The ProJared Problem, Ariana Grande Sued For Posting Photos Of Herself, Apple's SCOTUS Problem, &
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Jan Stankiewicz
around 8-10 years back, I was considering to start making smartphone games - I made couple of small PC games, and figured, how hard can it be to switch? And then I've discussed with my colleague the terms and conditions to which I would be required to agree to be able to sell games via apple store. and I basically gave up the concept altogether. I remember something about A) If they like the feature of any app sold in store, they'd have the right to incorporate it to their system without compensation, and B) if your app has conflicting interest with the system, they have the right to remove the app from their platform and demand that you return 100% of your earnings, and C) if features of your app are duplicating ones incorporated into the system, this is a conflict of interest. Those 3 points together meant effectively that at any given point they could rob you of your earnings without any real consideration of intellectual property. This experience soured any further game development I ever did, and I never really got over it. And now I see them trying to flip the liability for their monopolistic policies back to the actual app developers. F you, Apple.
reply
around 8-10 years back, I was considering to start making smartphone games - I made couple of small PC games, and figured, how hard can it be to switch? And then I've discussed with my colleague the terms and conditions to which I would be required to agree to be able to sell games via apple store. and I basically gave up the concept altogether. I remember something about A) If they like the feature of any app sold in store, they'd have the right to incorporate it to their system without compensation, and B) if your app has conflicting interest with the system, they have the right to remove the app from their platform and demand that you return 100% of your earnings, and C) if features of your app are duplicating ones incorporated into the system, this is a conflict of interest. Those 3 points together meant effectively that at any given point they could rob you of your earnings without any real consideration of intellectual property. This experience soured any further game development I ever did, and I never really got over it. And now I see them trying to flip the liability for their monopolistic policies back to the actual app developers. F you, Apple.
reply
Travis Fischer
I am a newspaper reporter. If I'm covering say. a celebration in the park and I take a picture of somebody playing in a bean bag toss game, that is my photo. I own the copyright to that photo. If anybody uses that photo without authorization for commercial purposes, they are violating my copyright, even if they are the subject of the photo. Legally, this is no different than the Ariana Grande situation. It doesn't matter if it's a photo of Ariana Grande, a random person in the park, a bird, or an empty bench. The person that takes the photo is the owner of the copyright. Now is it a dick move to go after Grande for posting the photo? Of course. It's just like the multitude of media corporations going after YouTubers for Content ID matches, except in this case he's actually suing instead of just bluffing with DMCA takedowns. It's a total scumbag thing to do, but that's not surprising because taking photos of celebrities is a scumbag profession in the first place. But if anybody has a good idea on how to legislate against it without destroying photo journalism all together, I'm all ears.
reply
I am a newspaper reporter. If I'm covering say. a celebration in the park and I take a picture of somebody playing in a bean bag toss game, that is my photo. I own the copyright to that photo. If anybody uses that photo without authorization for commercial purposes, they are violating my copyright, even if they are the subject of the photo. Legally, this is no different than the Ariana Grande situation. It doesn't matter if it's a photo of Ariana Grande, a random person in the park, a bird, or an empty bench. The person that takes the photo is the owner of the copyright. Now is it a dick move to go after Grande for posting the photo? Of course. It's just like the multitude of media corporations going after YouTubers for Content ID matches, except in this case he's actually suing instead of just bluffing with DMCA takedowns. It's a total scumbag thing to do, but that's not surprising because taking photos of celebrities is a scumbag profession in the first place. But if anybody has a good idea on how to legislate against it without destroying photo journalism all together, I'm all ears.
reply
Zaralee McAuliffe
If I just took someones photo and posted it on Instagram, fair enough, sue me. But if that was a photo of me, I think I do have some right to use it. I dont believe I have full rights or can do whatever I want with that photo but if I posted it and cited the source/photographer I think that should be fine, because I am letting that photographer make money off of my face, and his work. I also think its important to note that she didnt give permission for the photo to be taken. If its a planned photo shoot, I feel like their is some consensus that I am giving this company the rights to this image of my face, it is no longer mine. But if you just take a photo of someone, they 1 have the right to say, take that photo down. You dont have my permission and 2 use it because never was t established that I couldnt use it, because the photographer never talked to me about it. Ariana didnt credit (I suppose) so. idk about her. I think its a bit whack to be asking for so much money though. I reckon he probably got more publicity because of this, so really.
reply
If I just took someones photo and posted it on Instagram, fair enough, sue me. But if that was a photo of me, I think I do have some right to use it. I dont believe I have full rights or can do whatever I want with that photo but if I posted it and cited the source/photographer I think that should be fine, because I am letting that photographer make money off of my face, and his work. I also think its important to note that she didnt give permission for the photo to be taken. If its a planned photo shoot, I feel like their is some consensus that I am giving this company the rights to this image of my face, it is no longer mine. But if you just take a photo of someone, they 1 have the right to say, take that photo down. You dont have my permission and 2 use it because never was t established that I couldnt use it, because the photographer never talked to me about it. Ariana didnt credit (I suppose) so. idk about her. I think its a bit whack to be asking for so much money though. I reckon he probably got more publicity because of this, so really.
reply
Panthes Rutler
I think people should drop apple, and google. Support things like fairphone, eelo, librephone. and more. If your lazy use F-Droid store on Android phones, these apps are free and open source. ---RICHARD STALLAMNWith these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a nonfree or proprietary program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. There are four essential freedoms of free software: 0. The freedom to run the program as they want to, for any purpose. 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does what you want. Must have access to the source code. 2. The freedom to redistribute to help your neighbour. 3. The freedom to redistribute copies of modified versions. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
reply
I think people should drop apple, and google. Support things like fairphone, eelo, librephone. and more. If your lazy use F-Droid store on Android phones, these apps are free and open source. ---RICHARD STALLAMNWith these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a nonfree or proprietary program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. There are four essential freedoms of free software: 0. The freedom to run the program as they want to, for any purpose. 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does what you want. Must have access to the source code. 2. The freedom to redistribute to help your neighbour. 3. The freedom to redistribute copies of modified versions. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
reply
Zoe Richards
If you are the subject for a professional photographer for their art, I believe you sign a contract stating that you agree they own the photos etc. But if someone takes your photo without your permission, I feel as though they should be given no copyright or intellectual property protections over it. I feel as though this falls into a similar vein as recording someone without their permission. If you are the subject of a form of media and had no opportunity to consent or agree to allow that artist to use you as a subject, I don't see why that artist should be able to sue you for using that media, rather I feel as though it would be more understandable to allow the subject to retaliate, for having photos/videos of them posted without their consent.
reply
If you are the subject for a professional photographer for their art, I believe you sign a contract stating that you agree they own the photos etc. But if someone takes your photo without your permission, I feel as though they should be given no copyright or intellectual property protections over it. I feel as though this falls into a similar vein as recording someone without their permission. If you are the subject of a form of media and had no opportunity to consent or agree to allow that artist to use you as a subject, I don't see why that artist should be able to sue you for using that media, rather I feel as though it would be more understandable to allow the subject to retaliate, for having photos/videos of them posted without their consent.
reply
RainFrostyNight
I came back to this video after watching Projared breaking the silence. He mentioned no one asked him his side of the story. I was like, wait, that doesn't sound like Phil, he usually looks into the whole story. But then I realized, after watching this again, You didn't compare the emails, you omitted the portion where the kid said he didn't have any evidence, AND you didn't bother to reach out to him, cause what? The story made you uncomfortable? Imagine how he felt watching his career fall down the drain. Not that you'll read this, and I'm sure I'll have some snarky replies from other people, but I believe him. I believe his evidence.
reply
I came back to this video after watching Projared breaking the silence. He mentioned no one asked him his side of the story. I was like, wait, that doesn't sound like Phil, he usually looks into the whole story. But then I realized, after watching this again, You didn't compare the emails, you omitted the portion where the kid said he didn't have any evidence, AND you didn't bother to reach out to him, cause what? The story made you uncomfortable? Imagine how he felt watching his career fall down the drain. Not that you'll read this, and I'm sure I'll have some snarky replies from other people, but I believe him. I believe his evidence.
reply
09blackcobaltss
Man people dont understand how taking photos in Public work. You have no expectation of Privacy and can be the subject of a photograph with out your consent in Public. Plus what most people dont understand is that the Publicist and or the Celebrity themselves actually let the Paparazzi know where they are going to be. Take the case for What Phi was talking about She knew Paparrazi was there cause she is all dolled up and she has the Name of her album on her bag she knew she was going to be Photographed its all game people yall just too Naive to see it. Also i bet if she gave the Photographer Credit for the photo he wouldnt sue her.
reply
Man people dont understand how taking photos in Public work. You have no expectation of Privacy and can be the subject of a photograph with out your consent in Public. Plus what most people dont understand is that the Publicist and or the Celebrity themselves actually let the Paparazzi know where they are going to be. Take the case for What Phi was talking about She knew Paparrazi was there cause she is all dolled up and she has the Name of her album on her bag she knew she was going to be Photographed its all game people yall just too Naive to see it. Also i bet if she gave the Photographer Credit for the photo he wouldnt sue her.
reply
UltimaKeyMaster
So I'm super late with seeing this when I was gonna patiently wait to see if the ProJared story was covered when that James Charles person overshadowed it, but I just wanna say thank you for making this story far far more centered around the whole soliciting nudes from (underage) fans. As batshit crazy as he's flipping out at his wife, that's for the two of them to yell at each other over. even if it might as well be even more entertaining than watching Divorce Court. But this. WHOOOOOOO BOY, and he never even brought it up when he further blasted his wife in a more recent response.
reply
So I'm super late with seeing this when I was gonna patiently wait to see if the ProJared story was covered when that James Charles person overshadowed it, but I just wanna say thank you for making this story far far more centered around the whole soliciting nudes from (underage) fans. As batshit crazy as he's flipping out at his wife, that's for the two of them to yell at each other over. even if it might as well be even more entertaining than watching Divorce Court. But this. WHOOOOOOO BOY, and he never even brought it up when he further blasted his wife in a more recent response.
reply
Naud van Dalen
People post all kinds of things they didn't make to social media all the time and nobody bats an eye, but now that Ariana Grande posts a photo taken by someone else, it's a copyright violation even though it's a photo of herself? News outlets post the photo (or screenshot of Instagram) too and that doesn't matter and you show the photo at 0: 53 and that doesn't matter, but why does it matter on Instagram? He took a photo of her without her permission, while Google removes faces from Google Street View for privacy reasons, so can you legally take pictures of specific people in public?
reply
People post all kinds of things they didn't make to social media all the time and nobody bats an eye, but now that Ariana Grande posts a photo taken by someone else, it's a copyright violation even though it's a photo of herself? News outlets post the photo (or screenshot of Instagram) too and that doesn't matter and you show the photo at 0: 53 and that doesn't matter, but why does it matter on Instagram? He took a photo of her without her permission, while Google removes faces from Google Street View for privacy reasons, so can you legally take pictures of specific people in public?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
17:34
15:4
18:33
15:23
14:59