Looks like CBS used a DMCA notice to make YouTube pull a (ridiculous, but this is beside the point) McCain ad that used some footage of CBS news personality Katie Couric.
Dangerous stuff, people.
Looks like CBS used a DMCA notice to make YouTube pull a (ridiculous, but this is beside the point) McCain ad that used some footage of CBS news personality Katie Couric.
Dangerous stuff, people.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
Mark Brooks
Because we wouldn’t want to be confused as to whether the traditional media is doing its job.
Honestly, this is about what it is always about with the big time: money. They want to make sure that every nanosecond of FluffinKatieTM ends up bringing them a buck or two.
When it is more about money than facts, then facts get in the way.
Katie Couric would make a horrible journalism professor, because she is so full of herself, she has lost her mind.
Mark Brooks
Crap, my superscript didn’t work….
unacoder
i dunno. i can read this as CBS not wanting to become anything like Fox News.
cbs either owns their property or they don’t. i’m not comfortable with my likeness being used to promote someone’s views i don’t support.
MB
No political candidate should have to get the permission of any broadcaster (or anyone else, really) before they speak. This isn’t some non-political adornment, either (like any of the songs the campaign has appropriated without permission). This is core political speech. Assertions of private copyright interests have no place here.
(And for what it’s worth, you probably don’t have much control over the use of your likeness. If you walk through a crowd I’m shooting, and I later throw that up as an example of masses gathering on the streets excited about the election, there’s no legal claim to be made.)
unacoder
>>No political candidate should have to get the permission of any broadcaster (or anyone else, really) before they speak.
while true, i think that’s a mischaracterization of these circumstances, at least as i read them in the article. they’ve taken statements from a copyrighted broadcast out of context in an effort to *benefit a political candidate.* if cbs had given the clip to the McCain campaign, it would have been an in-kind contribution subject to disclosure laws (for better or worse). political speech has not been limited: McCain/Palin are free to denounce sexism as much as they want. they need permission to use someone else’s property to promote the idea. it is precisely like the use of unauthorized campaign songs.
whether you can use my likeness or not, i wouldn’t like it. if i had legal recourse, i’d exercise it.
i’d smell slippery slope if we were to throw out property rights every four years in autumn.
MB
Almost all political speech is designed to benefit the speaker, Unacoder. That’s a given. Are you telling me that if George Bush gets up there and says X, and I want to criticize him for saying X, he should be able to use copyright law to prevent me from showing him saying X? WTF?
And I’d think that someone who goes by “Unacoder” would be a little more thoughtful about treating copyright as some sort of absolute property right. It’s a very limited right, both in scope and duration (tho’ not so much the later, these days). One of those limitations involves the rather murky – but broad – issue of fair use. And I’ll take a political speech fair use case above all others.
Finally, your liking whether or not I used your likeness doesn’t change the fact that you simply *don’t* have any practical recourse in that situation. (There are some states where you might, in theory, but the reality of pursuing the matter would soon render it moot).
unacoder
i’d agree with you that it would be a case of fair use (at least by my definition) if only Couric’s broadcast were used in context. as it stands, her words were stolen to craft a message. it’s simple advertising. because it’s for a political campaign doesn’t make it ok.
i’m guessing that you don’t much care for property rights, so i’m not sure this discussion is going anywhere. i have a feeling we would agree about the BS state of copyright law in this country, but this is still a case i would seek to protect. it may be a limited right, and rightly so, but it’s still a right, one worthy of protecting, especially when it could have negative consequences for the reputation for impartiality of CBS News.
in your hypothetical scenario, i wouldn’t have recourse, but as Couric’s broadcast is covered, CBS does.
MB
There’s no requirement for “use in context” anywhere in the Fair Use concept. (In fact, the more context you include, the less likely it is to be fair use . . .).
Why would you say I don’t much care for property rights?
And finally, I’d bet that that use of a snip of Couric’s broadcast *isn’t* covered and that if the McCain campaign wanted to fight it, they could win. But this is a campaign, not a time for principled stands. Heh.
unacoder
>>Why would you say I don’t much care for property rights?
< in fact, i think there should be *more* constraints placed on political parties. they are granted way too much power to shape and control the election and law-making processes, to the detriment of The People.
unacoder
reposted. note to self: don’t use angle brackets in text.
>>Why would you say I don’t much care for property rights?
>>And I’d think that someone who goes by “Unacoder†would be a little more thoughtful about treating copyright as some sort of absolute property right.
blatant assumptions.
if this ad were for underwear and had used Couric’s image to sell banana hammocks, i don’t think you would be outraged by CBS’ move. but because McCain is a politician, he somehow gets a free pass. i’m sorry, i don’t buy it. and i’m prone to conspiracy theories. in fact, i think there should be *more* constraints placed on political parties. they are granted way too much power to shape and control the election and law-making processes, to the detriment of The People.
MB
There is a long tradition of according political speech the highest protections – that is, permitting the fewest restrictions. I think that’s correct, as a value judgment. But it’s not just me – I’ve got a couple hundred years of jurisprudence which comes to the same conclusion, too.
~
I think property rights are quite important. But that hardly means that I’m going to let some imaginary/artificial property right quash the right of free speech just because someone yells “property rights!” in a crowded theatre.
unacoder
the fundamental disagreement seems to be the term ‘political speech,’ since i would say i agree with your last comment (except the “imaginary/artificial” bit). i don’t think an advertisement for a politician constitutes political speech. maybe if you can bend my opinion on that point, you’ll win me over.
unacoder
i still can’t find this video on the mccain site. do you have a direct link?
MB
It’s here, at the moment.
Back to do the bending in a bit.
unacoder
i’ll take a peek and maybe bend myself. thanks.
unacoder
i can’t believe i wasted all this time (yours and mine both) on this. i’d call that fair use, hands down, though the editing to use ‘that campaign’ to refer to the o’bama camp is a bit stoogey.
sorry everyone…
now we get back to talking about the constant flow of lies.
Peej
That possibly was one of the funniest (in the best sense possible) exchanges on this site, in quite some time. (Reminded me of some of the classic ‘The Two Ronnies’ skits from the ’70s.)
unacoder
we aim to please. everything i learned about fair use i got from comics.
http://www.dukeupress.edu/cgibin/forwardsql/search.cgi?template0=nomatch.htm&template2=books/book_detail_page.htm&user_id=91919177234&Bmain.item_option=1&Bmain.item=19627