporting in that organ has been declining rather quickly (whatever Wikipedia says about "reliable sources").
They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.
I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents.
> It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.
But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
> It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.
One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters.
I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through.
Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.
> That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image.
Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.