Pull Down Demand from Broadtrans Earthmoving - Advice?

[herzog]

My response would be a lot simpler than those above

1. Please advise what law I am breaking.

2. Until then, garngitfarked!

[thomashouseman]

Here's a lowdown on photography rights in Australia from a lawyer:

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

I'm assuming video is almost identical?

EDIT: Yup, same rights for video, just extra conditions on when audio is allowed. (See article)

[jules21]

I'm assuming video is almost identical?

well video is just lots of photos taken in succession so it would make sense

[lethoso]

My draft response is as follows ..

"Go F... yourselves" is more succinct.

Filmed in public, you didn't say anything defamatory about them only offered you opinion of that specific incident, I really wouldn't worry about it.

Moderating comments on the video though - my personal opinion as an internet expert is that this opens you up to more liability rather than less, if you accidentally let something defamatory slip through then it's on you, as you're actively moderating it. Turn em off or leave em open.

[Aushiker]

I've had the same threats and have never removed any videos. One entity even tried to get YouTube to tell me to take a video down. Don't be verbose with your reply, gives them too much to hang you with if they do try something on which they cannot. I would do two things: remove any comments and ability to comment videos, I do for all of mine to remove defamatory capability; and remove your comments and simply let the video stand on its own. The video on its own is factual and not illegal, everything else is personal commentary and is where potential trouble lies.

Thanks for your input. I will give this aspect more thought.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

Andrew, I'll visit you in jail..

Thanks, I think

Andrew

[Aushiker]

It's how you subsequently use the photographs/film that is an issue. If it used to report on a matter of fact (such as a Broadtrans truck parked in a bike lane with no apparent traffic management in place) all is well. If it used to promote a product, service or opinion the subject or owner of the subject may have grounds to ask for you to stop using the film/photo or for $..

Thanks for your perspective Rob. Good know given your background.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

^^ This is a further improvement.

+ ! Excellent. I hope you don't mind my stealing your suggestion Bruce.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

Here's a lowdown on photography rights in Australia from a lawyer:

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

I'm assuming video is almost identical?

EDIT: Yup, same rights for video, just extra conditions on when audio is allowed. (See article)

Thanks for that.

Andrew

[zero]

I've had the same threats and have never removed any videos. One entity even tried to get YouTube to tell me to take a video down. Don't be verbose with your reply, gives them too much to hang you with if they do try something on which they cannot. I would do two things: remove any comments and ability to comment videos, I do for all of mine to remove defamatory capability; and remove your comments and simply let the video stand on its own. The video on its own is factual and not illegal, everything else is personal commentary and is where potential trouble lies.

Thanks for your input. I will give this aspect more thought.

Andrew

Just turn the commenting around so its clear the comment documents your opinion, when it is your opinion. ie if I was to say "I felt that parking a truck here was dangerous as the driver parked in an oncoming bicycle lane as well as a same direction bicycle lane, and was therefore forcing contra flow riders into oncoming traffic", it would not be a problem. One part is clearly my opinion, the other part is clearly fact. At most you would be risking false light, and thats a really long bow for a corporation to try on an individual.

[Aushiker]

Thanks for all the input. Much appreciated. Based on that input I have sent off this reply this morning ...

Dear XXXX

Thank you for your email and my apologies for the delayed response. I thought it was important to obtain appropriate advice before replying.

I am pleased to hear that this video has come to the attention of your company as, in my opinion, parking a truck and trailer combination in a clearly identified bike lane is neither smart nor considerate and has the potential to put legitimate users at serious risk. It appears from your email that you are conscious of the importance of your legal obligations under the City of Stirling bylaws and the Western Australian Road Traffic Code 2000 and I hope that you will take all necessary action to ensure there is no recurrence of this practice.

Concerning your request that I remove the video, unfortunately I am not able to properly consider your request due to the lack of any reasons as to why I am obliged to do so. If you can advise on what specific basis you believe the video should be removed, I will be happy to reconsider my response.

Regards
Andrew

[thomashouseman]

Awesome, wonder if you'll even get a response or if they write it off as a lost cause.

[jules21]

nice. ball, court.

[trailgumby]

Nicely done. Will be interesting to see what kind of response you get, if any.

If no response in a few weeks I'd post the correspondence with the video. In my view it's important for it to be known what the culture of the organisation is like. Judging by the approach they've taken in their initial contact, they look to be more concerned about how they look and getting caught than dealing with the root cause.

[Mulger bill]

Nice one, they're going to have to be very careful painting this particular floor.

[Aushiker]

An update: As I haven't heard anything more from Broadtrans Earthmoving I have taken up the suggestion made early on and summarised what has occurred in a blog posting.

Once again thanks to everyone for your great advice.

Much appreciated.

Andrew

[GraemeL]

I would not waste my time with them. what can they do ....nothing, it is perfectly legal to film in public places.

Graeme

[CommuRider]

Sounds like a great response. The ball is in their court. If their driver didn't do it in the first place, it would not be an issue. Good template for others here too

[The 2nd Womble]

Howzabout we all post the video to Youtube? It's a great idea.






How many members on BNA again?







Theres also that Vimeo site or whatever it is

[CommuRider]

Going to rant:

Just read your blog and I love the bureaucratic decision to DO NOTHING because they can't access YOUTUBE at work.

Great excuse GREG PERRYMAN from the CITY OF STIRLING. Way to justify your job to do nothing, close the case, move on, "not my problem because of the IT policy". If Greg was really interested he'd go home and watch the clip. But no, it is too onerous and difficult for him to watch it and also because he will have to bill his workplace for accessing a YOUTUBE CLIP and home time will fall under outside working hours. I suspect if @Aushiker sent a snapshot or photo of said offender, he'd find an excuse not to open the JPG attachment because it will cause a virus.

Jeez LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, stop being so freaking lazy and be an ENABLER not a ROADBLOCK and do your job which is to help citizens who are active in creating a safe environment for all. Falling back on some policy because you could not be bothered taking on @Aushiker's case is pretty pathetic. Wow, sorry Mr. Perryman for taking so much of your Facebook time when you access the internet during work.

As for BEK CAREW-GIBSON, mate, sending a letter of demand when you're an accounts administrator for BROADTRANS EARTHMOVING shows your company doesn't even have the resources to have it sent from a proper legal rep. Stick to the books and ensure your company continues to remain solvent because of this reputational hit instead of pretending to be a lawyer or tell your lazy boss to stop trying to delegate this responsibility to you. Ask your boss to send a letter of demand next time because A LETTER OF DEMAND FROM AN ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATOR doesn't quite cut the butter.

END RANT.

[footloose]

Thanks for all the input. Much appreciated. Based on that input I have sent off this reply this morning ...

Dear XXXX

Thank you for your email and my apologies for the delayed response. I thought it was important to obtain appropriate advice before replying.

I am pleased to hear that this video has come to the attention of your company as, in my opinion, parking a truck and trailer combination in a clearly identified bike lane is neither smart nor considerate and has the potential to put legitimate users at serious risk. It appears from your email that you are conscious of the importance of your legal obligations under the City of Stirling bylaws and the Western Australian Road Traffic Code 2000 and I hope that you will take all necessary action to ensure there is no recurrence of this practice.

Concerning your request that I remove the video, unfortunately I am not able to properly consider your request due to the lack of any reasons as to why I am obliged to do so. If you can advise on what specific basis you believe the video should be removed, I will be happy to reconsider my response.

Regards
Andrew

You should have reminded them about the "Streisand Effect"

[jasonc]

Just read your blog and I love the bureaucratic decision to DO NOTHING because they can't access YOUTUBE at work.

as per previous suggestions, burn it to DVD and delivery it by hand.

[Aushiker]

You should have reminded them about the "Streisand Effect"

Dare I ask ? What is the Streisand Effect?

Andrew

[KenGS]

From Wiki

The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.

[Aushiker]

From Wiki

The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.

Thanks for the clarification.

Andrew