That seems stupid, the footage exists now you can’t very well put the genie back in the bottle. Why does German law protect the interest of business above journalism? However the footage was obtained is hardly relevant
Journalistic use is free. Using the illegally obtained footage yourself is not. It also does not show an unusual or illegal treatment of animals as CO2 gassing is explicitly legal.
ok well yeah so whats the point of making someone delete the video? surely they could just hand it off to journalists and THEN delete it, and then what’s the point.
to some extent I understand that there must be consequences to illegally filming on private property, but I just dont understand what possible rationalle there could be to force a purpotrator to delete said footage. It seems to send the completely wrong message
That seems stupid, the footage exists now you can’t very well put the genie back in the bottle. Why does German law protect the interest of business above journalism? However the footage was obtained is hardly relevant
Your statement is false.
Journalistic use is free. Using the illegally obtained footage yourself is not. It also does not show an unusual or illegal treatment of animals as CO2 gassing is explicitly legal.
I was basing this on your statement that it can’t be used for journalism
It can be used for journalistic purposes, I only wrote that it couldn’t if you obtained the data illegally.
Being handed said data by an independent informant would be a legal way to obtain said data.
Law is weird.
ok well yeah so whats the point of making someone delete the video? surely they could just hand it off to journalists and THEN delete it, and then what’s the point.
to some extent I understand that there must be consequences to illegally filming on private property, but I just dont understand what possible rationalle there could be to force a purpotrator to delete said footage. It seems to send the completely wrong message