Copyrighted Screw Ups - You can't Tell Anyone!

[Blurr]

A friend of mine got in trouble with a local cop in her town when the in-dash, rearward and forward facing cameras (runs a high end driver's ed class with reviews of each drive with Her students) recorded Her interaction with Him. The cameras are very prominent in the car. She is currently waiting to find out if she is going to jail for felony recording for a private interaction without the police officer knowing (He claims He had reasonable expectation of privacy as He stood on the side of the road in rush hour...) This got me looking up laws regarding this subject in my jurisdiction on the off case that I chose to exercise any god given rights, I'd like to know I can do it legally.

One thing led to another and I found myself reading some truly absurd uses of the law. Such as the new use of the copyright laws under the DMCA.

In one case, KTVU blundered while reporting on the July 6, 2013 Asiana Airlines crash. This San Francisco news station misreported the names of the pilots as "Captain Sum Ting Wong," "Wi Tu Lo," "Ho Lee Fuk" and "Bang Ding Ow" - a racist joke that was mistakenly programmed to be read on air. After this went live, videos of the news anchor reading these fake pilot names were uploaded to YouTube and blogs, drawing further public attention to KTVU's mistake. Those videos are no longer available on YouTube, after KTVU sent a round of DMCA takedown notices to get the videos removed.

You can read further if you care to here.

 

[Tex85]

You could always bring out the old VHS tape deck and record live TV that way. That is 100% legal and has the case law to back it up since it was taking to court many times near its inception.

As for recording I don't think there should be anything prohibiting you recording what goes on on/in your property whether it be your house, car, yard, etc.

 

[Blurr]

Well, the rulings have been (mostly) pretty clear on the legality of recording in public places, particularly when som ACLU types started claiming their clients expected privacy when they had been caught in the act by public cameras. From what I've read, the problem isn't that you are likely to be convicted, but rather that tha bad apples are protected from prosecution nearly by claiming they thought they were acting within the scope of their assigned duties.

Don't get me wrong, I recognize the average law officer has an exceptionally difficult job, and I know I am not made of the same cloth. My job title is the exact same job title as the person most often directly associated with the gulf explosion and oil spill on the Deepwater Horizon. I know when I go to work I have the same chances for the same outcomes, but on the whole I'd rather those risks then that of a police officers. Personally I've never had a run in with a cop drunk on his power or looking to 'get over' on the puplic. But I can't help but see and hear some of these reports... I don't know, honestly the states premtive right to search and confiscate combined with the belief in their own immunity to oversite is very upsetting. I honestly never believed there would be any subject I could, even a little bit, find myself at odds with the local constable. Who disagrees with the cops but the criminals?

I'm sure I'm not likely to resolve it with a forum post at any rate.

 

[Traumahawk]

I know that in some states only ONE person has to know that the conversation or interaction is being recorded, and not both parties.

 

[PATMAX]

Your friend is in in clear on this one unless she tries to represent herself OR, she does something with the video that may be perceived as defamatory or detrimental to him outside the scope of his position/appointment.
Her employer may frown on her use of the video to impune his character or position but that is not criminal.
You don't really tell us enough about the case to be all that insightful. Cops step in their own feces quite often. Of course your local laws cannot supersede State and Federal mandates/laws.
Good luck to her.