Ultraman

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-3-6 00:59 發表


超人平時比人封住個口講唔到野，唯有響ＬＹＫ狂打！Ultraman文武雙全，勁呀！

I'm a superhero with righteous and lawful knowledge! Wakakakaakaka...........

Ultraman

原帖由 siumaibb 於 2009-3-5 22:09 發表
如果影果個唔係國泰員工？

Then, no "breaking staff regulation" issue for a regular bystander.

如果條片無上新聞？

Less people would know about this.

如果亞嬸無去投訴？

If the person taping was not a staff of any company, probably the lady would have nowhere to complain. The alternative could be, report to police?

你又會點睇？
究竟你覺影人果個係侵犯私隱定唔尊重客人？你自己諗諗

A regular bystander would have 侵犯私隱, a company staff would have both 侵犯私隱 and 唔尊重客人.

For example, if you killed a man but nobody sees you and nobody knows that, of course no news and TV reports this too. But it doesn't mean you didn't kill that man.

That means, even the lady didn't make a complaint, the video hasn't been spread over on the internet, the news haven't been reported it, the person who taped the video already committed 侵犯私隱 (plus 唔尊重客人 for a company staff on duty).

Ultraman

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-6 03:35 發表


原來因为有人好似贵閣下咁熟悉法律，所以串謀做出

好戲...

Just this statement without solid proof, you can be charged for defamation and have to give compensation for any damage, not necessary limited to physical but also spiritual.

Ultraman

原帖由 mollinbaggio 於 2009-3-7 00:06 發表
如果我係佢老公,即刻兜巴星佢,仲係佢面前講粗口鬧佢問佢癲夠未,乘機話如果佢再嘈就同佢離婚.

If so, not only your wife has been taped as part I of the video; you could have been taped as part II. Kaka.....

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 00:50 發表
yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the str ...

It's like airforce flying on your private premises, which is allowed without asking for your permission of any kind. Some persons/professions have special authority to carry their duty in the public needless to acquire individual's consent.  
However, none of the persons involved in the CX case has that kind of authority.

Ultraman

Another suspicious arguing/defending point: The CX staff said he/she was not the one who spread the video on the internet, yet couldn't deny he/she was the one who taped it.
Anyone came out and admit that he/she was the one who posted the video? If that staff lied, he/she was the one who taped and posted the video, is there anything wrong with his/her act?

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 19:52 發表
Airforce does not need a permission to fly on my private property because I don't own the sky.  we only own the property up to certain height, not all over to the moon.  Airline only need to get permission from the gov't to fly over her country, not to get permission from each individual owner.

You're not the only one. Many people don't know about this fact, if you own a real estate property (say a single house), actually you truly own the face area extends to the center of the earth, and up to as high as to the heaven! (you can go check it)
Airforce doesn't need to ask for your permission to fly over your house not because of the head room above is not belong to you (actually it does), because they have the special authority (as I mentioned).

i believe you are taking CIA/FBI, not just a regular person, news reporter or photographer,
if the tv news showed how crowned is the night market and you see yourself  overthere, can you sue the tv station 侵犯私隱
if i shoot a pic at the qe park and post it on my blog, can any of the background persons sue me 侵犯私隱  i doubt it

it became an issue, because it was done by cx employee

CIA and FBI have certain special authority, which official/press reporter/photographer have certain special authority too, although their authority is not the same kind.
Base on press reporting purpose, for example, if they want to 採訪/訪問 you in person, they have to get your permission so as to post your true face and voice and name on any of the media (don't you see some people being interviewed have their faces censored and voice treated and with a fake nick name?). However, the fact is, if at the time they videoing you (say on a busy street) they also recorded some bystanders walking at your back, their faces (no matter are clear or blurry) also being seen, there is no 侵犯私隱 involved.
And just want to let you know, no matter you believe/like it or not, laws were not established by me though.

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 20:49 發表
"""You're not the only one. Many people don't know about this fact, if you own a real estate property (say a single house), actually you truly own the face area extends to the center of the earth, and ...

Very undeniably, the video camera was aiming and targeting the lady but not any other people, not even any other CX staff at all. If CX also think like you do, they can simply go talk to the judge, but I'm sure result is gonna be a lot worse.

For the fact I mentioned above, I need not to argue with you because I know that's the truth. Even I quote you any corresponding link or something, you just won't believe in what I said anyways. You are welcome to search it yourself and prove me wrong. But I can tell you, I can cut my head off in front of you if I'm wrong (I don't swear though).
After all, you can choose not to believe it, or not to find the truth yourself. Really not my business. If one day you'll get into any of those troubles, you'll realize anyways.

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 22:42 發表
learn from your style.  if you can find a point to argue back, you will.  if not, you will just skip it.  kind of like mr. t.
i will believe it unless someone can show me why my example cannot go alon ...

Did you hear that clearly?
One of the women (a US lawyer)said, the airline has rights to tape the lady but no rights to publish it. She also questioned the purpose of taping and publishing the video.
They also mentioned, they (CX) crossed the line for the video being published.
They also said, between the contract between the airline and the lady (customer), the lady should arrive at gate 30mins earlier. It's the lady's own responsibility for being late, that the airline won't need to compensate her for anything (legally). However, the video being published is not under a rightful/legal act, and that's why the lady got compensation from the airline.
And after all, they're giving comments under US laws.

Ultraman

原帖由 giginium 於 2009-3-8 00:13 發表


really? I didn't know that if you owned land property that right also extended upwards and downwards. Can you show me a link? I'm really interested to find out just out of curiosity.

Trust me, that's at Common Law in Canada.
I don't have an exact link on hand. But I think you can search it online as "land ownership", "real estate ownership", or "extent of land ownership"... etc. You might able to find it.