|
therobit posted:Get your “friend” this to help with his frequent “testing.” Thank you I will make sure he sees this.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
I just wanted to say that on Alone, someone stabbed a musk ox to death with a knife while wearing a go pro making it basically the best show ever. And of all the reality shows it, while obviously edited, is the least fake as far as I'm aware. The answer to your question is probably that they sign all sorts of liability waivers. Things like "This activity will cause your death or permanent disfigurement. You understand that this activity will cause your death or permanent disfigurement, you understand the word death, and you understand the words permanent disfigurement. You agree not to sue anyone in the event of your death or permanent disfigurement." Things like that. As to the footage the participants have no personal ownership rights to any of it, must likely. The footage would go to the producers, who probably have a contract with Netflix or Discovery or whichever parent company owns the broadcast. The parent companies might vault it, and maybe turn copies over to the Mounties, or might broadcast it onto the moon like a bat signal. The participants have zero say in that most likely. The FTC probably had rules about broadcasting actual death, maybe, but in the end the whole show is owned by the parent company. BigHead fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the situation; being an actor on a reality wilderness survival show is a dangerous job, but so are jobs like being a crab fisherman. If an actor or their family was suing and it went to trial, they'd be arguing to a jury about workplace safety and whether the production company was negligent, just like a fisherman who was maimed working on a boat. Safety stuff also isn't generally waivable. Like if you're a construction worker, a waiver that says "If you get hurt on the job for any reason, you agree not to sue the company" isn't valid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 09:52
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I just wanted to say that on Alone, someone stabbed a musk ox to death with a knife while wearing a go pro making it basically the best show ever. And of all the reality shows it, while obviously edited, is the least fake as far as I'm aware. Yeah hacking away at an animal instead of cleanly and quickly killing it is sooo cool, even cooler when it's in service of a loving TV show. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 10:51
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the situation; being an actor on a reality wilderness survival show is a dangerous job, but so are jobs like being a crab fisherman. If an actor or their family was suing and it went to trial, they'd be arguing to a jury about workplace safety and whether the production company was negligent, just like a fisherman who was maimed working on a boat. Depends on the state but generally if you are an employee and injured on the job it doesn’t matter who is at fault, you get workers comp from your employer. If someone outside your employer was at fault for hurting you (ie not your co-employees or boss, etc) then you may have a right to sue them separately, and the employer (or its comp insurer) have a legal right to recover what they’ve paid you from that person. The trade-off for this “no fault” scheme is that an employee only gets comp, which is limited to medical bills and lost wages—they can’t sue their employer (or co-employees) at law for pain and suffering damages. Regular TV show actors in the US are usually SAG-AFTRA and get all the bargained for benefits. I’m pretty sure reality TV actors are not SAG-AFTRA, or if they are, the productions don’t give a gently caress and make them sign independent contractor agreements rather than employment contracts. What law will apply to this is a complex question, especially if these shows are produced in other countries. You’re right that lots of states limit or do not allow parties to contract out of their own negligence. For employees, it doesn’t matter—they get comp, period. But for independent contractors it’s a different story and highly state- and fact-specific. So it’s possible they actually treat these actors as employees, in a no-fault comp scheme. But I would guess production for this type of reality show makes every legal effort to have these people treated as independent contractors, and makes them sign very detailed and lengthy informed and consent and release agreements so they can’t later claim to have been misled about what this show is all about and the potential dangers. Then, if there’s an injury, production would argue to a judge or jury that the independent contractor actor assumed the open and obvious risk of this show, had exclusive control over their own actions and chose the means and methods by which they performed under the contract, and were negligent themself in how they undertook to perform—in other words, the production can’t be at fault because other than telling them where the show would be and collecting the film, the production had no role in creating the circumstances of the actual incident that caused the injury. I would also assume like someone else said that they take reasonable efforts to make sure injuries can be treated quickly, so nobody can say they were negligent in that. But some jobs are just dangerous, and these productions (and their lawyers) have been doing this for a long time now. They’ve figured out how to protect themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the situation; being an actor on a reality wilderness survival show is a dangerous job, but so are jobs like being a crab fisherman. If an actor or their family was suing and it went to trial, they'd be arguing to a jury about workplace safety and whether the production company was negligent, just like a fisherman who was maimed working on a boat. Would they be treated more akin to employees, or would they be treated more akin to athletes participating in dangerous sports? My vague memory from having a case 15 years ago involving a rock climbing accident, there's a whole doctrine for people who assume risk (called "assumption of risk"). In my post I assumed the participants assumed the risks of starvation or hunting accident or any other naturally occurring danger. Interesting question!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
I can imagine areas where despite all the disclaimers, the production company could be negligent. Like, maybe if they told someone they had to haul around a bunch of heavy camera equipment, but provided no safe equipment for carrying a really heavy battery safely and someone hurt their back? Or if they insisted someone had to drop into a site from a helicopter and then put a drunk pilot into that helicopter and then they get slammed into a cliff during the drop because the pilot was drunk. But I think that's the sort of negligence that could apply to any workplace situation really and isn't particular to this being a reality survival tv show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Understood from our discussion earlier that the mechanics of games are not protectable. Recently wizard of the coast has decided to update their open game license. One of the things that is licensed there is The game's mechanics and that has been used to develop various other RPG systems based off of old versions of D& D. So if a company made a game based on Old D&D editions can wizards update this license to require that company to pay money? are the games mechanics even protectable or is using the OGL just a way to save legal fees from a fight the company would win anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
I have a hypothetical question regarding pictures containing illegal drugs Lets say and ex girlfriend is blackmailing a man and says she has photos of mushrooms in his apartment, which may be identifiable by the furniture, but neither his face nor any other identifying items are in the photo. She says she may have text messages where he describes growing or using mushrooms. In this hypothetical, there is no other physical evidence that this happened. Does this blackmail have teeth with no physical evidence for the police to find, or would the "evidence" be inadequate or thrown out? Does he need to be worried? cardiacarrest123 fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
I don't think the police E: what are her demands Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
lets say for the sake of argument, social demands but no monetary demands. But still threatening to send to place of employment, police Also can someone help me understand how blackmail is dealt with in a more comprehensive way. If the person being blackmailed in this scenario documents the blackmail, who do they bring it to? The police? An attorney? Isn't getting law enforcement involved requiring the person to admit they did something illegal? Or if not, at least inviting a lot of unwanted scrutiny ? cardiacarrest123 fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
BigHead posted:The FTC probably had rules about broadcasting actual death, maybe, but in the end the whole show is owned by the parent company. I don't think the producers show footage of actual death unless it would be inconvenient to avoid, e.g. Ben Hur & The Crow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:I don't think the producers show footage of actual death unless it would be inconvenient to avoid, e.g. Ben Hur & The Crow. With regards to The Crow, none of the footage from Brandon Lee's fatal wounding is in the film; it was swapped out with an entirely new scene, filmed after his death. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, which is entirely possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
cardiacarrest123 posted:lets say for the sake of argument, social demands but no monetary demands. But still threatening to send to place of employment, police Your hypothetical friend needs a lawyer; depending on jurisdiction and what the blackmailer is asking for and why, she may or may not actually be doing anything illegal. (For example, the law over here requires that blackmail involve an "unwarranted demand", and as you can imagine whether the demand is "unwarranted" is going to be specific to the facts of the case.) A lawyer can tell your hypothetical friend whether there's anything he can do about the blackmail and what risk he'd be exposing himself to by doing so. Thuryl fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Your hypothetical friend needs a lawyer; depending on jurisdiction and what the blackmailer is asking for and why, she may or may not actually be doing anything illegal. (For example, the law over here requires that blackmail involve an "unwarranted demand", and as you can imagine whether the demand is "unwarranted" is going to be specific to the facts of the case.) A lawyer can tell your hypothetical friend whether there's anything he can do about the blackmail and what risk he'd be exposing himself to by doing so. ok thanks. Even if there's no case for blackmail, do you think the person in the hypothetical has to worry about being convicted of a drug crime?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
cardiacarrest123 posted:ok thanks. Even if there's no case for blackmail, do you think the person in the hypothetical has to worry about being convicted of a drug crime? That also sounds like something to talk to a lawyer about. Is your hypothetical friend really, really, really sure that a search of his property wouldn't turn up any physical evidence whatsoever, including items that might be classified as drug paraphernalia? Does your hypothetical friend know what items are legally classified as drug paraphernalia in his jurisdiction, or is that something he might want to hear from a lawyer? Thuryl fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
in this hypothetical there's nothing left on the premises that could be considered paraphernalia. No other drugs have ever passed through the apartment. what if the coffee grinder was used to grind them but has since been cleaned. What about a food dehydrator that has since been cleaned. That's all that comes to mind and its the united states
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
If you're looking for 100% reassurance of "no, the cops definitely won't search your friend's place and definitely won't find anything if they do", you're unfortunately out of luck; that's not something that anybody can guarantee over the internet. Also, if she's threatening to tell his employer, the employer can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with that information; they don't generally need ironclad proof if they want to fire him over this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Understood from our discussion earlier that the mechanics of games are not protectable. Recently wizard of the coast has decided to update their open game license. One of the things that is licensed there is The game's mechanics and that has been used to develop various other RPG systems based off of old versions of D& D. I suspect Cory Doctorow will write up something informative about this fairly soon. The root issue is that "D&D" includes a lot of stuff that has percolated out into gaming generally through the OGL, like Beholders and Drow and so forth, which is protected by copyright but useable under the license. Trying to revoke that license is pretty sketchy legally but very few players are going to be able to legally contest it due to potential legal costs and most of those who could have financial incentives not to (critical role, paizo).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
not looking for 100% reassurance just trying to figure out the risks. so thank you. I'm primarily interested in what the outcome of a police investigation is LIKELY to be, provided no contemporary physical or toxicologic evidence is found.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think the police depends, is this guy black? does he have a record before now? Is the amount in the photographs large enough that it looks like dealing? My first thought is "this lady taking the pictures is admitting she has drugs, good for her" but Talk to a lawyer. cardiacarrest123 posted:not looking for 100% reassurance just trying to figure out the risks. so thank you. In my state, lab analysis of any reputed drugs is generally required for a conviction; they have to have the alleged substance in hand and send it to a lab and have it tested. Too many other things look like drugs for anything other than an actual chemist in an actual lab to be credible in court. That's just my state though, your state may have different laws, talk to a lawyer. That doesn't mean the charge doesn't ruin your life in the meanwhile though, or that the cops don't "find" something when they search, etc. The legal system is a randomly swinging wrecking ball and it doesn't care whose lives get smashed in the spinning. Also I've had a lot of clients who thought they didn't have any drugs in their car/house/apartment but whoops. Often a negligible trace amount can be sufficient woops to ruin your whole year. Cops have test strips that they run across scales, bowls, etc. and then say "oh, it reacted, this bowl must once have been full of cocaine" and then you have a real problem. Maybe not a conviction but that's small consolation while you're in a cell because you can't make bond. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Cops have test strips that they run across scales, bowls, etc. and then say "oh, it reacted, this bowl must once have been full of cocaine" and then you have a real problem. Maybe not a conviction but that's small consolation while you're in a cell because you can't make bond. Those test kits also can have an amazingly high percentage of false positives and still be in use by the police because that is considered a feature not a problem. https://www.propublica.org/article/since-we-reported-on-flawed-roadside-drug-tests-five-more-convictions-have-been-overturned
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Either way, after talking to a lawyer to get the above questions answered: don't let cops in without a warrant, don't talk to cops beyond "here's my attorney's business card, I decline to speak without his advice".
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
And don’t ask for a lawyer dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I suspect Cory Doctorow will write up something informative about this fairly soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Understood from our discussion earlier that the mechanics of games are not protectable. Recently wizard of the coast has decided to update their open game license. One of the things that is licensed there is The game's mechanics and that has been used to develop various other RPG systems based off of old versions of D& D. I believe people who already made stuff under the license can keep using it indefinitely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Wow. I had no idea so many people were panicking about the D&D license thing. Apparently, people are bombarding LegalEagle's channel asking him to cover it as well. The dang license hasn't even been released yet. This is all over a "leak" of unknown origin that no one has confirmed is real yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trying to revoke that license is pretty sketchy legally but very few players are going to be able to legally contest it due to potential legal costs and most of those who could have financial incentives not to (critical role, paizo). Depends heavily on what the original license grant says regarding term, termination, etc. could be trivial, could be impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 06:25
|
|
|
OGL version 1.0a - not sure what 1.0 is, if it's different or not. The leak is about the purported upcoming 1.1 versoin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 06:46
|
|
|
Trapick posted:OGL version 1.0a - not sure what 1.0 is, if it's different or not. The leak is about the purported upcoming 1.1 versoin. 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. 13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License. So the license granted under the previous version is perpetual, explicitly says that you’re allowed to use any version of the license if you’ve already distributed your content under the older license, and termination is only for breach. I don’t see how they can force existing creators to update to the new license for existing content. But if someone wants to make new content, perhaps including new seasons or expansions to their existing content, that could be required to be under the new license.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 07:00
|
|
|
They intend to, apparently, "de-authorize" 1.0a and earlier. Nobody seems to be able to say exactly what that means with certainty, but the idea is that with the next version of the license, new D&D stuff won't be under the old, no-longer-authorized license, so creators will have to work under the new license only. Wizards has announced that the new OGL will have some reporting requirements, will require companies making more than $750k/yr selling licensed products to pay a 20% of revenues royalty, and removes authorization for publishing under VTTs from the license. A lot of people also believe that de-authorization means they won't be able to continue publishing old stuff; or, maybe, new stuff for older editions of d&d; or, and this is the real stretch, maybe they'll somehow have to go claw back stuff they already sold. There's a lot of panic and fear and anger. Everything is speculative until we actually see the published new license, and even then, various "qualified" commentators have made inconsistent claims about what exactly "authorized" means in that #9 clause you posted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 09:29
|
|
|
Sounds like some IP lawyers will have job security for a while at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Sounds like some IP lawyers will have job security for a while at least. Depends which version of my client license they're intending to operate under, I've de-authorized the one where I pay money
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:And don’t ask for a lawyer dog. There's nothing in the rules that says a dog can't be a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
One of the things I've heard about reality shows is that it's not uncommon for people to drop out shortly before the start of filming and the production company just hires some local actors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
For the reality shows that don't involve actual dangerous solitary living in the wilderness of British Columbia, yes, this is absolutely true. There exists rather large pools of beautiful people who sign up to appear in reality tv shows, any reality tv show. That's why you'll frequently see players who have no idea what show they are on, and may have no idea how it is played even if the show is relatively popular. The majority of these people are young men and women who tried to become actors, failed, but are still hot enough to look good on TV so they run the reality tv track a few times hoping to pivot into steady work. Casting crews just review profiles from these agencies to pick their contestants, sometimes landing on picks days or even hours before filming.
Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Jan 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
Yeah any game show where they ask 'what's your job' has it clarified to contestants behind ghe scenes that they're asking 'what's your day job', since the people lining up for price is right are mostly aspiring actors who want to get on tv in any way possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 10:56
|
|
|
Also most people with real jobs can’t miss two months of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
I've had this wonderful thing happen. I bought something for one price from a seller in an online marketplace. The seller contacts me and says they have no stock and I need to pay a higher price, to them, for the item. I tell them no I want it for the price I originally paid or for them to cancel the order. They refuse to talk to me and switch it to shipped. The tracking number they have to provide only shows they printed a label and its now well after the should be received by date. Is this wire fraud or mail fraud? The online marketplace doesn't want to help and the merchant is non-responsive. I'm going to issue a charge back because I haven't received the item and they haven't shipped it but if there's more to do I'm going to do it because gently caress that marketplace and the seller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
I mean, are you asking, academically, if charging you price A and then refusing to ship unless you pay price B is wire fraud? edit: The reason I ask, is because I assume it is incredibly time intensive, expensive, and tedious to sue someone for wire fraud over someone being an enormous pain in the rear end over an online purchase, especially when you have already done a chargeback and have no real damages to speak of. What relief would you be seeking, in this theoretical lawsuit? null_pointer fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:42
|
|