Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ahassan 3415 days ago
So they're mad that the stream they shared publicly was seen by the public?...
2 comments

It was rebroadcast on TV. Try doing the same by posting a broadcast TV show on the net...
If you post 22 seconds from a 45 minute TV show[1], adding commentary on how it was in some way significant, I suspect you could make a reasonably strong case that it constitutes fair use (assuming the use of the footage is even challenged, which seems somewhat unlikely for a 22 second clip).

[1] "ABC used a tiny fraction of the footage—22 seconds from the original 45 minute Video", per https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Kanongata...

Do a 22 second highlight clip from an NFL game and see how far you get without their consent.
If you do it just to show the video, that's not fair use. That's just copying. If you do it to highlight something newsworthy that you're currently reporting on? That's fair use. That's exactly what the court ruling says, that it's fair use because something newsworthy was happening.
Read the article: CPS took their baby away.
If you read the comments below the article, the reason CPS was called was because someone recognised the couple from an earlier case. In 2015, they both were apparently arrested after blowing up a shed in their backyard while attempting to make "honey oil" (hash oil made using a solvent, typically butane or propane). Dome's kids (at the time) were taken away by CPS after the incident. Both Dome and her (now) baby-daddy were arrested, along with some other person.
Sure, but my point is that it's more complicated than "mad because FB streamed the thing they were streaming."
But if they hadn't shared the video publicly, that person likely wouldn't have seen the video and wouldn't have reported them to CPS. If you've got any kind of legal problems, you should probably be a little more protective of your privacy.