NBC tells Obama not to use footage

[Ichingcarpenter]

NBC has asked President Barack Obama’s campaign to stop using the network’s footage in a recently released reelection ad, POLITICO has learned.

In a letter sent Friday night to Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, NBC told the Obama campaign to cease using network footage in a new 30-second spot, released shortly after Wednesday’s debate, in which Andrea Mitchell is shown on air citing an independent, stating that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would cost $4.8 trillion over 10 years, a source said.


NBC News has faced issues like this throughout the campaign, including a Romney campaign ad that featured Tom Brokaw.

“NBC News has not granted any campaign permission to use our news material. As is our practice, we have requested that the Obama campaign refrain from using NBC News material in this and future advertisements,” the network said in a statement.

The Obama campaign did not respond to a request for comment.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82104.html#ixzz28c7MR4v2

Well they did it to the Romney campaign however I think that if its out of context then it should not be used... Me? I think its fair game and not copywrited.

[brewens]

1. I'd say if they are covering the election and mention the candidates, it's fair

game. I don't think I've heard of this objection before or don't remember it. What's gone on in the past?

[Godless in Seattle]

31. 2 words

Public Airwaves. NBC is full of shit here.

[blkmusclmachine]

85. +1

OPERATION NORTHWOODS

[MadHound]

2. But it is copywrited,

All networks put copyright protection on their broadcasts.

[Lex]

9. Fair Use trumps that.

[MadHound]

37. No, it doesn't,

Fair Use is for educational purposes, not political ones.

[X_Digger]

46. Scolarship is only one exemption..

17 U.S.C. § 107
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

[MadHound]

55. This isn't criticism or comment,

It is a paid, political ad. Fair use in no way covers that.

[X_Digger]

56. How is it not comment?!?

Paid and political have absolutely nothing to do with it.

What, you think that only non-profit enterprises have the right to fair use?!?

[abumbyanyothername]

58. If I were NBC, I would have a problem

with someone paying to run my footage on ABC or CBS.

Especially because people watch those latter two networks!

[X_Digger]

59. LOL! touché n/t

[JDPriestly]

74. If I were NBC, I would be delighted to have someone running my footage on ABC or CBS

or anywhere else as long as they did not run much of it.

The ad gives credence to a spokesperson from NBC.

Some fool at NBC needs to stop and think.

Obama gets free use of a few seconds from and NBC show, and NBC gets free use of that same time on ABC and CBS. And what's more Obama's use of the NBC fragment on ABC and CBS lends a lot of credibility to NBC broadcasting and news commentary. It's like a free ad for NBC.

What's to complain about.

[99th_Monkey]

79. You should have bolded

NEWS REPORTING because that's precisely what this is.

[cprise]

70. If the excerpt is short enough, its fair use

Even if its political, commercial, etc.

[intersectionality]

87. Maybe I've been watching too much Newsroom...

But aren't ads informing (i.e. educating) voters?

Yep... too much Newsroom.

Play on.

[yawnmaster]

43. then can a campaign use any copyrighted music that they want under that same fair use? eom

[cpamomfromtexas]

80. That is my understanding, too

as far as political. Educating the public is paramount regardless of whether in politics. As long as it is true and accurate, I would think.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

78. They're using broadcasting rights granted by "We the people."

They should consider the legal ramifications of what they have asked form when they put any persona on their screens.

Do they go and ask all the people if it is okay to show their image on TV?

I'm not talking about rights release. I am talking about a crowd of people, or a passerby.


How much right do we have to ask them not to show our image on TV?

[dems_rightnow]

3. You'd be completely wrong

It's copyrighted.

[dennis4868]

4. There are legal exceptions

To copyright laws...one is fair use. For example, MSNBC shows clips of Fox News reporting, right?

[ejpoeta]

5. It sounds like their objection is to making it seem like their ANCHORS

are not FOR one candidate or another.

[longship]

10. No! You're completely wrong.

It is called fair use. Look it up.

[dems_rightnow]

15. I am aware of fair use

I doubt this qualifies. It's a commercial venture. It doesn't seem to fall under any of the exceptions for fair use.

In the end it does not matter. Litigating it would be a political loser, so the ad will disappear.

[Lex]

18. Commercial venture doesn't matter.

" In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[dems_rightnow]

21. Yes

I take it you think that a campaign ad falls under news reporting or commentary? If it does, then we have no disagreement. My original post was merely responding to the "not copyrighted" part.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. It's a political ad, not 'commentary' or 'news reporting'

The law doesn't say fair use is only what it lists - it says 'examples of fair use include...'. But the campaign would have to make a case that political ads belong in a fair use list too.

And it's fairly pointless for the campaign to try to push against NBC about this - all they have to do, in future, is get their voiceover person to read a quote, instead of using NBC footage of an NBC reporter reading the quote.

[longship]

33. It's news! It was on the airwaves, a public conveyance.

It qualifies as fair use.
AFAIK.

[Ms. Toad]

41. It is how you use it that determines fair use

not where it comes from.

It is protected by copyright. Fair use may be an affirmative defense to an allegation of infringement (it is not an exception to copyright). The Obama campaign would need to prove it met the balancing test (which is not a straightforward test) to qualify for the defense.

(An affirmative defense essentially says - yes, it was infringement, but I had a legally valid excuse to do it.)

[onenote]

42. It doesn't matter that its news or was on the airwaves.

Its still copyrighted. And the fair use test doesn't necessarily cover it.

[longship]

49. See other posts in this thread. Yes it does!

.

[onenote]

57. My three decades of copyright law practice

has taught me that there are very few cases where you can definitively state that something is "fair use." As I said, fair use "may not" cover the use of the NBC footage. Anyone who thinks its cut and dry is fooling themselves.

[longship]

60. Glad you posted here.

So, are you saying that this may be fair use but may be litigated regardless?

Or, are you saying that this may not be fair use? (probably no difference, in practice, but please expand if you can.)

Just wondering. Because I see this as clearly a case which fair use law is meant to protect. I understand that there are gray areas in all such matters. That's why we have laws and courts. Right?

I think this thread would benefit from your experience. Please expand.

Thank you very much.

[onenote]

61. I only know of one comparable case

In 2010, Fox brought suit against Robin Carnahan, who was running for Senate against Blunt, claiming that Carnahan's use of a clip from a Chris Wallace interview on Fox News in a political ad infringed Fox's copyright and also infringed the right of publicity of Chris Wallace. Carnahan claimed fair use. The suit was settled without the court having to rule on the question, with the two parties issuing the following joint statement:

“Robin Carnahan for Senate, Inc. acknowledges that Fox News is the sole and exclusive copyright owner of its programs, including, without limitation, “Fox News Sunday,” that Chris Wallace has legal interests in protecting his rights of personal privacy and of publicity, and that unauthorized use of Fox News’s footage and Wallace’s persona, voice, and identity by political campaigns and others could infringe upon those rights. The Carnahan campaign further acknowledges that the amount and kind of footage used in its “Clean Up The House” advertisement, as well as the manner in which the footage was used in the advertisement, exceeded that which is permitted. The Carnahan campaign believed that the campaign’s usage was permissible under the copyright fair use doctrine. Both sides acknowledge that the political advertisement in question is no longer being used and will not be disseminated in the future. The Carnahan campaign does not support or condone conduct by any political actor that is inconsistent with individuals’ rights or with the legal protections afforded to owners of intellectual property.”

In short, the issue is not clear cut. This is particularly the case with the unauthorized use of someone's likeness (whether its' Andrea Mitchell or Chris Wallace). Indeed, many of the actions threatened or brought by musicians seeking to block the use of their music in political ads is based on the right of publicity as much as copyright.

[longship]

62. Thank you for the clarification.

I see that my first post here was a bit naive. DU always seems to bring out the the best.

Upon reading your response I thought maybe things are not do cut and dry.

Again, thanks. I hope others in this thread read your response.

[Generic Other]

71. Isn't it a bit like DU's problems with Righthaven?

When you can't quote a public figure in a commentary about another public figure, then fair use is a sham if you ask me.

[onenote]

75. Its not a restriction on quoting

Its a restriction on using the copyrighted audiovideo work. A still photo accompanied by printed text drawn from the transcript would be fine.

[mattclearing]

6. This seems like fair use.

I don't know the law that well, but they aren't profiting financially, and it's a short excerpt.

NBC hasn't taken the campaign to court.

This is far cry from the days of Bush, when no network would dare risk access by crossing the administration.

That's what you get for having a forgiving, nice guy President.

[Tribetime]

7. Keep using, laws or truth don't matter to Rmoneys campaign.

In Ohio he's plastering commercials claiming Obama's the one that will raise middle class taxes not him.

There's too much at stake not to use it. If nbc makes a bigger deal of it. that will bring more attention to the truth.

[GoCubsGo]

19. Hell, truth doesn't matter to NBC, either.

All one has to do is watch "The Toady Show" in the morning to see that. It's nothing but one big GOP circle jerk on most days. Their guest spew one lie after another, and the show's hosts not only don't challenge those lies, they join right in. It's the same with the evening news. Screw 'em. Use the footage.

[Tribetime]

32. you got that right, screw them. n/t

[66 dmhlt]

63. Amen! Matt Lauer's a Repubican shill - just like David "Raps-with-Rove" Gregory & Chucky Todd

[GoCubsGo]

64. As is Lauer's fill-in for today...

Willie Geist, one of Scarborough's little toadies. (The only reason I had that show on this morning was to see Pete Townsend. Otherwise, I paid no attention to it. What crap.)

[2on2u]

8. An "if" question. If 100 people went to the same sports event, and if those 100 people filmed

the exact same plays from similar angles and produced nearly carbon copy videos, WHO would own the copyright to these videos? How the hell does a new organization copyright something that millions of people either saw in real time or have aready seen on video?

This is stoopid on their part. I say we don't give them any more news, we make the news, they don't, at every event everywhere someone with a cellphone should tape it and copyright it then and there, see how they like it.

[dems_rightnow]

13. Elementray

Everyone would own the copyright to their own videos. The copyright is on the video, not the event.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Their broadcast is a type of publishing

It is definite that they own the copyright to it; if you take a photo of a book, the copyright still belongs to the book's publisher/author.

The question is whether the campaign's use is 'fair use'.

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

I would think a political ad doesn't qualify for the things listed above.

[Lex]

20. You don't think it was "news reporting?"

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. When an NBC employee says something? No.

The campaign ad can, of course, quote the independent itself; but NBC's broadcast is what it originated.

[davidpdx]

27. I tend to agree

But I'm not a lawyer, nor to I play one on TV.

[2on2u]

39. Last time I checked the president was trying to help everyone in this country profit, not only the

top 1%, so I think they should shut the hell up cuz he isn't making a dime off their prized video but the rest of us as in ALL of us might and that's a good thing.

[Ms. Toad]

45. You're not copyrighting the event -

You create copyright in your recording of it by the act of recording it. It is probably a fairly thin copyright, because there would not be much artistic contribution (which is what you are creating copyright in) - things like camera angle, degree of zoom, creative zooming in and out, lighting, any post processing, etc.

There could literally be millions of recordings - and each and every one of them is protected by copyright.

You are free to capture the event yourself (that is not protected by copyright). What you can't do is use how someone else captured the event without their consent.

(And - by the way - you don't do anything extra to copyright something. When you tape something using your cell phone, the copyright is instantly and automatically created. You can register your copyright - and anyone serious about protecting their copyrights will need to do that because you have to register it in order to sue.)

[global1]

11. I Don't Think It Would Happen But The Obama Campaign Could Make A Decision Not To Air Any More Ads..

on NBC or its affiliates. I wonder how much money that might mean that NBC would lose?

[GoCubsGo]

22. They not only wouldn't lose a thing, they'd make even more money.

The networks sell that air time to the ads at a discount to the campaigns. PACs pay way more. If the Obama campaign pulled all their ads on NBC, that space would be bought up by the Kochs, Adelson, and all the other right wing PACs, who would be paying a premium price for that air time. I'm sure NBC would absolutely love it if the Obama campaign pulled their ads.

[tavalon]

25. Heh heh

I like the way your mind works.

[ananda]

12. CopyRIGHT.. NOT copywrite.

nt

[Curtland1015]

14. Yup. Your rite.

[msanthrope]

23. Fair Use. But the Striesand effect helps us. nt

[tavalon]

24. Too bad but unfortunately, they have the right

Poopy heads.

[lynne]

28. This isn't a bad thing -

- The good news is that the Romney campaign can't use any debate footage, either.

[JoePhilly]

29. Response: "The Obama campaign will stop using your clips to point out Romney's lies when your

reporters start pointing out Romney's lies on their own."

[loyalsister]

30. "Andrea Mitchell is shown on air citing an independent"

Independent voter, study, news source....
If it's some random voter, is it possible that NBC wants some clarity and evidence?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. I think it's this - she quoted the Tax Policy Center

[edhopper]

35. Work around

Don't show the clip. Put up the quote over a still Andrea. You could even have a female narator reading it.
It's just the video NBC doesn't want used. You can still use the words.

[Cha]

48. Yeah, I was thinking something like that! nm

[L0oniX]

38. Hey NBC ...do ya want to keep taking money for campaign ads from our side?

Hey NBC ...ya know what ...fuck you. Go suck/kiss/lick repuke ass for your ad revenue.

[Tribetime]

40. yes we wouldn't want the truth come between us and ratings of close race

[surrealAmerican]

44. I think NBC is making a mistake here.

It only serves to make them look less relevant to exclude clips like this. Why would they want that?

[JonLP24]

67. I think to give the impression of neutrality

I imagine, from their POV, an employee appearing in an ad could give the wrong appearance.

[Cha]

47. So what about that Ad "Great Expectations"?

Where the O Campaign showed all these talking heads saying What a Great debater, mittLies is?

[WillowTree]

50. I had no idea there were so many copyright law scholars there are in DU!!

[yawnmaster]

53. we have scholars of all types!! myself, there are innumerable subjects...

of which I may be a scholar!
I don't even know which ones right now.

[alsame]

51. They did it to Romney too in January

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/nbc-news-asks-romney-campaign-to-remove-ad/

NBC News Asks Romney Campaign to Remove Ad

NBC News is asking that the Romney campaign remove from its ads any references to material from the network in response to a new commercial that consists almost entirely of old footage of its former news anchor, Tom Brokaw, reporting on Newt Gingrich’s legal troubles.

----snip----

“The NBC Legal Department has written a letter to the campaign asking for the removal of all NBC News material from their campaign ads,” said Lauren Kapp, the network’s senior vice president for marketing and communications. “Similar requests have gone out to other campaigns that have inappropriately used Nightly News, Meet the Press, Today and MSNBC material.”

The episode highlights a frequent but potentially fraught practice in political advertising. Campaigns routinely use clips from news articles and programs in their advertisements as a way to give their message independent credibility. But they almost never request permission from the news organizations themselves, and work that was never intended to be used for political purposes gets suddenly cast in a partisan light.

[cprise]

72. ...commercial that consists almost entirely of...

If the excerpt is brief enough, it falls under fair use even if other criteria aren't met.

I haven't seen either commercial, so I couldn't comment on them directly. However, I've seen a Scott Brown commercial that uses a good chunk of a 60 Minutes broadcast. Apparently CBS thinks that is OK.

[Historic NY]

52. The proper response should be we will think about it in a couple of weeks.

[littlewolf]

54. and then NBC hits the campaign

with a lawsuit ... that would be great coverage for a close race
dontcha think?

[boyedav1969]

65. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa

This is one of a bazillion examples that demonstrates the absence of a liberal media bias. Somehow the conservatives "conveniently" gloss over this. I know the politicians and pundits understand it's a myth, but I'm shocked at how easily regular people on the right are willing to bite.

[Anthony McCarthy]

66. This is within fair use

Imagine if anyone could prevent their critics from quoting their copyrighted material. You'd have to rely on paraphrase, the ability to criticize any of them would disappear.

NBC should spend more time making sure that lies aren't spread during their broadcasts, especially on Sunday morning, and stop this foolishness.

[onenote]

76. Not necessarily. See post number 61

There is a lot of amateur -- and largely uninformed -- lawyering going on in this thread.

[nc4bo]

68. Just saw this ad this morning :)

Poor M$M - doesn't like a POTUS using their mouthpieces in an opposition ad...awwwwww.

[KurtNYC]

69. Who is NBC running for President this year? Buchanon (again)? Trump?

We haven't had a GE/NBC President since their corporate spokesperson Ronald Reagan.

...but 3 seconds of video and their panties are in a twist.

[coalition_unwilling]

73. 3 words: Fair Use Doctrine. Oh, yeah, and two letters: F and U - n/t

[JTFrog]

90. Threadjacking

and spamming.

Not cool at all.

[OldDem2012]

92. Wrong thread. Stick to the subject, please. nt.

[bobthedrummer]

81. Notice to GE: We, the people are taking back the airwaves-fuck your "full spectrum dominance"

Biggest Daddy Warbucks GE paid no U.S. income tax last year-their products and services still kill a lot of people...
ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

[DeSwiss]

82. ....

It's called FAIR USE azzholes.......

[demwing]

83. NBC is Doing Great!

Now, people are talking about the ad again.

Thanks for the kick, Andrea.

[Oilwellian]

84. I saw the ad on local station late this afternoon

in SW Virginia. I guess they decided to ignore NBC's request.

[jsmirman]

86. It's run four times in the first two ALDS games I've watched

Yankees-Orioles.

Pretty high profile runs.

[mfcorey1]

88. Good. I don't want to see Andrea Greenspan's face in anything democratic as she

is a red blooded republican.

[MessiahRp]

89. While we're at it we should weaken the ridiculous copyright laws here anyway.

As I understand it, the original intent was 14 years with one extension of an additional 14 tops. That's it. The Hollywood lobby has made it where you can still be fined or jailed for sitting around with a large group of friends watching Universal Monster movies like Dracula from 1931 for Christ's sakes. 28 years is plenty. You had your chance at it's peak time to make every penny off of it. Now others should have the ability to share and that's the end of it.

And with news and other media, fair use should extend to the fact that unless you're airing say over 50% of the footage from any given program, you can use video footage for any purposes. A 10 second clip of Andrea "I usually shill for the GOP at every turn" Greenspan isn't egregious by any stretch of the imagination and probably is causing issues only because in her circle of friends they're pissed she told the truth.

[OldDem2012]

91. Saw the ad again this morning. Good! Piss on NBC. nt.