#backtheblue #backthebadge #frauditors
Join this channel to get access to perks:
Fair use is a legal doctrine in the United States that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission if the use is considered fair. Section 107 of the Copyright Act identifies certain types of uses that may qualify as fair use, such as:
criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
However, there are no legal rules that specify how much of a work can be used without permission, such as a specific number of words or percentage of the work. Instead, U.S. judges use a four-factor analysis to determine if a use is fair:
Purpose and character of the use: Whether the use is commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes
Transformative: Whether the use adds new expression or meaning to the original, or merely copies from the original
Market effect: How the intended use would impact the market for the work
Nature of the copyrighted work: Whether it is published or unpublished, made for education or fiction, or non-fiction
The goal of the analysis is to balance the rights of the copyright holder with the rights of the public. The more factors that favor fair use, the stronger the fair use argument is. However, courts have emphasized that there are no bright line rules, and that each case must be decided on its own facts
Frauditors are across the United States with their cameras going into Federal and State Buildings , filming People with out their consent and even their kid soften times causing problems and upsetting people to get paid by youtube and in worst case scenarios hurting people with weapons and calling it self defense .
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thumbnail of a First Amendment audit video on YouTube
First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space (a right normally covered by the First Amendment).[1][2] Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.[3]
Auditors believe that the movement promotes transparency and open government, while critics have argued that audits are typically confrontational, criticizing some tactics as forms of intimidation and harassment. Many opponents of the tactics and legal theories of auditors refer to auditors as “frauditors”.[4]
The practice is predominantly a US concept (since the First Amendment is a part of US law), but it has also been seen in other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom,[5][6] Canada, and Russia.[7]
Procedure
Auditors typically travel to places considered public property, such as sidewalks or public right-of-ways, or places open to the public, such as post offices, police stations, public libraries[8] or other government buildings, and visibly and openly photograph and record buildings and persons in their view.[9][10]
In the case of sidewalk or easement audits, the conflict arises when a property owner or manager states, in substance, that photography of their property is not allowed. Auditors of course have no official authority to “audit” anything, but do have theoretical constitutional rights to record from open public spaces. The laws regarding public forums come into play in these situations, and are often the flashpoint of contention. Sometimes, auditors will tell property owners upon questioning that they are photographing or recording for a story, they are photographing or recording for their “personal use”, or sometimes auditors do not answer questions. Frequently, local law enforcement is called and the auditor is sometimes reported as a suspicious person and are often also identified as having been on private property. Some officers will approach the auditors and request their identification and an explanation of their conduct. Auditors refusing to identify sometimes results in officers arresting auditors for obstruction of justice, disorderly conduct, or other potential or perceived crimes.[11][12]
