Youtube made for kids Youtube allows youtubers to mark videos as made for kids. There the United States COPPA is cited The age of a kid here is thirteen . In U.K. it is 16 and some country it may be else if they wish to maker such a law. So what is the standard to be followed for a kid ? Are videos for collected and uploaded for college students or of general appeal of all ages &quot; for kids &quot; ? Lastly if a video for kids is labeled as &quot;Not for kids &quot; are they punishable in India or U.S. ? A basic summary of what doubt led to this question: Different countries have different ages for kids so it is unclear who is a kid or not. If a video which does not feature any violence or impolite content but education content that kids ( in some jurisdictions kids but not in COPPA ) may like ( age 16 + ) or of appeal of all ages is marked as not for kids is it illeagal ? ( I cannot as of writing find a wrong in it morally .).
In the united-states the heart of COPPA is 15 U.S. Code § 6502. This section requires (in sub-section (b) (1)) that: (A) ... the operator of any website or online service directed to children that collects personal information from children or the operator of a website or online service that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child (defined as a person under age 13)— (i) to provide notice on the website of what information is collected from children by the operator, how the operator uses such information, and the operator’s disclosure practices for such information; and (ii) to obtain verifiable parental consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children; It also requires (in subsection (b) (1) (B)) any such website operator to provide a description of personal information (PI) collected and to permit a child or parent to refuse permission for further use or collection of such PI. subsection (b) (1) (C) prohibits requiring more PI to be submitted than is &quot;reasonably necessary&quot; for a child to participate in a game or other activity, or be eligible for a prize. subsection (b) (1) (D) requires an operator: to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children. Nothing in COPPA requires any content to be labeled as &quot;for children&quot; or as &quot;not for children&quot;. Marking some content, or even an entire site, as &quot;not for children&quot; is evidence that the site is not &quot;targeted at children&quot; and so may avoid the operator being required to comply with 15 USC § 6502. In addition, other US laws, not part of COPPA, prohibit knowingly furnishing to a minor sexually explicit or otherwise &quot;inappropriate&quot; content, even when this is not legally obscene and would be protected when furnished to an adult. Marking content as &quot;not for children&quot; and attempting to verify age might help avoid application of such laws. The Wikipedia article about COPPA says: In 2019, the Government of the State of New York sued YouTube for violating COPPA by illegally retaining information related to children under 13 years of age. YouTube responded by dividing its content strictly into &quot;for kids&quot; and &quot;not for kids&quot;. This has met with extremely harsh criticism from the YouTube community, especially from gamers, with many alleging that the FTC of the United States intends to fine content creators $42,530 for &quot;each mislabeled video&quot;, possibly putting all users at risk. However, some have expressed skepticism over this, feeling that the fines may actually be in reference to civil penalties, possibly intended for the site's operators and/or warranted by more serious of COPPA violations or specific cases of &quot;mislabeling videos.&quot; (citations omitted) This WGN news story &quot;All You Need To Know About COPPA On Youtube&quot; includes a link to an interview with Peder Magee, a Senior Attorney of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. Magee says in the interview that recent actions under the law were for failing to properly handle PI collected from children. At time 5:02 Magee says &quot;...and if you are collecting personal information [from children] you may have to comply with the law&quot;. COPPA does not make any content &quot;illegal&quot;. What it prohibits is collecting excessive PI from children, not obtaining consent for collecting PI in some cases, or refusing to delete such PI on request. If a site does not collect any PI from users, 15 USC § 6502 simply does not apply to that site. Website operators may choose to restrict the access of children to avoid possible applicability of 15 USC § 6502 and its administrative requirements. They have the option of providing access but complying in regard to any PI collected. Note that COPPA is, in theory, applicable to non-US sites that are targeted at US users or collect PI from US users. However, according to the Wikipedia article: in practice, the FTC has never (as of 2015) actually issued any enforcement action against foreign companies, and attempts to do so may be frustrated by the lack of jurisdiction. Obviously, laws in countries other than the US are likely to be different.
This is unlikely to give rise to criminal charges in the U.S., if the bare bone facts of the question are all that is involved. It does not count as child pornography. But possible offenses might include contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a minor misdemeanor), or perhaps enticing a minor to travel in interstate commerce for sex, neither of which are likely to come up in a case where no travel occurs until both parties are adults. The potential offenses, unlike child pornography offenses themselves, would generally include defense for good faith mistakes regarding age. The situation in Turkey could be more serious. While I can't identify a particular offense, if the participants were of the same sex, even though homosexuality is not outright banned in Turkey, as it is in many predominantly Islamic countries, this could be characterized as an &quot;offense against public morality&quot; in Turkey. In either a same sex or opposite sex circumstance, it might be characterized in Turkey as some form of illegal seduction, or perhaps as some implicit form of blasphemy. Even if it didn't give rise to criminal charges, it might also be used as a basis for severe parental discipline, or as a basis for finding that someone lacked &quot;good character&quot; in a civil context, in either country. Of course, unless the interaction is known, identified with real people, and brought to the attention of law enforcement, nothing would happen.
Discrimination is legal, so long as there is not based on a protected category or class(e.g. race, sex, religion). Age is generally not a protected category. Some states do treat age as a protected category, but: 1) It is generally only in employment, so, for example charging someone differing amounts based on their age is legal (e.g. senior discounts, kids under X are free, etc.). 2) It is generally only protecting higher ages (i.e. discriminating against someone in employment because their age is higher than what you'd like would be illegal, but discriminating against someone because their age is lower than you'd like is not; and in some cases the later is mandatory).
There is nothing illegal about the child asking for nude images, but, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, there is quite likely to be a serious legal problem with the adult providing such nudes. The exact laws that might be violated would depend a lot on the jurisdiction. The detailed facts would also be significant. But such a situation is fraught with danger, for the adult. Even if there is no ill-intent, such actions could easily be misinterpreted, and might be technically unlawful regardless of intent. Of course, not all nudes are obscene, or even &quot;inappropriate for children&quot;. Which are so classified depends on the laws of the particular jurisdiction.
Blaire Bayliss reviews the law in &quot;The Kids are Alright 😂🍆🍑: Teen Sexting, Child Pornography Charges, and the Criminalization of Adolescent Sexuality&quot; (2020) Colorado L. Rev. 251. The article uses the term &quot;sexting&quot; to mean the exchange of sexually explicit messages or images between individuals using electronic messaging. When images, this can constitute child pornography under federal law. Also (from cyberbullying.org), States that do not have a specific sexting law often rely on existing statutes when dealing with teen sexting. All states, for example, have child pornography or child exploitation laws that prohibit sending, receiving, or possessing images of a sexual nature of a minor. Bayliss notes though that some states have adapted their child pornography laws to account for teen sexting: For example, in Rhode Island, teens will not be charged under state criminal child pornography laws but may be &quot;tried&quot; in family court. And in Colorado, &quot;teens who are approximately the same age and who exchange sexual images with the understanding of consent have committed a civil infraction.&quot; See Colo. Rev. Stat § 18-7-109(3). Bayliss's article and map are from 2020, but a 2022 dataset by the Cyberbulling Research Center shows not much has changed. That dataset also provides links to state-specific sexting laws where they exist. Note that no state law can exempt teens from the application of federal child pornography and related laws. Of course, if the image does not even constitute pornography, then all of the above is irrelevant, but I understand you to be asking about the circumstance where the content is typically or historically criminalized.
Facebook can continue to gather and exploit data, modulo the requirements of COPPA, because it does not depend on obligating a minor to do something, such as pay money or dig a ditch. In general and because of copyright law, nobody has the right to use anything that Facebook provides unless Facebook grants the user permission. The user has no obligation to provide anything to Facebook – if it did, the minor would arguably be exempt from that obligation.
There is and never has been a single “age of majority” The law treats people of different ages differently for a wide variety of reasons. Just a small sample of typical limits (jurisdictions vary): you must be 4 to go to school you must be 10 to be criminally responsible you must be 11 or 13 to get a job in the australian-capital-territory but there is no specific age limit in new-south-wales you must be 15 to attend an M-rated movie alone (your rating system may differ) you must be 16 to get a learner driver permit and 17 to get a provisional licence you must be 18 to attend an R-rated movie at all you must be 14-17 years old to have sex depending on the age and relationship with your partner. you must be 16 to 21 to buy and consume alcohol (jurisdictions vary a lot on this) you must be 18 to marry without the consent of the court but can be as young as 16 with that consent you must be 18 to legally take and post sexually explicit pictures of yourself you must be 18 to get a tattoo you must be 18 to join the defence force you must be 18 to vote you must be 35 to stand for President of the united-states So tell me, when is the age of majority. There isn’t one - there is simply a long period where an individual is granted progressively more control and responsibility over their life. Now, as to why some things happen at particular ages, that’s a political question, not a legal one.
The YouTube Standard License is described in the terms of service. It means that you retain your copyright: you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. But you also grant YouTube very broad permissions to your content: by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business Yes, that means YouTube could allow others to use your content by &quot;sublicensing&quot; or &quot;transferring&quot; their license. I never heard of YouTube doing that, but the license terms would allow it if they would decide that they want to. But without an explicit permission from you or from YouTube, people are not allowed to reproduce your content. Agreeing to those terms (or alternatively to the Creative Commons CC-BY terms which do allow others to use your content as long as they give attribution) is a condition for using the platform. You can also put different license terms into the video description. This is called &quot;dual licensing&quot;. But that means that people get to choose under which license terms they want to use the content. They can either use YouTube's terms, or your own.