Intelligent opinions requested...

[Angie Parkes]

The only bit of law I know is some communications law I learned over 10 years ago when the Internet was just a twinge in Tim Berners-Lee's cortex. And what I learned only applies in English Canada and may not in Quebec where all this took place.

What I can remember of defamation is that the burden of proof of character damage as judged by a reasonable person (that's the standard in Canada, too) is on the plaintiff. There is also no defamation if a successful defense can be argued. I seem to remember that truth could be a successful defense (I think), ie, what you wrote about me may have injured my reputation beyond repair, but if you wrote the truth, my defamation action against you is dismissed (there may be other legal action I could take, of course). So the kid's parents have to prove damage to reputation.

I have no idea if there would have been criminal charges if the boy's suicide attempt had been successful. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that there would have been no criminal charges, but the parents could sue for damages. The bullying cases that have come up in Canada have been where the bullies physically caused the death of their victim.

As for creation and intent, there is a recognition in English Canada of the moral right of an artist that exists outside copyright, and I would think that the case would be pretty clear that the boy's moral right in his video creation was violated and therefore actionable.

[Angie Parkes]

Oh, forgot to mention about the law and adjudication...judges have a pretty wide latitude in Canada to make law. The same-sex marriage thing in Canada has come up because judges in three provinces said restricting the definition of marriage to a union of one man and one woman was an indefensible violation of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They said to Parliament: the old law is wrong, you've got to change it so it agrees with our decision.

If the judge(s) in this case start(s) saying our law is inadequate to protect society and individuals, new law will have to be created PDQ that conforms to their opinion.

I don't know if your US judges have quite that much power.

[jmfryar]

Not sure about the "absolute defense" to defemation, although that can be a defense...

But invasion of privacy doesn't necessarily have that option - so even if it's true, it won't derail the claim...

US is the same way with copyright...you own it when you create it. The registration, either officially or "poor mans" is your proof if there is ever a claim of infringement.

But again, him claiming that the tape was created for artistic value could damage a claim of injury. Always why you consult with an attorney - they're the good guys and are there to help you AVOID getting into these kinds of issues...

[dai bread]

Have re-visited jedimaster using the Company's broadband connection, which enables me to sample more vids without waiting a week for downloads.

Granted some of the videos are funny, (I've always liked Benny Hill's chase sequences) but most of them are not and the LOTR trailer is just that, despite a couple of clips of the Kid being inserted.

My overall impression remains negative. I note that the original clip is entitled "jackass", which IMO sets the tone of the whole site. I think some people simply don't have enough to do.

[analog]

Kid stuff that shoulda been handled at home. Revoke his videocam priveleges for a week. The kids who swiped it need to publicly apologize.

Don't dignify pettiness.

If the kid gets into a starwars movie he'll suddenly be the local hero. Hope for that.

[redlover1]

jmfryar
Member


posted 08-28-2003 02:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

JM,

I'll throw my two-cents in the pot.

First of all, you are correct on the kids stealing the tape found in the teacher's desk at school. Apparently, his "friends" thought it would be cool to see what was on it. When they finally saw it, they felt compelled to share the hilarity of Gislain (his name) to the rest of the internet public (AKA: American Pie). They of course never in a million years thought of the future ramifications of it all or it EVER becoming such a phenominon as it has become.

Secondly, I read somewhere on the internet that Jedimaster.Net offered to give the kids money, gifts, and most of all fame in that petition to Star Wars: Episode 3. The problem is, Gislain and his parents did not want any of it. Thus the lawsiut against the kids who put the video on the net and the school for not maintaining Gislain's privacy.

Lastly, your comment on photographers publishing photos just because they possessed them. Well in California, that issue has just recently been addressed in the high profile case of Cameron Diaz vs a Photographer who was "threatening" her to sell her nude (or worse) pictures that he possessed at age 20 before she hit it big as an actress. The courts basically held the photographer on extortion charges and has yet to be sentenced as far as I know. The photographer's defense was simply, "I was giving Ms. Diaz first rights to purchase the photo before it was sold to the open public..." The courts thus far have sealed the photos pending resolution to the case. (Drools thinking what those photos could be.........)

In other words, I feel that the kid and parents have a legitimate claim in feeling their rights have been violated. But you better have the money to get Johnny Cochran or Gloria Allred to prove it.

Devin