The ProJared Problem, Ariana Grande Sued For Posting Photos Of Herself, Apple's SCOTUS Problem, &
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- We are BACK IN STOCK, at BeautifulBastar... and 10% OF SALES TIL THE END OF JUNE are going to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. So come snag our amazing Pomade, Beard Oil, & More!
For the personal stuff follow me @ / phillydefranco
Need more news? Check out roguerocket.com for more stories!
Watch the previous PDS here: • Why James Charles' His...
Watch the latest Morning News Show: • Why Harvard Is Being S...
Support this content w/ a Paid subscription @ DeFrancoElite.com
------------
Follow Me On:
------------
TWITTER: / phillyd
FACEBOOK: on. mqpRW7
INSTAGRAM: / phillydefranco
------------
Today in Awesome:
------------
Check out Chrono.gg/Phil for 74% off “Jotun: Valhalla Edition” only available until 9 AM tomorrow.
Jewelry Expert Critiques Rappers' Chains: • Jewelry Expert Critiqu...
Key & Peele: • Sex Detective - Key & ...
Lying and Stealing Trailer: • Lying and Stealing | O...
Beats Trailer: • Beats - A Netflix Film...
NCT 127 Try 9 Things They've Never Done Before: • NCT 127 Tries 9 Things...
Chernobyl Podcast Part 2: • The Chernobyl Podcast ...
Secret Link: • Cardi B's Uggs
------------
Today’s Stories:
------------
Felicity Huffman Pleads Guilty
roguerocket.co...
Ariana Grande Sued Over Copyright Issues
roguerocket.co...
Supreme Court’s App Store Ruling:
roguerocket.co...
Allegations Against ProJared:
/ 1128408308023300096
------------
More News Not Included In Show Today:
------------
Sri Lanka Social Media Ban:
roguerocket.co...
RUclipsrs Under Fire For Firing Walmart Employees in Prank Video:
/ 1128034815360397312
China Retaliates with Tariffs on $60 Billion of U.S. Goods:
roguerocket.co...
------------
Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg
Produced by: Amanda Morones, Cecelia Applegate
Art Director: Brian Borst
Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Sami Sherwyn
------------
#DeFranco #ArianaGrande #ProJared
------------
Missed the graphic at the beginning? Here are those timecodes:
Ariana Grande Photo Controversy (0:42), Felicity Huffman Pleaded Guilty (2:13), Supreme Court’s App Store Ruling (2:58), TIA (6:10), ProJared Allegations (8:19)
I was kinda Floored less by the actual actions of Projared but by just how many big gaming youtubers seemed affected by it.
did the photographer get her permission to take pictures of her? if not then why is she entitled to pay? he could have gotten more exposure but guess he really needs money.
How does one join the lawsuit 🤔🤷🏽♀️
On first story: A person or persons should have all rights to photos taken of them or of people intentionally imitating their likeness without their consent. If this was not the case then any person or persons could copyright every single piece of you without your consent and use it to prevent you from seeking legal damages against that person or others. If this photographer is found correct, then if a person were to take a nude photo of a celebrity (boyfriend/best friend or the like) then they would have full ownership of that photo and what happens to it. This would happen unless the person in question took the proper steps to copyright every single piece of their body (including their genitals). Asking for this would place an undue burden on people to prevent the theft of themselves and their likeness.
I would like to know how this Ariana Grande situation correlates to the woman who is suing for her ancestors being forced to photograph for science). Would this fall under the same copywrite claim?
The fact that paparazzi can stalk a celebrity, harass them, photograph them without their consent (sometimes without their knowledge) and then sue the celebrity for using those photos on their Instagram is so dystopian to me I have trouble wrapping my mind around it
Same here. I'm sitting here baffled that this can even happen.
The issue here isn't stalking.
It's unsolicited use of a copyrighted photograph. If there is an issue with the person taking the photo stalking, that should be handled separately, and _also_ according to the law.
If the photographer did nothing illegal, and took a photo of someone in a public place with no expectation of privacy. Ariana stole that photo, publicized it (making it worthless/far less valuable to sell) without the consent of the copyright holder.
That's the law, and she has absolutely no chance at fighting this.
If I'm in the crowd at an NFL game, are you telling me the NFL has to pay ME for airtime, or that I'm allowed to post the game anywhere I want?
I think you'll find the further out you take this exercise logically, the more correct the photographer is.
Going back to the NFL thing, CNN needs only to send a single person to the game, and theyre allowed to air it in its entirety, and run their own ads?
Yeah... youre wrong here. For a reason.
Now if he was doing something illegal while taking the photo, by all means have him arrested, fined, etc... whatever the law states.
I'm certain you'll find that he was not in fact in violation of the laws.
If you have a personal problem with the laws as they currently stand, write your state/local senators, or consider running for office yourself.
@@iami3rian394 why are so many people supporting shitty paps
@@iami3rian394 Dude your own argument is wrong. You CAN record NFL games and post it so long as you dont charge for it and give some form of commentary on it. It's the reason commentary youtubers are supposed to be allowed to post clips of videos from other channels. A lot get wrongfully copyrighted, but they can legally post parts of other people's videos. Ariana isn't charging anyone to view the photo on her instagram. It shouldn't be illegal in this situation either.
Cassidy Lastname welcome to hollywood
I'm a St. Jude patient and it means so much to me that you are donating to them. They honestly do so much for the patients and families and have been a huge blessing. In the beginning of my junior year, I was diagnosed with leukemia. They have made going through this so much easier. So thank you for choosing to donate to St. Jude.
I wish you the best and I hope for your safe recovery. whatever that may mean to you, I know words mean little but I do mean it. Cheers
Hang in there buddy!!
Take care.
All the best Megan o/ . Hope your recovery is quick and comfortable. Take care.
Safe recovery, and live long and prosper, Megan! I wish you well
Something genuinely amusing that arose from the ProJared thing is how r/ProJared reacted - they _tore into him._ De-modded him, and then just went to town. It was amazing.
Yeah, that was great and hilarious.
It’s treason then.
they also took down holly pretty hard. also very amusing
The day we get sued for posting pictures of ourselves we didn't even consent to be in, is the day we've forgotten anything about personal dignity, sovereignty and the right to own our image and identity.
Saint MДrX you need to think thru this matter some more.
Then sue every god damn store or public place that ever had a security camera, for taking pictures of you without consent. Oh wait, there is a large set of places in public 'taking pictures of other people without theirs is actually a different set of rules for, rightfully so?
She was in such a place, and like it or not - at that point of time, unless you really want to make the world even shittier by banning such picture taking as being legal, by making other problems far worse - then yeah, the photographer had the right to take it. And also own it. If it was in her private space or some other sort of thing, sure, then we can talk here.
@@adrianbundy3249 Nobody is saying it should be illegal to take pictures.
If you're the subject of a picture, you should have the right to use that picture, especially if you didn't consent to it being taken.
If the main subject of a photo is a person who didn't consent to the photo being taken, that photo should not be able to be copyrighted.
@@adrianbundy3249 A person's likeness is protected by copyright, actually.
@@Bra77ndi Indeed the question isn't about the ability to take pictures (technology is everywhere in every pocket), but it's about copyrights..
If paparazzis can take pictures of celebrities without those celebrities' permission, then celebrities should be allowed to post said pictures without the paparazzis' permission.
EDIT: I know the law says one thing but it still feels wrong to me. If I were in her place I'd be pissed. That's my image, my likeness, that's me, and I can't even post it? It feels so scummy to me.
Unless there was a contract where you hire a photographer you should be able to use a photo where you are the subject. Hence if you dont pay the photographer you cant post their work but if some smuck taking a picture of the wedding its free property
I would argue that we don’t know if he expressly didn’t have permission(idk the laws in New York around consent). But I do know that if you get your picture taken from a photographer it doesn’t matter that it is you in the photo the photographer owns the copyright because he produced the image. The fact that she posted the picture makes me feel like he had verbal or non-written consent but if there isn’t two party consent laws in NY then he was in the right to take the picture and she was in the wrong.
Hahahahah👍
Exactly...
The Chosen One has *SPOKEN*
The problem is the implications of a law regarding that.
It would just be more effective to say "One must have the express consent of the object of the image, or the owner of the object of the image, for copyright to apply"
But then you run into issues like, if you take a picture of a historic building with your family standing in front of it, is the photograph yours? Lets say there are people in the background of an image, is the image theirs?
Art is finicky. I would argue that the photographer decided the angle, timing, and lighting of the image and thus its their photograph and their art, thus their copyright.
Lenard French did a recent video on this regarding a dentists pictures of their clients mouths.
I agree that professional photographers should be compensated for doing their jobs, however I do not think that paparazzis should get paid for invading someones privacy.
They're in public space, no one's privacy was invaded.
Just because you are in public that does not give someone the right to take photos of you without your consent. Most celebrities want paparazzi to seem them for the purpose of exposure but you don't have the right to just follow someone and take photons of them.
B ri this is all wrong you can absolutely take photos or videos of anyone I public by law
Most celebrities have their own photographs to take pictures of them in public. That way they can’t get sued has it their own photos.
No one who makes photo of you should get any money if it wasn't contracted job. In normal countries person should have right to their own image, only group photos of for example people on the street, should be allowed. And even then people on the photo should have all the rights to use their own parts for any purposes, without payment.
Well if the paparazzi gets to sue people who use their pictures, that they took with out permission. The celebrity should get to sue the paparazzi for making money, using their likeness..
with other laws (take libel), the US errs on the side of press freedom. Maybe it can't differentiate between celebrities and other public figures and isn't equipped to make sense of what is news (and when news values overwhelms concerns about privacy) and what is irredeemable, voyeuristic trash. Certainly, the concept of a politician having partial ownership of a photo snapped of them with a drug dealer would seem a problem (though only in terms of withhold publication, or demanding a cut). And if a judge decided that photo violated privacy and couldn't be published, you'd have a chilling effect.
(the example I used here was a slightly rejigged version of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. In that case, the UK publication published an article on Naomi Campbell's drug addiction, including a photo of her leaving Narcotics Anonymous. In that case, over the course of 2 years the courts couldn't work out privacy vs press freedom. They found for campbell, then against her, and then for her.)
@@victorcates9330 It's a valid point you're making. The point I was trying to make is just that it seems ironic that the paparazzi are suing celebs for making money using their photos, when the paparazzi are making money using the celebs.
@@topmodelbaby100 but they're doing it in public places.
If you aren't allowed to take a photo of something in public and own it without the permission of everyone in said photo, how many problems can you imagine coming from that right now... just off the top of your head?
@@iami3rian394 Your point is void when you consider that the public place isn't the focus of the photo, but Ariana Grande herself. This isn't a wide shot in which Ariana just happens to be in, it's a focus shot on her alone. It shouldn't be legal for him to profit off of her likeness which he took without her consent.
@@iami3rian394 L'm not saying that you should get ownership of any photo taken of you. But i think you should have a right to use any photo taken of you without permission.
Paparazzi: Let's follow people and take pictures of them literally all the time
People: Use that pictures of them
Paparazzi: *Surprised Pikachu face*
I'm pretty sure Paparazzi is plural. Like "deer."
@@ChaseFace Thanks
M to the B this is the nicest exchange over a grammar correction I’ve ever seen on RUclips. 😊
Okay, let's analyze
Why should Ariana Grande have rights to post the photograph?
The subject of the photograph is Ariana Grande and basically nothing else.
Why shouldn't Ariana Grande have rights to post the photograph?
The copyright of a photograph is that of the person who pressed the shutter button.
Ariana Grande posted the photograph for profit (promoting her album).
Now, even though Ariana Grande is the subject of the photograph it doesn't give her the right to use copyrighted material without paying for a license. This may seem unfair until you consider that photography is art. It takes creative effort to frame a photograph, use appropriate camera settings, positioning yourself and the subject, editing and a lot of other steps. Similar to the way a painting is art. The way a lot of photographers take photographs is of events and other public areas where people are bound to be in the photographs.
An example to illustrate why it would be a bad idea to make people be the copyright holder of photographs just because they appear in them.
Imagine if you were a photographer and I commissioned you to take a few photos of me. We decide a time and location. You drive there, set up lights, camera, reflectors and bring your best expensive camera equipment. We take some photographs and they are great! You give me a few low resolution copies so that I can pick out the best ones. Except I just take the examples, upload them to my social media where they get me sponsors and millions of likes, then never pay you. Who is in the wrong here?
I mean the pictures are of me and nobody else, according to the arguments for why Ariana Grande and other celebrities should own their pictures mean that I should have the copyright and therefor be able to do what I want with the pictures. Now this of course seems very unfair, I used almost effort to appear for the photos but you invested both your money and your time to honor the commission. The truth is that photographers should own the copyright to their photographs because they are in fact creative works of art.
Now should the paparazzi in this instance be allowed to use the photographs for their own commercial interest?
Maybe, the laws around this differ a lot between countries and I am not certain how they apply in the United States. In my personal opinion if the subject of a photograph is a person their permission should be required before the photo could be posted publicly. However it probably shouldn't be required to have permission of people in the background of photographs. It should however not be prohibited to take photographs of anyone.
In this lawsuit with the information provided in the video I believe Ariana Grande to be legally and even morally in the wrong. In my opinion though the paparazzi should not be allowed to sell the photograph to anyone other than Ariana Grande or someone representing her.
M to the B ... indeed! AND without their permission?
About Ariana lawsuit, it doesn't makes sense to me, because yeah Ariana didn't get permission to use the photo, but the photographer didn't get Ariana's permission to take random pictures of her.
In the US you don't need to get permission to take a photograph of somebody in a public space, which a sidewalk in front of a store is.
Damn! What are camera's for?!
@@Blutzen actually depends on where you are. Where I live in the south you can not take photos without the permission of the person or owner
TheGamer Life that’s just not true
FFIXMaster well the take away should be, she can use it however she wants with no consequence. Since it’s literally a photo of her.
I suppose it's not enough for paparazzi to harass and borderline stalk celebs, they have to sue them as well in order to squeeze every penny they possibly can. I don't even like Ariana Grande but this whole situation is unnecessary.
I hate paparazzi, we need laws for them because fucking hell why can't famous people have space especially the ones who have kids, it creepy.
If u hate paparazzi why use their photo
Yeah how dare he stand outside that shop. He's not famous he should go back to the poor side of town
@@nimimin985 i don't?
@@larry7036 that's not we're saying, just because someone is famous doesn't mean they can't have privacy.
If it is a legit photoshoot then the photographer has the rights, because a contract was probalby used - if you stalk someone and take their picture, then you don't own anything!
No, they still do.
The photographer always owns the image the second the image is created unless there is already an established agreement giving you ownership of the images, even if it's you.
I agree but what happens when multiple subjects are in the photo or multiple high profile figures or what happens when the subject isn't a person but there is one or more person or celebrity in the photo where do the rights even fall when its in the public space. When do those rules change if it was stalking or paparazzi. Would have liked to see questions like that pop up and talked about because the rights do seem fuzzy from the pov of someone who isn't a lawyer/photographer/model etc...
the photo scandal isn't as simple as people think. i mean if a real journalist took a photo of a politician in a public place taking a bribe, the politician can't just go and say, that's my photo take it down. i know this example is kinda extreme, but there are reasons why this copyright set up exists.
I agree and would also like to add that sure he took the photo but the only reason the photo has any sort of value is because of the celebrity. So it’s insane if the celebrity doesn’t have any sort of right to use the photo.
ProJared just made a video defending himself and shows some of your footage. I'd be interested in hearing your reply.
He didn’t have permission to photograph her. He should have no rights to her image.
If he had permission or she hired him to photograph her then yes he would have artistic rights
This^^
She's not some statue or long metal building, she's a person, she should have some rights here.
Ariana should be paid for him stealing her image. He profits from her fame, not for his talent.
I’d say he owns the photo, but she owns the likeness... so he technically can’t sell the photo without her signing a release but she can’t post without his consent
MJF she was in public so she has no legal right over it.
MJF she’s in public so it doesn’t matter
"You cannot purchase apps from anywhere except our store."
"Also, we're not a monopoly."
you bought their device doe.
WelbyKiDD but they are the only company that does it. So if a person were to switch from an Android to Apple they have no knowledge of this, the 30% fee, or the fact that Apple does delayed pmts for in app purchases. These are the things you only find out after buying an Apple device.
@@tessacraig1808 Or do some research BEFORE buying something...
Adam Blomberg do some what.... but in all seriousness, Apple will say something costs 7.99 and you won’t know it’s not actually 7.99 unless you do a bunch of digging on whether or not Apple jacks up prices. If they were more transparent upfront they probably wouldn’t be having such a hard time.
All these Apple users ‘Android sucks, apples better’ but android users are only charged the price shown, can download third party apps, and if you buy something you aren’t charged a week later. Kind of seems like Apple really ain’t shit.
*takes photo of someone without their consent*
*sues them for reposting it without their consent*
topkek
Copyright laws logic in a nutshell.
@fire rises ... Okay. Whatever you say genius.
while in public nobody needs your consent and if you are a public figure more so
People should absolutely be allowed rights to pictures of themselves they didn't ask to be taken and the person who took them should have no recourse to fight them. Its garbage.
You don't need permission to take photo or record someone in a public setting. Also the precedent is who ever takes the picture owns it, the photographer has a good case.
You gonna make a new video explaining why you never tried to contact Jared or nah?
It made Phil "uncomfortable."
I know! I had to come back and watch it to make sure, cause he tries to reach out to EVERYONE else. He even left out the part where the kid says he has no evidence.
Let me down Phil
How about an update video?
Nah, people firing a flame thrower on an accused witch never get in trouble so why should he? He got his clicks.
His whole career is to exploit news, your view gives him
Money you think he cares about fairness? What did you expect from these “News” youtubers
It should probably be co owned since the image is worthless without the famous subject within the picture, but there would be no picture without the photographer. It's kinda dumb you're not allowed to use a picture of yourself in public. If it's a photoshoot it's different since it's whatever is put in the contract. This should just be common sense.
Eh, she’s on a public sidewalk so it’s considered fair game. Just how the law works.
If she had credited him in the post it would have been fine most likely.
this is what i was thinking... but then the issue becomes that that sets a precedent that the subject would also need to be compensated for being in that photo, while in public... not totally against it, but it makes it very difficult to shoot anything in public if that gets set, right? Does it only apply to famous people, due to the "it would be worthless without the subject" aspect? So, common citizens would not have this apply to them? That would kinda make sense imo.
@Kuuryo no it's different because you aren't selling the picture of your sister. It wouldn't affect you just the photographers who make a living from photography. They shouldn't be able to sue unless a contract is signed either that or have a law that prevents them from making money off pictures without consent of the subject.
@Kuuryo The law could just be changed so that it prevents the photographer from sueing the person in the picture for reposting if the photographer didn't get the consent of the individual.
@@VoidBL Define "making money", if a picture of a someone is in a news story does that person get a cut of the money from the ad revenue the station/company makes?
With the Ariana Grande law suit, I feel like if it's a paparazzi photo and it's unsolicited then it should be fine for the subject of the photo to use it.
Unfortunately this has already been decided by court. Reason being you need to draw a suitable line for when you own the picture and when you don't. Ariana is a multimillionaire who would pay a lot of money for nice shots like that. She's essentially taking the service for free, so for example let's say someone hires a photographer for a wedding, if the people in the photo own the picture then why do they need to pay the photographer?
But is paparazzi a service? He might have already earned money with this picture by selling it to a newspaper or website! If we are taking the wedding photographer example, if the photographer has already been paid by the wedding organisers the wedding guests can use these already paid for photos on their social media without having to pay for them again. I think unless the photos were stolen from the paparazzi aka he had not sold or posted them anywere - you can’t charge twice for them.
@@tehking111 saying that is implying people can drug you can cut their hair and then demand ransom. no absolutely not, you can't force somebody to pay if they aren't agreeing to the receive the service. that wouldn't make any sense. why doesn't the photographer need to pay the person they are taking the photo of. you should have the right to your image.
@@BloodSprite-tan I think you misunderstood me. The photographer owns the picture, the person who wants to own the picture needs to buy it from the photographer, if they want to own it. They don't just own it and they don't have to buy it if they don't want. People make a living from having great lenses, knowing where to stand and can bring out good poses, lighting, shadow, ect. That why wedding photographers have an industry. It sounds like you're suggesting the customer should always own the picture, meaning the photographer would need to be paid before hand which introduces a whole load of other problems which I can go into if you want.
Also take into account pictures of buildings or monuments with people in the background. Let's say you get a nice picture with the intention of selling it to a newspaper or as a stock image. What is the photographers claim to the photo over the claim of the people in the background of the photo? With your ruling it logically follows that the people in the background own the picture. This would make an entire industry non profitable and likewise you'd see a lot of photographers out of a job because they can't make money from it.
There's exceptions to this so for example if you're on private land and you've accepted a contract, such as buying a ticket, then the venue would own the picture.
@@MegaMadMuffin no, because if he sold them to a newspaper then the newspaper would own the copyright. He doesn't forgo ownership unless that's in the contract. The newspaper and the photographer would be able to sue her. You'd have to totally redo the system to make that play out reasonably and I can probably give you 100 different situations which would contradict eachother, making the whole thing a legal gray area and beholdant to the smartest lawyer in the room who can twist the law in his favour. Bottom line is he needs to give permission for someone to use the photo, and she didn't ask for permission. If people could legally do what Ariana did then you'd destroy the photography industry, and by extension the news industry since they can't use pictures.
If it’s a photo of you without permission it should be 50/50. But if you hire a model for photos it’s under contract that those are yours.
It's a public place, so no it shouldn't be 50/50, you're allowed to take photos of whatever or whoever you want iin public.
oBLACKIECHANoo sounds like you just want an excuse to creep on women - or it least I can interpret your stance like so.
@@yosmegabot2367 As much as I agree with your sentiment it's sadly the law. You're allowed to record or photograph figures in public environments and such creation produced is rightfully yours to keep.
yos megabot No, remember this also protects things like if you were to take photos at the Statue of Liberty, obviously there will be people in the shot. If you were a professional photographer and that was an artwork of yours you would not be able to use it for anything legally. Technically no one would be legally allowed to post any outdoor photo with people who haven’t signed a waiver. 🤷🏻♀️ I’m fine with the current law. And don’t creep on women. Lol
The thing that’s weird to me is that when people get wedding photos they pay for the photos to be taken but have to pay an additional fee for the copyrights to the photos and often for watermarks to be removed. It’s like...they already paid for them... 🤔🤦🏻♀️
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.
Cause, you know, fact checking a serious allegation is what you should do.
Like I made sure you didn't ask for his commentary. And look at that, you didn't.
Well said
So true!
Not a single word on why he didn't reach out for comments on the update video.
So they took unauthorized pictures of her and then sue her when she dares to use them? Lmao these paparazzi are the lowest of the low
Okay, let's analyze
Why should Ariana Grande have rights to post the photograph?
The subject of the photograph is Ariana Grande and basically nothing else.
Why shouldn't Ariana Grande have rights to post the photograph?
The copyright of a photograph is that of the person who pressed the shutter button.
Ariana Grande posted the photograph for profit (promoting her album).
Now, even though Ariana Grande is the subject of the photograph it doesn't give her the right to use copyrighted material without paying for a license. This may seem unfair until you consider that photography is art. It takes creative effort to frame a photograph, use appropriate camera settings, positioning yourself and the subject, editing and a lot of other steps. Similar to the way a painting is art. The way a lot of photographers take photographs is of events and other public areas where people are bound to be in the photographs.
An example to illustrate why it would be a bad idea to make people be the copyright holder of photographs just because they appear in them.
Imagine if you were a photographer and I commissioned you to take a few photos of me. We decide a time and location. You drive there, set up lights, camera, reflectors and bring your best expensive camera equipment. We take some photographs and they are great! You give me a few low resolution copies so that I can pick out the best ones. Except I just take the examples, upload them to my social media where they get me sponsors and millions of likes, then never pay you. Who is in the wrong here?
I mean the pictures are of me and nobody else, according to the arguments for why Ariana Grande and other celebrities should own their pictures mean that I should have the copyright and therefor be able to do what I want with the pictures. Now this of course seems very unfair, I used almost effort to appear for the photos but you invested both your money and your time to honor the commission. The truth is that photographers should own the copyright to their photographs because they are in fact creative works of art.
Now should the paparazzi in this instance be allowed to use the photographs for their own commercial interest?
Maybe, the laws around this differ a lot between countries and I am not certain how they apply in the United States. In my personal opinion if the subject of a photograph is a person their permission should be required before the photo could be posted publicly. However it probably shouldn't be required to have permission of people in the background of photographs. It should however not be prohibited to take photographs of anyone.
In this lawsuit with the information provided in the video I believe Ariana Grande to be legally and even morally in the wrong. In my opinion though the paparazzi should not be allowed to sell the photograph to anyone other than Ariana Grande or someone representing her.
@@FritoLays1236 This isn't about pushing anything. It's the law, and it should be that way. If you are in public, there is no expectation of privacy. If someone takes a picture, they own the picture. If someone takes a picture of you *in public*, they own the picture, and they should own the picture. If you really think it's bullshit, try explaining why; you might just convince someone.
@@shpambypamby3113 Yes we totally dont have laws against people following people and taking pictures of them without them knowing, AKA FUCKING STALKING, Stop defending this stalker who profits off of stalking and secretly taking pictures of people without consent
@Kate F You can expect not to be sued for using your own image that you as a person have a right to
@Kate F People own a right to their own image so technically even though she couldnt post the photo as she doesnt own the right to the photo(which isnt transformative as a piece of art so no I really dont think they own the rights to the photo but anyway) neither can the photographer as he doesnt own the right to her image even though he owns the right to the photo as long as it isnt being monetized
If you take a picture of me and I do not pay you to do so (i.e. I haven't consented) then I shouldn't have to pay a damn thing. Given the photographer was going to profit off of the pic and I wouldn't get a dime. The paparazzi need to be reeled in and so does any asshole who thinks they are ENTITLED to compensation for taking an unsolicited pic.
You don't need to explicitly consent because you are in public, you lose that privilege because you are in public space. The person who takes the picture owns that picture.
gingergreek wrong
Man y'all would be terrible lawyers
Taking a photo is like making a video. Time, money, and effort went into creating the image on the photographers part. People cannot use someone's full video but can use clips from it. Theres not really a way to do that with photos unless you were to crop an image. But there have been no rulings towards that. Using an image that a photographer made for commercial purposes without compensation or consent is copyright infringements. Regardless the context of paparazzi, street photography, or studio photography.
@@Lilyindi it takes 5 seconds...
Paparazzi make a career out of stalking celebrities. I don't think they deserve to sue them when their "material" is used.
Just know there is a distinction between paparazzi and professional photographers.
@@jonathanjoyce4106 agreed, but the photo in question was very likely taken of Ariana Grande without her consent considering the fact that it's a picture of her walking in the street and not acknowledging the camera, which pretty much qualifies it as a paparazzi photo
@@erinburns1917 She obviously liked it enough to use a photo of her. That does not make it her photo. Neither does it give her the rights to use this photo to promote herself or her brand without permission from the photographer.
@@erinburns1917 I would suggest looking into other cases similar to this. You're welcome to assumptions and I'm sure the details are out there if you want to clear it up. This photo doesn't exactly scream invasion of privacy.
Joe Van Liew make it into a meme then it “transformative”
you didn't ask ProJared for his side of the story
Philly really did find the MOST forgiving photo of Jared for the thumbnail. I'm honestly suprised xD
I'm honestly surprised he didn't mention anything about Holly.
@@JustHereForBeingHere cuz the real crime isnt cheating its sending and receiving nude to minors.
@@JustHereForBeingHere Not much to say about Holly.
He still looks like Sid from Ice Age though lmao
After seeing that sailor moon cosplay pic I cant see him in any other way, that image is going to haunt my ass even in hell.
I feel as though with paparazzi, photos of celebrities who are unwittingly being photographed should have the right to use the photo of themselves. If it weren't of a celebrity and the photograph is of an unwilling everyday citizen, unless done by a photography student for their course, it would be deemed a little creepy to perverted by most.
Plus most photographers, at least ones that aren't labelled as paparazzi, usually have a contract and/or sum of money put in place so that a model is not unfairly using the image without photographers consent and will be at least compensated for working with the photographer.
If you were a celebrity that had constant photos of you being taken without pay, or at least some form of compensation, and consent you would be annoyed too. This is essentially what paparazzi do.
Just goes to show how truly vile paparazzi culture truly is. People are allowed to outright stalk you just because an above average number of people know who you are. What we allow in regards to the laws surrounding paparazzi is downright disgusting and outdated. Who has to die before we get law reform?
@@hoppingfrenzy probably a lot of people, I mean Princess Diana died, a fucking PRINCESS, someone of royalty. All she wanted was privacy as she toured Paris and relaxed from being in the immediate public eye, and what happens as she tries to get away, car crash. If someone thinks that being a paparazzi person is amazing for the world, they need to really rethink their life
@@hoppingfrenzy Along with Princess Diana, there was a paparazzo who was chasing Justin Bieber on a highway a few years back and crashed or something like that trying to get a photo. They almost get hit by cars they surround and prevent from leaving all the time too.
@@LividityInk To be fair, Brotain did change their paparazzi laws after that incident. Not as much as anyone thought they should, but they are more strict than the US's. I guess I'm wondering who in the US had to die before we change. It's a travesty either way.
People should have some rights to their own imagine.
If the photographer doesnt have permission to take the photo, the person who's imagine is depicted shouldnt need permission to share it
image**
Unless they are in public. You only own your image in the privacy of your own home.
@Frog Man except it isnt that easy.
Yes, we have the freedom of the press, that's all good and dandy.
Yes, you can go take pictures of anyone, anytime, with or without their consent.
But from a legal standpoint, even if you take a picture of someone, that doesnt mean you have a right to their image or to sue them over *Their* image.
That's why in movie contracts, film, records, etc. Any kind of business that will use your image, you have to sign a legally binding contract that says yes, you do consent to them using your likeness and your image in whatever product they'll use if for.
So yes, press/photographers can take your picture. But no, they do not have a right to use your likeness or your image, nor sue you if you post whatever picture they took.
@Frog Man something very similar is happening between Harvard and a young woman.
Allegedly her great-great grandfather and another family member were slaves.
Well Harvard has their image in their school, and has even used it on book covers and such.
Well, shes taken a lawsuit against them because she says that since they couldnt consent to the pictures being taken, the photograpgher/the school has no legal right to use them.
The counter argument is that since they were slaves, and considered to be objects, not people, the photographer didnt need to ask for consent.
@Frog Man Well the law is wrong then. You as a person own your own image. For example if this was a cartoon character you wouldn't be able to draw your own version of them and sell it right? So why then can you take a picture of someone and sell that? SHouldn't they get a cut of it at the very least? It's the same thing, you are using someones else's image for your profit.
Huffman should be forced to pay for some poor kids college. She stole a spot from someone who derserved it
KaviarTube That would certainly be more productive than prison.
I'm proud of Heidi for coming forward with this, she is proof that gas lighting is a very real thing and a very, very real form of abuse that has lasting psychological effects a lot of people don't recover from. She has put a spotlight on the abuse that is gas lighting and I hope out of all of this people are educated on the matter.
not only that aspect of it but this is also another example of someone whom is popular and seems harmless but in reality they weren't and ended up manipulating things, it's often enough that it should be taught not to instantly trust someone due to their popularity, though on the flipside this really came out of left field even for those whom knew Projared personally, so it's even more upsetting how well he got away with things for so long due to it being hidden so well.
What is gas lighting? I'm from mexico
EDIT: Thanks for the response guys, also that sounds terrible
Omega Rojo it’s basically making someone question there own sanity by psychological means.
@@Omegaman025 Gaslighting is psychology manipulation that makes you question yourself and/or your sanity. There's an old movie about it called Gaslight. It's really good.
@@01SaltyWitch In fact that is where the name comes from.
If you have your photo taken without your consent, you should be able to use it without the consent of the photographer. Fair’s fair.
Second you step on the sidewalk it’s considered fair use in the us, and the photographer owns the image as he owns the camera. That’s why paparazzi wait outside.
@@DubsBrown they need to change that imo.
DubsBrown I know that. That isn’t how it SHOULD work.
if i take a photo in a public place, i own the photo,
that photo wouldn't exist if i didn't take it so it is my property.
if i create a T-shirt logo and you put it on a shirt and sell/use the shirt
i could sue you for copyright infringement,
they are the same examples, i create a thing you don't have the right to use said thing.
CatheteriZedEYE I grew my own face and you gotta pay me to take pictures of it
Pretty disappointed that your team never followed up with ProJared himself, just everyone else involved. Thats pretty scummy man, spread the accusations all over the internet, without following up with the accused.
most of such kind of scandals are like this. its sickening.
Treesicle was the worst of them.
Philly D: I just wanna move past this, it makes me uncomfortable...
Also Philly D: "...Share this with your friends, your FAMILY"
Phil pls.
"A BROKEN MARRIAGE / 10" - Pro Jared
Okay this one got me take your like, you earned it.
Literally no one:
Phillip: I'm going to sell underwear now!
Literally no one:
Phil: Hit that like button or I'm going to punch you in the throat.
Hope you apologise to ProJared now. Ya know for not contacting him but trying to spin a neutral narrative.
Victor Vinegar did he contact the people against jared? no. why is he wrong for not contacting jared if he didnt contact ANYONE. it wouldnt have been neutral if he only contacted jared.
@@destinyguinn1717 he didn't have to contact anyone else cause their sides of the story were already public. Jared didn't make any comments so again; how could he be neutral if he didn't hear both sides of the story.
"A neutral narrative" jesus christ are you for real
Victor Vinegar He specifically said that jared hadnt made any comments at the time of making his video, implying that the whole story wasnt out and he was just reporting what had been public.
@@victorvinegar7116he didn't really reach out to anyone from EITHER side... i would understand the backlash if phil interviewed projred's ex wife but not him bec that would be unfair. But he only reported what was made public? Idk if their team presenting only what was tweeted or publicly stated makes them non-neutral but I don't think there's anything to complain about? It was projared's prerogative to NOT release statements at that time. He could've reached out as well if he was really determined to put "his truth" out. Even so, during the coverage for all this, the situation was volatile and unstable so I understand why projared didnxt reach out and that's what's allowing me to excuse phil too. I wouldn't want to directly interject in a situation that I'm not involved and that might have been messy, legally. And it's not like he condemned the guy, he just stated that it made him uncomfortable and that's what they know and what was made public as of recording this pds.
"If you still have an HBO subscription"
Savage
Just truth. If this episode was as bad as it is next episode Is just going to be even worse.
Also, AT&T owns it now, and We AlL kNoW hOw NiCe AT&T Is As A cOmPaNy.
@NON-POLAR PAUL read it again, SLOWLY
Maybe sharing an apology will make you feel less uncomfortable?
Maybe sharing his resignation will
Are you gonna address ProJared allegations that you didn't contact him and that you omitted evidence about his case?
Papz waiting infront of Ariana’s apartment building and stalking her 24/7 isn’t enough and now they want money for her posting a pic on insta lmao the audacity.
Did the photographer get her permission to post the photos? I honestly don't think you should be able to sue someone for photos of them, if you didn't get their permission to take it in the first place.
TheJeffreyJJones since she was in a public area, apparently it was legal to take her picture
If you are in a public place, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you are in public place then no one needs to ask for your permission, you inherently give up that right once you step into public space.
TheJeffreyJJones wring
A lot of people seem to be missing my point, it's fine if you take the picture and post it. But if the subject of that picture then posts it on their account, you shouldn't be able to sue them.
first person ive seen talk about the projerard story not gleefully going over all the gossipy bits of personal tragedy and actual speaking non-salaciously about the actual crime.
kudos phil
At this point, ProJared saying nothing is probably for the best.
Its because he has nothing to fight back with, and that he only has his words, others have proof
Also since he has a divorce at the moment him being public about ANYTHING would be used as fuel. His lawyer probably advised him to not comment on anything due to the nature of the case since it seems like Heidi might win in the divorce settlement no contest.
@@Jamesis666-IRL Is it really as much proof as you assume it is though
@@wittybanter96 they have chat logs and such etc which shows how bad he has been
ProJared was right you didn't contact him for his side of the story.
The person Jared cheated with was also a well-known content creator, who was just as trusted and beloved as he was, in the same communities. The whole situation makes me sick. I’ve watched Jared since I was 16 (now I’m 22), and he was easily one of my favorite content creators on all of RUclips. Excuse me while I punch a wall.
I wish that he had mentioned that it was with Commander Holly, someone with her own group of supporters and fans! Someone who was friends with Heidi! Someone who Jared regularly appeared alongside and worked with! Those details make this even grosser.
M Greenway Aw man I didn't know that bit! It was already bad but that's worse imo
The part that is the worst to me is that he essentially asked for and received child pornography. That's by far worse than cheating, as one of these things will land you in prison.
@@Avrysatos Oh, I agree. I just meant that the fact that he cheated on his wife with her best friend and his colleague makes the cheating part worse than just simply cheating. The soliciting of nude pictures from minors is the worst, most disgusting and foul part of all.
@@marygreenway485 Wait... It was that Holly? Poor Ross... I wonder if he knew? Either way, none of my business. I hope all parties seek help and that Jared is investigated thoroughly.
Phillip "smelled so damn good we turned it into a candle" DeFranco
yes lol
Also a great pitch for a horror movie
In terms of the Ariana story, I think because the photos were not from a photoshoot and were just candids, I think the photographer is a bit out of line. I think she should have given credit to him in the description, but at the end of the day, there was no artistic element on his part and all he did was snap a few quick photos of her and she has the rights to her image and likeness.
EDIT: I'd like to clarify that by "she has the rights to her image and likeness," I don't mean the actual photos. I mean her IMAGE, as in "the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public" (definition from Google). I mean that she should be allowed to post the PICTURE as long as she gives credit, because lays claim to her IMAGE (in terms of the definition above). Sorry for the confusion.
I DO NOT believe she should have rights/ownership of the physical photo, but because she is the SUBJECT, she has a right to post the photo, since it is a representation of her own likeness. I also know HOW THE CURRENT LAWS ARE, which is why this guy does have the grounds to sue her and I see that, all I'm saying is I don't agree with it in this case. It's a picture of her. She's the subject and the photo was posted publicly. Clearly she did not take the photo herself, so it's assumed there was a third party involved (the photographer) even without knowing the story behind the photos. I do think she should have given credit to the photographer, but she didn't claim to own the photos. Plus its worth it to note that stars post paparazzi or candid photos on their profiles all the time.
If his photography skill wasn't needed, then why didn't she take her own photo and use it?
she actually doesn'y have any rights to them. The photos were taken on public property so the rights stay with the photographer. And we don't know why he didn't want those photos used. It may be money (which with paparazzi is strong), he may be tied to a magazine/website which have a contract with him so they own the copy right or he may think they aren't his best work so doesn't want them out for people to see.
I didn't say his skill wasn't needed and I didn't say that she does have rights to them, I know the law and clearly she wouldn't be getting sued if the situation was any different. All I said was how I feel it should be, but logically I know it isn't that way. The pictures are candid, anyone with a working camera could have taken the photos. She thought, "Hey this is a great photo of me, I'm going to post it," which I would have too if I were in her shoes. I agree that the photographer should be credited in some way, but she is still the subject of the photos.
@@JillianCristina Yes, and if the photographer posted those photos, she would have the right to have them taken down, since they are photos of her without her permission.
But since she used his photos she's in the wrong.
@Besta best I definitely agree.
ProJared called you out bro
Philip DeFranco should be removed from RUclips
@@Coolmanbob7 why?
He makes videos intended to defame people and doesn't even complete basic actions needed for journalistic integrity before posting.
He's dangerous
@@Coolmanbob7 so where should I go for legit quick news?
Not here. I suppose he can stay though but this needs addressing
It's LITERALLY called the App Store. A store. Like Target, like Walgreen's, like Walmart. If you're the only store open, you're a monopoly.
@@lIJasonlI No, thats the whole point, you have no where else to go.
Walmart had monopoly on Walmart services. Sue Walmart!
@@Tjrissi96 you can get an android phone
lIJasonlI that's why it's a monopoly
Arturo Rodriguez Lopez that's like moving to China for something you can't find in your own country
I remember Kim Kardashian saying that she's hiring a personal photographer so when her fans repost paparazzi photos won't have them taken down
Kardashian really knows and masters the game.
Daniella no she hired her own photographers because they will photoshop her photos for her while keeping her hand clean.
Because her personal photographer is the only one allowed to take pictures right
If you are the subject of the photo and have not signed a waiver or contract that forfeits your rights to it, you should have equal right to post it as if you were the photographer. Simple as that.
Celebrities are their own income generator, their image and their 'talent'. If their image is their income, they can effectively claim copyright themselves (As animators or musicians do with their 'work') - I think its silly that you can be sued for posting a pic of yourself and its downright WRONG.
not to mention, most celebrities own their own likeness, which can't be reproduced. this is often a problem for official comics (the stargate continuation series has this issue). noone should be able to own a photo of yourself if you never signed a contract.
just as companies can't use your facial scans to make you star in their commercials.
That would absolutely kill copyright for photography
@@PatheticApathetic I'm open for the discussion but you havent told us why it would?
Photographers SHOULD (DO?) need to ensure that their subject (The primary focus of the image) signs a contract or waiver that allows them to hold exclusive copyright. Otherwise, the subject has equal claim to use the photo however they see fit. It is a photo of them!
In a situation where you just happen to be in the photograph of say, a monument (think Sydney Opera House) then you arent the primary subject and hold no right to copyright. In this instance, the photo is clearly of her, and as such she has a right to reproduce it.
All of the above does NOT dismiss the fact that the original photographer has a right to it also, but his rights should not undermine hers as the subject; again this is unless he has a waiver or contract from her?
@@comedyzone According to the US law, it seems that that's not the case. If you're out in public, anyone can take a picture of you and publish it without your consent. The person who took the photo owns the photo and the copyright to it.
@@caladbolg8666We're discussing what should be, not what is. The current law is clearly ludicrous.
Don't you have the right to own your own personal image?
Trevor Grover you 100% should.
Exactly. Unless there’s some kindof contract in place as a result of her *consenting* to be photographed, this shouldn’t even be a thing and in fact the photographer could, or at least should, even be made liable for any damages the suit may cause her.
@@imbuffysummers nah. By law the picture was taken in public and so it belongs to him. She has no rights to post it
I wish ProJared a happy jail time.
Innocent until proven guilty and so on, but he looks guilty as hell.
he won't, they never do
it's like if people don't care even with tons of proof and declarations right in front
Let him have some hell too.
@@marietacastillo8711 unfortunately these things are hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he could say photoshopped or someone impersonating him didn't know age etc. it's unfortunate that's why things like this should be report asap because it's harder as time goes by
The pictures would still have to be online without evidence of the actual pictures the crime can't be proven.
I've been patiently waiting for the Projared coverage since Friday... Heidi is a friend of a friend, and I was shaken by the news when I saw it
Projared looks like the sloth from ice age
Bitch dont disrespect my man sid like that 😂
Yeah what did sid ever do to you
He looks like the balloon from Phineas and Ferb
Man don’t do Sid dirty like that. Sid wouldn’t ever cheat on his wife.
I’m legit triggered by this comment. Sid is too good for that.
*How dare you disrespect Sid*
In Norway the person in the photo is the owner of the photo, unless there is some agreement between the photographer and the subject in the picture.
mahlet Wolday that isn’t completely true. You don’t have any news photographs being taken there?
@@hautehussey According to one legal site: "There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.) The law protects other personal attributes or aspects of identity from unauthorized use as well. For example, courts have held that use of a celebrity's voice can violate the right of publicity." So..."The news" doesn't just get to use your picture either. Any human person can take legal action against the unauthorized use of their likeness (photo) on these grounds. It is important to note that under COPYRIGHT law, however, the person who owns the photo is the person who clicked the shutter. That's why this is such a complicated issue. It depends on which side you're looking at it from.
Gryffon -`ღ ́- what you’re missing is that it is Ariana Grande herself who is using her likeness commercially here. You can’t sue the photographer for that!
hautehussey I do agree with your last statement
@@hautehussey I'm not missing anything; that isn't even a question to begin with. No one is talking about Ariana suing anyone. That text is just to show that individuals DO have rights to their photographs/likeness despite what you seem to be claiming, and that there is precedent and laws in place for this very occurrence (re: Celebrity rights to their own likeness). The questions being discussed are 1) who owns the photo and 2) is it right that Ariana is being sued for distributing her own likeness. Based on my previous response, the law is divided on who owns the rights to the photo based on what law you are looking at and the answer to the second question is a matter of opinion since the laws are not clear enough to provide a definitive answer.
Apple: "we are not a monopoly."
Me: "so can I download apps from a diffrent place that isnt the app store?"
Apple: "no."
Me: "so you're a monopoly then"
Apple: (Shocked Pikachu face)
The Patrick driver's license meme also works well here
No... It's not a monopoly. Apple has the right to control what appears on their platform, just as Google or Samsung or any private platform does. 99% of harmful monopolies actually come to power via government, through legislation and regulation.
Cameron Anderson just because they have the right does not mean it’s not a monopoly. Like you said... 99% of monopolies are enabled by the government.
That's not a monopoly that's just business.
@@cameronanderson1670 yeah apple can have whatever on there store, the problem is that people can't go to a different app store. That's were the harmful monopolization comes into play, And in this case the gov is removing regulations in favor for the consumer, they aren't even places new regulations forcing apple to match prices of others stores, now people can sue if apple doesn't let pick a store of their choice
Apple's issue would be like Valve (The game company) selling a computer that is locked to their own platform, Steam. This is one reason I really do not like Apple, zero consumer freedom
Dakota Gerrior just buy a different brand of computer. Same with iPhones, if you don’t like the way it’s setup, don’t buy it. Simple. Don’t be a bitch after you chose to buy the phone.
@@Wittybo There are people who live under rocks and or are not familiar with how different OS' work. Not everyone understands that an Apple computer/phone will not run software made from Microsoft/Android.
Also "Buy a different one?" If only tech was that easy to buy. Not everyone has the dough for a different product.
@@marialuke2116 But they have enough for an iphone and imac
@@abbydabby475 For likely only the exact number that they purchased.
I'm not saying it's smart that they just up and buy it (one should always look up tech their looking to buy to make sure it's what they want), but it _does_ happen.
Maria Luke thats their problem....
First Jared from subway, now we got ProJared.
Not a good time thing to be named Jared
This is not fair to people with the name Jared.
Well i guarantee Jared is still getting his footlong in prison.
Jared Dines wouldn't like this kind of comment.
That Jared is who I thought of with the name ProJared.
"i just want to get past this story, it makes me uncomfortable"
>Still profits off of it
>didn't contact Jared for his side of things
What a clown
"If you still have an HBO subscription"
Is that a snide comment about the last episode of GoT? 😂
it was more a comment to my friends who said they canceled it after the last ep. :-p
Philip DeFranco I was gonna ask are you going to cover the shit storm that the final season turned out to be? 😂 we’ll see next week...
I am literally hanging on until the Deadwood film is out in June :/
ProJared: Prepare for Trouble
James Charles: Make it Double...
I. Choked. Thank you. 😏
To accept our world of prosecution!
lmfao
@@DXKramer And destroy people's lives for our amusement.
They legit could pass of as those two...
moving the deep dives to the weekend is an excellent idea. i always wish i can get some of your content on the weekends and now i can
Right, I need my Phil and co. 7 days a week.
Why didnt you reach out to Jared before posting this? Thought you were better than this phil..
Paparazzi deserve only to be punched in the throat. This story is completely absurd! How these lawsuits are a thing blows my mind.
Existing laws have been in place for decades protecting the copyright holder of the photos. This issue has existed for as long as photos have existed.
Now granted, these were intended solve disputes between photographers and former "clients".... paparazzi are a different category, but still protected by the law.
Honestly, it's the lesser of 2 evils. The alternative is small time photographers getting fucked over by people sealing from their digital albums.
I agree, paparazzi-ing should be banned. But as the law stands right now, they own the copyright to the photos they take.
@@lololol924 I don't think anybody wants the copyright law to not be a thing, I think it's more in this specific instance. There should be a unique situation for papparazi.
if i take a photo in a public place, i own the photo,
that photo wouldn't exist if i didn't take it so it is my property.
if i create a T-shirt logo and you put it on a shirt and sell/use the shirt
i could sue you for copyright infringement,
they are the same examples, i create a thing you don't have the right to use said thing.
@@shakibzz Easy enough to say. But end of the day poking holes/exceptions in laws is just asking for them to be abused.
Better to have a basic, discernable precedent that's applicable to all cases.
phil can we have the monkey intro for old times sake
PLzZZzZZZzZ
Please!!
juicegaming it’s copyrighted so I don’t think he can use it anymore
+
Lord Electus I thought it was his copyright?
"We are concerned we cannot continue our one sided overpriced monopoly. This isnt fair, we want more billions!"
Some One so greedy.
Its not a monopoly though. You can get any functionality you have in the app store if you simply buy an android. Apple is just seriously overpriced but thats not illegal. Its just stupid of their customers to buy their product. Which is also not illegal.
@@tubeyoukonto ...thats like saying cable/internet companies dont have a monopoly because Netflix exists...
You even admitted its a monopoly on their own platform.
@@tubeyoukonto buying a product does not entitle the seller to restrict access to other products. Retard the word is monopoly. Windows for example while they recommend the shit out of their products you are not restricted "in the name of security" cough cough gimme your money. Like apple
@@douglaslangley9251 satellite internet exists, as does phone company internet. They're both shit, but cable isn't technically a monopoly. That's how they get away with it.
This video is an embarrassment for you Phil
Have you seen his original twitter video on the Covington kids?
No Zones, do you remember that time this dimwitted RUclipsr didn't do his research and made life hard on someone else without reason?
"If you still have an HBO subscription." Dang... Were those shots, Phil?
somebody missed this season of game of thrones
I also caught this shade
Even though it's justified(because of the incest disease) I still HAAAATTTTE they did that to dany.
@@Revolt_west because they pull that out of their ass, she was really nice until this season, they just do whatever they can to create drama, now its just a shitty tv show with great cinematography
Apple stifling competition and having some sort of monopoly? Imagine my shock!
Corporation bad
I missed the space when I read your comment and thought "applestifling" was a piece of established terminology (like 'manspreading').
Monopolys are illegal aren't they
@hugo 4363 Agreed, it's been five years since I've last used an Apple product.
I watched this show on .75 speed by accident and thought Phil was drunk.
Omg this is great 😂
Because of your comment, I was able to see the tease. Thank you. Also, at .25 speed it is hilarious!
@@xoxlilstaroxo right? he sounds wasted xD
That was funny
At .25x he really sounds smashed! 😂
So glad about the apple ruling, I pray we'll see a day where software companies actually have to follow the same rules as everyone else, when it comes to selling their goods.
Lol Imagine getting sued for using a picture of YOURSELF.....what a world we live in
that's not the point.. that's how he makes his money dude. that's his source of income.. her posting that video makes the price drop to shit
@@para-yw9dn And if she paid him for his services then he already got paid, everything else is extra. It's rather silly and greedy to sue someone over that versus looking at it as free marketing.
@@Ravensidentity she paid him..?? that doesnt even make any sense who said she paid him and why would he be sueing her if she paid him for the photo..
@@para-yw9dn No one said she did, I'm saying if since it's possible.
@@Ravensidentity okay but lets assume she didn't pay him.. which she probably didn't then i see why she sued him. its stupid but that's the way he makes money. and she doesn't have to "consent" to the photo??
In regards to the Ariana photos, if the photographer is gonna bring up that she didn't have permission to post them, then what permission did he have to take them?
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas. Therefore, anyone is allowed to take pictures of you. No permission needed.
The photographer was in a public area so it was allowed.
Copyright laws. WTF how are you living in the West and you oblivois to the laws that u live under. Im in africa and i know. U nixxas are dumb asf. Read a law book.
@@richardgray3112 LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, and the state will be like "tru! this case is dropped and intellectual property doesn't exist " America would lose NEARLY ALL its capital. That says allot about America
@@richardgray3112 I agree but what we gonna do about it???
The embarrassment you feel when you thought you set up your headphones to watch Phill, when in actual fact you haven't and Phill says very loudly "you beautiful bastard's" to my very packed bus 😣
Cherelle :D now they all have to have a good day because they’ve been called a beautiful bastard
Been there....wanted to make myself as small as possible lol
Phil! With one L!
It could've been a LOT worse than beautiful bastards.
Lol
Phil saying « Knabenbauer » when others tried an fail. The man knows his craft
Thank you for donating to St. Jude’s. My friend just passed from liver failure due to her cancer. I appreciate you helping those in need Phil.
@Kermit of Rivia "This place that requires a shitload of money to operate so that, when a cure is found, R&D will already be paid for making it affordable worldwide? Yeah, it's over-funded"
Does it hurt to be that stupid? In a just world, it would.
Kermit of Rivia that’s not a bad thing lol
I'm so sorry for your loss I wish you strength and healing.
Jared is a shame. Great commentator, very funny man. But a terrible person if this is true, and it probably is. Really feel for Heidi.
It is absolutely *NOT* true until proven that it is, because this:
www.abc4.com/news/local-news/false-sexual-assault-allegation-leads-to-man-s-death/1990788156
Sad thing is, after a lot of us called the faux lynchings leading to actual lynchings, we can still see the future. Ready for why that's sad? Dragon Ball Super is coming back and Gohan still doesn't do craaaaaaap.
@Wonder So what? So what? See, this is what makes people who have my sanity without my foresight into how awful the man I am about to mention is, think Trump was a good idea, which he is not. We're tired of this lynching bullshit. I didn't accept it when it was done to black people and God damn me for all eternity if I accept it here.
Tl;dr Trump is awful, and because he's awful and not many people accept it in the sane zone, the lynchings need to stop. NOW!!! Not tomorrow. Not when ProJared finally defends himself. NOW!!!
Phil, my husband is growing out his beard, but he can't use your products cause he has to have unscented. 😔
Will you have unscented in the near future? Id love to buy him some of the beautiful bastard products
Stephanie Hopkins im going to second this, but with any future product you make as well! My family is very sensitive to scents so we generally get unscented whenever we can. Not fragrance free, as that typically has ingredients added in to make it unscented.
If he can't use scents, coconut oil is about the best thing for his beard. That and not washing it with hot water, keeping the beard-scalp happy with some witch hazel astringent if necessary, not drying it before conditioning it with oil, and keeping it well brushed and tangle free.
If it's just "artificial" scents that are the problem, mixing some lavender, tea tree, and/or argan essential oil into the coconut oil will go a long way to keeping his beard conditioned and happy. All of those have a natural scent to them, but they aid in conditioning substantially.
If he needs more hold/control than coconut oil provides, you can melt some beeswax in a double boiler on the stove and then add your coconut oil to that to form anything from a slightly thick coconut oil to a full on paste wax that will give you the hold you desire. All of this is wayyy cheaper than what Phil is selling, and isn't much work.
And, in case the "double boiler" on the stove scares you, all you really need to do is melt the stuff together. I use a double boiler made out of a regular pot and a cheapo coffee mug. I've also just melted it in a covered microwave safe bowl, no need to complicate it.
Jacob T I don’t have a beard, neither does my husband, but this was so damn informative and helpful that I had to applaud your commenting!
@@vanessahillman8059 "Just remember, it's not the beard on the outside that counts, it's the beard on the inside" - Action Hank
Alot of that applies to DIY lotion and hair conditioner as well. Once you start making this stuff, it's wild how much of a racket the off-the-shelf stuff is.
Yeah, i too have sensitive face skin and need unscented stuff.
The ProJared story needs an update Philly.D 😁
A real shame. I really did love Jared as a creator. I couldn't believe he did all this, and it's saddening
So true.. damn.
@Kermit of Rivia that is not the most important part of the story.
Still not sure what degree he did all of this . Still disappointing but I wish there was a legal way we could get some context
Kermit of Rivia That was a photo he put out publicly just for fun a few years ago. That wasn’t among the new shit that came to light. It just has a different context now.
Edit: If you’re talking about what I think you are.
WittyBanter 96 As someone who has loved his content for 6-7 years and valued him as one of the most mature, well-spoken, and entertaining voices on all of RUclips, I have to say the evidence is overwhelming. The more I look into it, out of denial or whatever the fuck, the more I wonder why the fuck I decided to subject myself to it. It’s beyond convincing.
Is it a professional photographers shots? Then yes, you pay for them.
Random pap? Nah
Liam Compton if only that is how it worked
a paparazzi is a professional photographer as well, it really doesn't work like that she's clearly promoting her album with that photo
Lol I was just thinking that if subjects could sue photographers then urban photography would go down the drain. Like I have taken so many great shots of randos
@@ladyj.9350 Yes but the best solution would to give the obvious subject of the photo and the photographer co-ownership of the photo. Yes crediting the photographer should be common decency but not required legally if there is a clear subject in the photo which this have (it's only her and a building/street in it). Considering this is taken without consent or any contracts signed.
imo it’s straight up immoral to claim ownership of a photo taken of someone without their consent... legally? I’m the wrong person to ask.
Here we go, ProJared from Subway finally getting some news coverage
It is about time Apple got slammed . I personally hate Apple products. THANK YOU ON THE St Jude .
“Follicly gifted” I like the word choice Phil.
The projared controversy is absolutely disgusting. I’m glad that Heidi got away from him
Got away? She looks like she can beat him to a pulp if she wanted to.
Phallicly gifted*
Not before he ruined Ross and Holly's relationship, unfortunately.
@@EmmanuelAniTheSchism Don't take too much blame off holly there. As far as we know she had equal part in that (at least as far as I know so far, if you've seen evidence to the contrary fair enough!)
@@EmmanuelAniTheSchism
He didn't ruin Holly's relationship, she ruined it by cheating on him with Jared.
They should make her pay for the tuition of someone who didn't get in because of her daughter.
That's not a punishment.
What an excellent idea.
thats too much gray area. regardless of whether or not that girl was let in, they didnt particularly kick out one student in her place. who know who couldve been let in?
Amazing idea
they should kick her out of the school more like
Can you please talk about the Lia Marie Johnson situation going on? I think the pds could present it in a really helpful mental health way.
The teens react girl? What's wrong with her?
@@droganovic6879 She has lately been on live streams acting really strange either on drugs/ meds/ mental problems
@@DrBitchcraft. damn, sad to hear. Hope it's nothing but if it is hope she gets the help she needs. She always seemed like a sweet kid
Of course you should have rights to a photo that you are the subject of !!! This is just crazy . Here in Spain you have NO legal right to even take a photo of someone without their express permission, let alone publish it - people who break this law can be arrested . Whilst this may sound over the top, it does stop naming and shaming of people unfairly on social media for example.
Often famous people in Spain will sign a legal waiver which allows them to be photographed, but to then be sued for publishing your own photo ??? We live in a warped world where that is allowed to happen.
It's definitely a tricky subject here in the US. However I think it stems from photography as a business. When I worked in a photo center if any pictures were professionally taken we needed the customer to provide a release basically stating that they were allowed to use the photos, as the copyright belonged to the photographer. Which sounds dumb and lead to many arguments, but we were kinda covering our own asses. For smaller photographers its basically to protect them should someone try to use the photographs they took for profit, as they could potentially lose business.
However I am interested in Spains way of doing it, and I am not a fan of paparazzi at all. It seems to be a different case with celebrities as since they are public figures one would assume they own copyright to themselves. It's a tricky situation to be sure as paparazzi have been known to go to incredible lengths to get photographs, and at least one case (princess diana) has lead to a few deaths.
NPT Music so you have no news photographs over there?
@@hautehussey Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see definition below)
Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
In Spain, the right to the own image is guaranteed by Constitution (Sections 18.1 and 20.4).[109]
Civil law deals with this subject in the context of privacy legislation (Fundamental Law No. 1/1982).[110]
According to section 7.5 of the above law[111], “the taking, reproducing or publishing of the image of a person captured by photography or filming or any other means in places or moments of private life or outside these” is considered to be an “illegal intromission in private life”, unless in some specific cases. The same applies under section 7.6 of the mentioned law to the illegitimate “use of the name, the voice or the image of a person for publicity, commercial or similar purposes.”
The exceptions to the above statement are the following:
There is no illegal intromission:
In case of explicit consent of the concerned person (section 2.2).[112]
In case of predominant and relevant historical, scientific or cultural interests (section 8.1).
It is allowed to capture, reproduce and publish a picture without permission if the person depicted is a public figure[113] and the picture is taken in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody (section 8.2.a).[114]
It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).
Later commercial re-use of previously published news pictures or public figures' images (lawfully released without permission) is not allowed without the consent of the person(s) affected (see Sentence 231/88 of the Spanish Constitutional Court, dealing with the death of the star matador Paquirri).[115]
Special rules apply to minors and incapacitated persons. If they are under a legal disability, written consent from a legal representative is to be obtained in order to capture or publish or use their picture, and shall be submitted to the local Public Prosecutor's Office for approvement (section 3 of the above law).
Other regulations: Section 491.2 of the Spanish Penal Code penalizes the use of the image of the King or any of his ancestors or descendents, the Prince or Princess Consort, the Crown Prince, the Regent or any Member of the Regency in any way that can damage the prestige of the Crown.
@@hautehussey The law is widely ignored however ... but the idea that you could sue someone for publishing a photo that they were the subject of is laughable
NPT Music so the laws over there are the same in this regard as they as here, because this is a famous person and it Ariana Grande herself that is using the image commercially, not the photographer.
Thanks for actually talking about the Projared situation it kinda got overshadowed by the James Charles situation. Projared is way way worse than James Charles.
Cry Fry i didn't know there was a competition on tragedies 😫
@Simon James Simon At least James Charles didn't do anything with underage people.
It's interesting I was on you site like at the end of the year and he posted nothing for ages and I was thinking what is he doing. Obviously now it's clear he had his attention on something else
@Simon James Simon It's not just soliciting nudes, but soliciting nudes from minors (which counts as both production of and possession of child pornography if I'm not mistaken), and not just cheating on his wife, but from the sounds of it also emotionally abusing her. At that point you're questioning whether one case of abuse is worse than another, etc, which is a bit of an iffy situation
@Simon James Simon there was not much proof of the rape thing. Just people throwing out allegations and stories. If they were raped by James Charles, even just one person would have spoken out earlier. They're straight adult men, not young women. Projared's predator actions against underaged people was proven since they posted his nudes everywhere.
Don't take me wrong, I also dislike James Charles, but...
One of the person who said was manipulated by James Charles was even eating doritos during his video
That picture of projared that you put in the thumbnail is just glorious
Thanks for covering the Projared thing fam 🌝👌
“If you still have an HBO subscription...” Not sounding the death knell for the channel over the end of GoT, are you, Phil? Nope. #noshade
Me: *doesn't hit the like button*
Advert: *Multiple Phillip DeFrancos are in your area. Run.*
It may help you to invest in a gorget or goalie mask with a throat-guard. Just saying.
Subject of any photo taken without explicit permission should have right to use that pic. Or photographer should be able to he sued for NOT getting permission to take pics
That's not how it works. If you got raped or mugged, your attacker could then sue you for taking a photo for police, etc.
LynPhoenyx wrong you’re coming off ignorant
If you are in public place then no one needs to ask for your permission, you inherently give up that right once you step into public space.
Disagree with the latter half of your statement.
I'm not saying sue all photographers. I am saying paparazzi are insane suing celebrities for using pics they took without permission. Most celebrities have endorsement deals & their image is their property. If the paparazzi are allowed to lay legal claim on a pic, doesnt that chance diminishing their image
I used to have subjects sign release forms because I thought the idea that I had implicet ownership of their image was derganged and unethical.
I am very much the same on that. Just out of common decency more than anything else.
What's unethical and illegal are two different things. Right or wrong you only need a release legally for advertising/endorsing.
that counts when you have someone model, not when a public figure is out in public,
@@Angelwearsblack89 the question isn't about legality it's about ethics. it's unethical that the subject has no rights to their image being exposed. at the very minimum the subject should have the right to use the image!
@@Angelwearsblack89 I tend to be careful anyway just because I cannot afford to defend myself legally. I also think its just ethical.
I’m glad Phillip puts time stamps on his videos
Phil: A more reasonable time
Europe: am I joke to you?
Jared, a man who looks like a literally STRING BEAN, cheated on his incredibly beautiful wife. Shame.
for real. assuming it's true and he did who tf would cheat on her, she is such a lovely person, and that's not me white knighting either. holly is also attractive to her own respects.
white knight alert
There is literally no excuses for cheating unless you're forced to stay in that relationship. Pewdiepie even said none of them are 'blameless'. Even if a person in the relationship is the reason a relationship is going bad, they could just break up, divorce, not cheat on them. There should be no excuses to cheating unless they were forced to stay in the relationship
@@fanatic124 Personally I found that quote from pewdiepie to be pretty disrespectful. There is no evidence Heidi has ever done anything wrong and yet he still decides to claim that she's "not blameless"? I never know with him if he's actually saying something shitty or is just incredibly tactless, but either way that was a pretty shit thing to say.
@@jasper3706 well i think the point was that we are only being shown a certain aspect of this and not the full picture
"Oftentimes I look at my RUclips demographics and get bummed out at how small the percentage of female viewers are." -ProJared
Did he actually say that?! *shudders*
@@LadyLamorna At the time he tried to pass it off as a feminist thing. Now it becomes quite clear what he actually meant by that statement
@@armakerdx Damn! Hidden meaning masked by good-seeming intentions... I've heard other people wish their demographics were more varied before, but not for this reason. : X
Oof
Called out by ProJared for this one. No contact with him? Nice job dude. Nice job. Sure hope you plan to pop out an update to your bad reporting job.
How about instead him and his team leave RUclips entirely and delete their account?
@@Coolmanbob7 That's a little extreme. An apology to Jared is in order, that's for sure.
I'm down to negotiate down from "delete your entire channel" but an apology isn't enough.
Perhaps an apology and an elaborate video on how steps are going to be taken to not absolutely fail at journalistic integrity before making videos intended to harm others?
@@Coolmanbob7 You're right, the team showed a disgusting lack of journalistic integrity. However, the cancel culture Jared warned against is what you're preaching here. That's not the answer. He owes Jared an apology, and to do better at his job in the future.
I'm not advocating someone cancel them. I'm advocating they cancel themselves willingly.
I demand nothing.