Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 6:02:28 GMT -5
The dissemination of images is not prohibited by law, and does not constitute a crime. Unless by court order, upon provocation by the interested party, disclosure is free”, argues criminal lawyer Jair Jaloreto Junior . “On the other hand, negative and derogatory exposure of another’s privacy can generate compensable moral damages,” he states.
The same understanding is defended by lawyer Nehemias Gueiros Junior . “Although YouTube does not yet have formal representation in Brazil, the issue of Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend's scenes differ little from the controversy involving Orkut. The only difference is that on Orkut the offensive content has an exponential multiplication ad infinitum , while on YouTube the videos inserted by users can be controlled more effectively. On the other hand, YouTube has its own operational policy that excludes pornographic, immoral or violative content. The website does have joint responsibility if, once urged by the authorities to remove the scenes from the air, it does not do so.”
Reporting channel
Patrícia Peck Pinheiro , specialist Special Data in Digital Law, explains that YouTube has a terms of use, as does the dating site Orkut. Whoever administers the service, in principle, has no way of knowing whether the content posted by the user is legal or not, or whether it violates copyright or image rights. However, YouTube has a reporting channel for anyone who feels uncomfortable with the content. Once the complaint is made, the offending material is removed from the air.
According to the lawyer, the site's administration has a partnership with investors, who are not willing to pay a million-dollar compensation bill. “For this reason, the viability of the business and its legal risk are still questioned, not due to the service’s fault, but due to the user’s own misuse of the technology.”
According to Patrícia Peck, the liability that YouTube can face is “solidarity civil liability or even objective civil liability (even without fault, at the risk of the business itself). The criminal offense, the user is responsible, not YouTube . Whether for the crime of copyright infringement, or for crimes against honor, such as defamation, common in the unauthorized use of images”, explains the lawyer.
For Renato Opice Blum , also a specialist in Electronic Law and president of the Electronic Commerce Council at Fecomercio, “the procedure is similar to that of Orkut. Content removal may occur due to violation of the terms of use. The site only responds if it is notified, but does not remove the illicit content.
The author or owner of the video is responsible for damages. YouTube only has to identify the user, otherwise it will be liable for damages. ”
Daniela Cicarelli, without a doubt, was the protagonist (or antagonist, depending on your point of view) of an intellectual work. This fact, in itself, already generates image rights. Image rights are provided for in article 5, item X.
According to the rule, “the intimacy, private life, honor and image of people are inviolable, ensuring the right to compensation for material or moral damage resulting from their violation”. The difficult part, according to lawyer Sônia Maria D'Elboux , “is proving that a public person, in a public place, was looking for privacy”, she believes.
“There is just no doubt that the couple’s image was used in a film, with a soundtrack and subtitles. They are characters from an intellectual work. They have image rights. But the issue is not that simple. They have to prove that, despite being in a public place, they sought a preserved space. This is the type of legal action where you have no idea of the outcome,” she says.
The same understanding is defended by lawyer Nehemias Gueiros Junior . “Although YouTube does not yet have formal representation in Brazil, the issue of Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend's scenes differ little from the controversy involving Orkut. The only difference is that on Orkut the offensive content has an exponential multiplication ad infinitum , while on YouTube the videos inserted by users can be controlled more effectively. On the other hand, YouTube has its own operational policy that excludes pornographic, immoral or violative content. The website does have joint responsibility if, once urged by the authorities to remove the scenes from the air, it does not do so.”
Reporting channel
Patrícia Peck Pinheiro , specialist Special Data in Digital Law, explains that YouTube has a terms of use, as does the dating site Orkut. Whoever administers the service, in principle, has no way of knowing whether the content posted by the user is legal or not, or whether it violates copyright or image rights. However, YouTube has a reporting channel for anyone who feels uncomfortable with the content. Once the complaint is made, the offending material is removed from the air.
According to the lawyer, the site's administration has a partnership with investors, who are not willing to pay a million-dollar compensation bill. “For this reason, the viability of the business and its legal risk are still questioned, not due to the service’s fault, but due to the user’s own misuse of the technology.”
According to Patrícia Peck, the liability that YouTube can face is “solidarity civil liability or even objective civil liability (even without fault, at the risk of the business itself). The criminal offense, the user is responsible, not YouTube . Whether for the crime of copyright infringement, or for crimes against honor, such as defamation, common in the unauthorized use of images”, explains the lawyer.
For Renato Opice Blum , also a specialist in Electronic Law and president of the Electronic Commerce Council at Fecomercio, “the procedure is similar to that of Orkut. Content removal may occur due to violation of the terms of use. The site only responds if it is notified, but does not remove the illicit content.
The author or owner of the video is responsible for damages. YouTube only has to identify the user, otherwise it will be liable for damages. ”
Daniela Cicarelli, without a doubt, was the protagonist (or antagonist, depending on your point of view) of an intellectual work. This fact, in itself, already generates image rights. Image rights are provided for in article 5, item X.
According to the rule, “the intimacy, private life, honor and image of people are inviolable, ensuring the right to compensation for material or moral damage resulting from their violation”. The difficult part, according to lawyer Sônia Maria D'Elboux , “is proving that a public person, in a public place, was looking for privacy”, she believes.
“There is just no doubt that the couple’s image was used in a film, with a soundtrack and subtitles. They are characters from an intellectual work. They have image rights. But the issue is not that simple. They have to prove that, despite being in a public place, they sought a preserved space. This is the type of legal action where you have no idea of the outcome,” she says.