It actually has to do with expectations - just by passing something to someone does not mean that the person can then take it and post it - if that were the case, then every photographer in the world would have the rights to post, sell and publish photos just because they possessed them.
After all, isn't it reasonable, using the same extrapolation, that if the person is taking your picture, that of course you are allowing them rights to it?
His image was under his control and he chose to lend the video out to friends, but not with the intent to have it posted to the internet in much the same way that a friend might let me borrow their wedding album, but that doesn't give me the right to scan the photos and create a web page.
Particularly if the intent of the creation is the humiliation of the person.
So what we're juggling here is - what was his intent in lending the video out? Was it a reasonable expectation that the people to whom he gave it would post it to the internet? Was it in fact that group who posted it? What was their intent on posting it to the internet?
This is why this stuff ends up in court in front of a fact finder...someones gotta figure out what the heck these people were thinking...
And Canadian law is in effect, so who bears the burden of proof, and what the level of proof is in this case is unknown to me...I'm kinda curious though...
This just bears on the same philosophy of "Don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want on the front page of the New York Times."
"Don't video tape anything that you don't want posted to the Web."
The funny thing is, if he had done a "poor man's copyright" (you mail yourself a copy of the piece so that it's sealed and postmarked as proof of when you created it) there'd be one hell of an argument that he MEANT it to get out and that his only measurable damages would be what he lost in it's uncontrolled release.
How do you claim damages for humiliation and invasion of privacy when you yourself intended to publicly release the product at some point?
So careful what you copyright and the ramifications there of...always consult with an attorney...
<small>[ 08-28-2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>