{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Kweh:
6/8/2015 5:43:28 PM
8
I know of people who are considering legal action against people who profit while others are on their stream as well. I work with lots of firms in Los Angeles that are expanding digital law. Streamers should be careful who is involved in their streams and how public they announce their revenue. It could violate right to publicity laws which are what they plan on attacking. That being said, i don't care what people feel about it, but it's going to happen to high profit streamers that don't use disclosure and are very public about what they make while using others in their video.
This is to set precedence, nothing more. If you don't know law or why a case like this is important to further digital law, then don't bother posting.
English
-
We can only hope there are more laws in place in the future to protect people's digital rights. But now as it stands there are little to no laws or protections in place and lawmakers have no idea where to start. I agree people shouldn't be profiting when they play crucible.
-
That is exactly why they want to pursue. Just to set a precedence to start with.
-
If everyone isnt being compensated.
-
What do you mean by "others?" Do you mean people they are playing the game with (such as in a strike) or people in their chats?
-
Just like tv and radio. If they are on screen and not being compensated while the streamer is, it could violate right to publicity. Now that handles and screen names are relevant in society as actual names and identifiers, they will eventually be used in courts as aka.
-
So would a way to get around that be like censoring basically every username you see? Or messaging the players about the video and asking them if it's okay to include them in the video? Im confused on how streamers an youtubers could get around this
-
Edited by Kweh: 6/9/2015 10:54:16 PMCensoring or blurring would be a start (and will work for post made material on YouTube at least) but since it's live, would be hard to do. Brodcasters have tools and staff in place for their media. It's hard to tell what is needed or what is appropriate. Internet and digital law is still in its infancy. So cases like this, where you don't sue for monitory gain, are important to have a citation to reference when future problems arise. It's how tv and radio evolved and its how Internet tv will as well
-
Hmmmm... very interesting points. I see how this could lead to some serious changes. Makes a lot of sense that those type of rules, policies or laws would/should apply to Youtubers and Streamers. Good stuff there Kweh, keep educating us. lol
