When the government bailed out numerous corporations, a lot of contracts and obligations were voided with the government's seal of approval. The corps were "too big to fail", so the law went out the window. Same thing happens with bank bailouts.
If only Twitter had the government's blessing. What they are doing would be blessed by on high.
In any case, the value of Twitter was pretty imaginary. It was never profitable and continues to burn through cash.
I don't doubt that they cannot pay their bills and turn a profit. The company is as much vaporware as computer generated money.
If I were to change how the service is marketed, it wouldn't be about locations. The only thing that matters is how many simultaneous screens being viewed. That controls how much bandwidth the company is using and how much in residuals they have to pay, if any.
Change the screen amount offerings. It will get them closer to where they want to be and not upset their customers.
Pinkeyes seems to deny the Techdirt article in this response to me.
Dear user,
We do not possess any of your personal data. PimEyes is a search engine that can detect images of your likeness on the open web. We do not have any photo material in our database, nor do we own the copyright to it. Like any other search engine, such as Google, Bing, etc., PimEyes assists users in accessing information that is available online from already accessible sources. PimEyes searches only those web sites that officially allow data scraping and never searches for social media or other user-restricted online sources. Therefore, PimEyes cannot be legally responsible for the content published by administrators of other web sources, nor can we be responsible for the actions of third parties who might theoretically misuse our service. To prevent this, our company has elaborated a complex set of terms of service and privacy policies that directly correspond to existing privacy regulations; a violation of our terms of service is therefore also a violation of existing privacy regulations. If you have any further questions, please contact office@pimeyes.com as this is primarily a support channel.
Best Regards, PimEyes
This is not a google or other search engine indexing question. The sites have to be indexed. But, according to their ToS, the content can only be used with their services. So, if Pinkeyes is actually scraping content from those sites, they are violating the ToS.
Both Ancestry and its subsidiary, FindaGrave, are public facing sites. But, the content is owned by their users and is protected by the ToS. Scraped photos may also be covered under copywriter protection, as well as, authored documents in jpg or png format.
I would think Ancestry would take action on the scraping. I informed them today. We will see what they do.
I believe that you are correct that current photos of yourself would only be relevant and of a limited duration. Having looked at the Pinkeyes site, there is no way their opt out function is useful, and you also have to pay for it.
Assuming that Pinkeyes is scrapping photos on Ancestry and FindaGrave, there is a lot of content on those two sites that are in photo format but are not photographs. There are millions of documents in jpg and png format resident on those sites, some may be sensitive, i.e., birth, death, marriage and adoption records. All this stuff is IAW their ToS not to be used outside of their services. So, Pinkeyes is violating the ToS on both sites.
Ancestry and FindaGrave are genealogical sites. Photos of living people have to be by their permission. 99.999% of the photos are of non living people. The ToS of those sites restrict photo use to within the services of those sites.
Photos on those sites are not just of people, there are also numerous documents in photo format.
If in fact Pinkeyes is scraping those two sites, I am pretty sure that those sites will fix that vulnerability and take action. I informed Ancestry today concerning what is going on and they are looking into it.
This is different, Ancestry and FindaGrave that have terms of service that Pinkeyes is violating. Content posted to both sites are restricted to being used only on those sites. Additionally, content depicting living persons may only be displayed with their consent, and within the services of those two sites.
Private companies cannot generally be sued for alleged constitutional violations as constitutional violations are between a government entity and a person or group.
Private companies are allowed to moderate as they see fit, and if people do not like a particular platform, they are free not to use it.
A lot of states require car sales to be supported and serviced by local dealers. This ensures that if your car breaks down, need warranty work or whatever else may be needed, that there is an actual place you can take your car. It is not an unreasonable requirement and has nothing to do with oil.
Just like cell phone records, Ring cloud recordings fall under the third party doctrine. There is no privacy protection for Ring cloud customers under the 4th amendment.
Ring customers would have to use local storage only to receive protection.
Word to the wise, if you don't need a third party to have your info or files, do not give it to them. If you don't need a history of Ring videos, don't maintain one.
If you trust the cops, you are probably making a mistake.
There is a heightened expectation expectation in a court house because privileged and sensitive communication takes place. Clients talk to their lawyers and parties in criminal or civil cases talk with other parties in public spaces. What would prevent a DA from accessing private communication for their own benefit or a dishonest staff member from leaking the information to a third party. A court house is not similar with other public buildings when it comes to expectation of privacy.
The city already has a remedy for objectionable behavior. There are police stationed in the court house.
Unless the parole board registered the live stream with the US Copyright office, they have no power to enforce a copyright. Copyrights must be registered to be enforceable. If a take down notice is given, that has to be in conjunction with a registered copyright.
It is unclear if Louisiana government can copyright material it produces. I saw some states that specify that they can, but they were not on the list.
As the article states, I agree that at a minimum this is fair use. As for the TV station that broadcast parts of the stream, they are allowed to do that. It makes no difference how they got the material.
I don't think the Wait Lists themselves are a constitutional issue. I believe the right to a speedy trial is the issue. Significant delays in going to trial may result in a Constitutional violation and the vacating of the charges. The Wait List simply codifies the lack of speedy trial.
No level of government is allowed to copyright anything. Anything produced by a government entity is in the public domain, barring any other restrictions.
The government copyright claims in Louisiana are frivolous. The parole board is a government entity.
A Graphic Novel contains human creation elements, so it could be copyrighted. Placing the AI pictures into a created work does not effect the copyright.
The AI pictures alone cannot be copyrighted as they have no human creation elements.
I am surprised that Duty of Care is not brought up when these things happen.
A duty of care is the responsibility that a person or business has when doing business with, or otherwise interacting with, other people and businesses. Under tort law, duty of care is defined as the responsibility of a person or business to act as a reasonable person would act in a similar situation. A person who violates his duty of care by acting in a negligent or reckless matter is then liable for any harm that another person suffers as a result of his behavior.
Not Much Different
When the government bailed out numerous corporations, a lot of contracts and obligations were voided with the government's seal of approval. The corps were "too big to fail", so the law went out the window. Same thing happens with bank bailouts. If only Twitter had the government's blessing. What they are doing would be blessed by on high. In any case, the value of Twitter was pretty imaginary. It was never profitable and continues to burn through cash. I don't doubt that they cannot pay their bills and turn a profit. The company is as much vaporware as computer generated money.
Screens
If I were to change how the service is marketed, it wouldn't be about locations. The only thing that matters is how many simultaneous screens being viewed. That controls how much bandwidth the company is using and how much in residuals they have to pay, if any. Change the screen amount offerings. It will get them closer to where they want to be and not upset their customers.
Pinkeyes Response
Pinkeyes seems to deny the Techdirt article in this response to me. Dear user, We do not possess any of your personal data. PimEyes is a search engine that can detect images of your likeness on the open web. We do not have any photo material in our database, nor do we own the copyright to it. Like any other search engine, such as Google, Bing, etc., PimEyes assists users in accessing information that is available online from already accessible sources. PimEyes searches only those web sites that officially allow data scraping and never searches for social media or other user-restricted online sources. Therefore, PimEyes cannot be legally responsible for the content published by administrators of other web sources, nor can we be responsible for the actions of third parties who might theoretically misuse our service. To prevent this, our company has elaborated a complex set of terms of service and privacy policies that directly correspond to existing privacy regulations; a violation of our terms of service is therefore also a violation of existing privacy regulations. If you have any further questions, please contact office@pimeyes.com as this is primarily a support channel. Best Regards, PimEyes
ToS
This is not a google or other search engine indexing question. The sites have to be indexed. But, according to their ToS, the content can only be used with their services. So, if Pinkeyes is actually scraping content from those sites, they are violating the ToS. Both Ancestry and its subsidiary, FindaGrave, are public facing sites. But, the content is owned by their users and is protected by the ToS. Scraped photos may also be covered under copywriter protection, as well as, authored documents in jpg or png format. I would think Ancestry would take action on the scraping. I informed them today. We will see what they do.
Yes and No
I believe that you are correct that current photos of yourself would only be relevant and of a limited duration. Having looked at the Pinkeyes site, there is no way their opt out function is useful, and you also have to pay for it. Assuming that Pinkeyes is scrapping photos on Ancestry and FindaGrave, there is a lot of content on those two sites that are in photo format but are not photographs. There are millions of documents in jpg and png format resident on those sites, some may be sensitive, i.e., birth, death, marriage and adoption records. All this stuff is IAW their ToS not to be used outside of their services. So, Pinkeyes is violating the ToS on both sites.
Incorrect
Ancestry and FindaGrave are genealogical sites. Photos of living people have to be by their permission. 99.999% of the photos are of non living people. The ToS of those sites restrict photo use to within the services of those sites. Photos on those sites are not just of people, there are also numerous documents in photo format. If in fact Pinkeyes is scraping those two sites, I am pretty sure that those sites will fix that vulnerability and take action. I informed Ancestry today concerning what is going on and they are looking into it.
ToS Violation
This is different, Ancestry and FindaGrave that have terms of service that Pinkeyes is violating. Content posted to both sites are restricted to being used only on those sites. Additionally, content depicting living persons may only be displayed with their consent, and within the services of those two sites.
Ancestry Response
I contacted Ancestry about the scraping and they seemed not too interested or knowledgeable about fixing the problem.
Private Companies
Private companies cannot generally be sued for alleged constitutional violations as constitutional violations are between a government entity and a person or group. Private companies are allowed to moderate as they see fit, and if people do not like a particular platform, they are free not to use it.
Not Unusual
A lot of states require car sales to be supported and serviced by local dealers. This ensures that if your car breaks down, need warranty work or whatever else may be needed, that there is an actual place you can take your car. It is not an unreasonable requirement and has nothing to do with oil.
Good Video
The video was very well done and accurate. Everyone should watch it.
Third Party Doctrine
Just like cell phone records, Ring cloud recordings fall under the third party doctrine. There is no privacy protection for Ring cloud customers under the 4th amendment. Ring customers would have to use local storage only to receive protection. Word to the wise, if you don't need a third party to have your info or files, do not give it to them. If you don't need a history of Ring videos, don't maintain one. If you trust the cops, you are probably making a mistake.
Priviledged Communication
There is a heightened expectation expectation in a court house because privileged and sensitive communication takes place. Clients talk to their lawyers and parties in criminal or civil cases talk with other parties in public spaces. What would prevent a DA from accessing private communication for their own benefit or a dishonest staff member from leaking the information to a third party. A court house is not similar with other public buildings when it comes to expectation of privacy. The city already has a remedy for objectionable behavior. There are police stationed in the court house.
USA
That may be true, but we are talking US copyright. The only Crown we honor here is Crown Royal :-)
Registration
Unless the parole board registered the live stream with the US Copyright office, they have no power to enforce a copyright. Copyrights must be registered to be enforceable. If a take down notice is given, that has to be in conjunction with a registered copyright. It is unclear if Louisiana government can copyright material it produces. I saw some states that specify that they can, but they were not on the list. As the article states, I agree that at a minimum this is fair use. As for the TV station that broadcast parts of the stream, they are allowed to do that. It makes no difference how they got the material.
Wait Lists
I don't think the Wait Lists themselves are a constitutional issue. I believe the right to a speedy trial is the issue. Significant delays in going to trial may result in a Constitutional violation and the vacating of the charges. The Wait List simply codifies the lack of speedy trial.
Government Copyright Claims
No level of government is allowed to copyright anything. Anything produced by a government entity is in the public domain, barring any other restrictions. The government copyright claims in Louisiana are frivolous. The parole board is a government entity.
Practicing Law Without a License
At what point is DoNotPay considered practicing law without a license?
Graphic Novel
A Graphic Novel contains human creation elements, so it could be copyrighted. Placing the AI pictures into a created work does not effect the copyright. The AI pictures alone cannot be copyrighted as they have no human creation elements.
Duty of Care
I am surprised that Duty of Care is not brought up when these things happen. A duty of care is the responsibility that a person or business has when doing business with, or otherwise interacting with, other people and businesses. Under tort law, duty of care is defined as the responsibility of a person or business to act as a reasonable person would act in a similar situation. A person who violates his duty of care by acting in a negligent or reckless matter is then liable for any harm that another person suffers as a result of his behavior.