Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoZebra120vClip | Hacker News Reader

I would say that Afroman was perhaps incautious to mix up videos of footage of police with their faces and insignia and whatnot. After all, Afroman's milieu is an industry that is perpetually in legal jeopardy for sampling, covering, and quoting other musical works.

Then I thought about it for another hot minute, and realized that Afroman (and his legal counsel) may be just canny enough to take this all into account. Think of the optics of the cops suing this Black man trying to get at his honestly earned cash. Think of how that will play out in the public square. Who's a more sympathetic figure here, win or lose? There's no such thing as bad publicity!

So I think Afroman may have counted on this whole lawsuit debacle and he's going to get enormous mileage and notoreity out of it. Kudos to him for this. I love these videos. This guy is da bomb. Hilarious.

View on HN

As a rapper, taking risks that make the police look like idiots is pretty much his job. I think he's doing it well and I hope he gets paid accordingly.

Hey it's all public information. If they're ashamed of the job they do that's on them.

It's pretty clearly fair use in the US.

The cops don't have a copyright claim. Fair use is irrelevant. Afroman owns a recording of factual events. He has the right to do with it as he pleases.

If I take a recognizable photo of you without you signing a model release and then I use it in a commercial work you can sue. Which the cops did in this case.

I wonder how that works, I can photograph you in public, I can sell the photo. That’s legal.

Are you a lawyer? It might be much less clear cut than you imply.

It might be more cut and dry than you imply.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_id...

I can’t tell what you want to say from a link. Depending on how much of that you read of that article you could come to different conclusions.

So, are you saying it's not clear cut...

I'm saying I don't know what you think the link means.

The law may be clear cut ... who knows what the court will decide. I was saying I don't know what you think the link means, what you think /= the law.

The link means that laws may vary by jurisdiction, and so absolute or general statements may reflect your morality more than the facts of Afroman's case in Adams County.

Oh, another lawyer I see. Here you go anyway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Should I ask if you’re a lawyer now? Is that how this works? Maybe ask what law you're an expert in? It's sad to see the level of discourse on HN has dropped so low now.

As for the actual topic I don’t know what you think the link means. That’s too general a topic to just just know what you’re trying to say.

IANAL and that's my point, it's not an easy question with a clear cut answer;) if you say a legal issue is clear then you better know what you're talking about my friend, because they rarely are.

If you think the article is too general, I think you have not read it. There is very practical information as to how this law works in various jurisdictions. You can also see Wikipedia for "model release". You will see contradictory information of course, because it's not a clear cut issue. But the takeaway is, if I take a video of you at a mall being weird and use it to make a viral music video on which I capitalize and which makes you uncomfortable, guess what you can (and should) sue me. Will you win? Maybe not, maybe yes, depends on how prominent your role is in the video I guess.

Right, but they should have never been there in the first place. That warrant was complete bullshit

If you assault me first and then I take a photo of you and use it for commercial purposes it doesn't mean you can't sue. It just means I'd sue you back first for that other thing. But good luck suing cops in US...

There may be a 'newsworthy' or 'artistic' exception here. In some jurisdictions, a photograph (or video) used for editorial purposes or for artistic purposes does not require a model release. Afroman has valid claims on both here.

If he doesn't make money from it then perhaps. If he does then idk

Artists and journalists make money. That's not a legal problem.

This is not a news agency from what I understand

Other than tacticool camoed up Taliban guy, most of the cops aren't recognizable.

Heh! Their names and addresses are public information, because they've gone all Streisand, and sued!

It's interesting that so many of them share a surname.

Nope- that generally only applies if you’re a celebrity; or if otherwise your job is your image.

The cops will lose this.

This is incorrect. For example, this happens all the time to celebrities. Someone takes their photo in public and sells it to magazines who publish the photo on the cover. They receive no money and have signed no release.

Bad example for your argument, as these magazines constantly break the law by outright lying and publishing fabricated news stories.

It's pretty much their business model to publish fake news. While they'll have to redact the articles later, they've already made their money by that time.

While I can't speak for the legality of using photographs from people for profit without their consent, I'm sure that the magazines would still do it, even if it wasn't legal using the same tactics.

There's no law against fake news specifically, just damages to reputation as a result of false claims. The legality of individual photos varies greatly, but overall most of the photos are legal as evidenced by the lack of successful lawsuits on the topic. Lawsuits are easier when you're talking about millionaire/billionaire celebrities.

I wasn't disagreeing with the point, I just felt the urge to be nitpicky and point out that the given example doesn't prove anything.

The same excuse the magazines use for the articles would be just as applicable with these pictures, as we thought it was legit transfers directly over to we thought they'd given permission.

It's all fine legally as long as the articles are retracted for missinformation

What you're thinking of is getting damages/convictions because of the misinformation. That's indeed quiet hard and will require proving that you've actually been harmed, which is extremely challenging, generally speaking.

That's because I'm a private person. Public servants don't have an expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.

It's not about privacy, you can record anyone in a public place, it's about publishing and monetizing work using someone's identity after.

Please reread the second sentence all the way to the end.

Reread mine

I did. It's still wrong.

Using it in a commercial work doesn't preclude editorial use. Virtually every magazine, newspaper is a commercial work for example

There are exceptions for recording events on your own property. Do you think every time security footage ends up on the news that the TV station is breaking the law?

Is Afronan a news agency?

Fair use? It's the man's own recording; he has copyright. He also has a right to record in his own home. The police should lose, but unfortunately Ohio lacks an anti-SLAPP law. (It will likely not be an expensive loss for the cops, and it will be an unnecessarily expensive victory for Afroman.)

On the bright side in this situation, he's going to monetize the crap out of this. He'll end up ahead in the end unlike the vast majority of people that find themselves as a target of the police.

Sorry for my ignorance, what does "da bomb" mean?

A somewhat dated idiom to mean a thing is distinctively good.

Its typically a way to describe someone who can be considered "Da man".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com