Later, Fair starts berating Devermont’s livestreaming account, saying “I read the comments, they talk about how fake you are.” He then holds out his phone, which is still on full blast, and walks toward Devermont, saying “Listen to the music”. Fair says “I can’t hear you” - again, despite holding a phone that is blasting tunes. The interaction plays out almost exactly like it did in the department - when Devermont starts asking questions, Fair turns on the music.ĭevermont backs away, and asks him to stop playing music. In a separate part of the video, which Devermont says was filmed later that same afternoon, Devermont approaches Fair outside. That is: if this had only happened once, an officer coming up with an off-the-cuff, if slightly dodgy, plan to “hack” Instagram’s policy in order to skirt someone’s First Amendment rights would be eyebrow-raising for its ingenuity, if nothing else.īut the BHPD’s non-consensual Sublime listening party was not an isolated incident. And while the interaction between Devermont and Fair is pretty benign, BHPD’s recent behavior suggests that at least some cops believe they can prevent themselves from being filmed or livestreamed by playing copyrighted music, which would have serious implications for more serious incidents of police misconduct. Under most circumstances, civilians are legally permitted to openly film on-duty police officers under the First Amendment. There have also been plenty of high-profile of incidents of DJs and artists being penalized for playing their own songs (fans of the Verzuz series may remember Swizz Beats warning Beenie Man and Bounty Killer not to perform their own songs for more than 90 seconds).Īnd for prominent activist accounts like Devermont’s, the stakes are particularly high: too many violations can risk getting your entire account banned. Instagram declined to comment on this specific video, however, a spokesperson told VICE News that "our restrictions take the following into consideration: how much of the total video contains recorded music, the total number of songs in the video, and the length of individual song(s) included in the video." Under that rubric, Devermont's video should be fine, since it’s just one song, and is purely incidental.Īlso, for anyone who is familiar with Sublime’s back catalogue, it seems unlikely that the band’s rights holders would do Fair a solid and complain to Instagram.īut then again, Instagram’s enforcement of their own policy seems to be unpredictable and inconsistent, and it’s hard to tell what the algorithm will catch during a livestream. In May of last year, Instagram clarified its policies on including music in livestreams, and began to advise people to only use short clips of music, and to ensure that there is a "visual component" to videos-"recorded audio should not be the primary purpose of the video," the company said. Or, even if the algorithm does not detect the song immediately, someone - for example, a disgruntled police officer-could simply wait until a user posts an archive of the live video on their page, then file a complaint with Instagram that it contains copyrighted material.įair doesn't seem to be up-to-date on his social media copyright policies, however. ![]() ![]() Based on what’s visible in the video, Fair seems to be banking on Instagram’s copyright algorithm detecting the music, and either ending the live stream outright or muting it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |