Slashdot Mirror
Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad
An anonymous reader writes "Mitt Romney's campaign is airing an ad that is basically 30 seconds lifted from an NBC News broadcast and NBC is trying to stop them from using the ad. I found it interesting that the Romney campaign is invoking fair use to defend the ad. Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said 'we believe it falls within fair use. We didn't take the entire broadcast; we just took the first 30 seconds.'"
Please post a link to the video. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_cuNkI7pzLM
I'm sure there are many more, but I didn't want to spend my entire Sunday listing them. The point is: they've been doing this for many, many years.
Those with Flash disabled wanting to download with the Firefox DownloadHelper extension to watch the mp4 in VLC may prefer this format of the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM
They're required to give equal access to polis. Doesn't mean any ads they run are for free. Parties are supposed to buy airtime just like everybody else.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Yes, if a broadcast network accepts advertising, they're required to sell slots to federal candidates at the lowest rate they offer to any other advertiser, and screen then based only on across-the-board neutral conditions (things like volume of the ad, presence of skimpy clothing, etc., if they apply the same rules to all ads).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
reread the copyright act
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
while they may have an argument about the use creating a false impression that NBC the company endorses Romney that is NOT a copyright issue.
Networks are not allowed to censor the content of any political ad.
For reference: upcoming abortion video to play during Super Bowl.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Although I agree with most of your points, in this case I have to disagree. Fair use comprises these four standards:
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.
1- The ad is not using Brokaw's reputation to sell a candidate, rather (pun intended) it is just repeating some factual reporting he did about another candidate. And I'm pretty sure campaigns are NFP organizations. Nor does the use as far as I can tell change the tone or character of the original work.
2- The nature is news reporting, not some kind of creative work whose value might be diminished by others copying it.
3- This they might be in trouble for, as I doubt the 30 seconds versus a 30 minute program metric will apply. More likely, it will be how much of the story about Gingrich they played. If that was the whole piece, could be problematic. If it is the first 30 seconds of a 6 minute piece, it's probably OK.
4- Same as #2. Brokaw and NBC aren't diminished by simply repeating what they said on a newscast from 15 years ago. It's not like they are selling "Best of the Nighly News" DVD box sets.
No. Romney is part of the GOP that sponsored the bill to begin with.
Facts are sometimes inconvenient when you have a clear political bias.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I would strongly argue that cartoons of Mohammed to not impinge anybody's freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion doesn't force the world to conform to your views, it only allows you to have them.
I do have numbers; they were easy to get. Support was evenly mixed.
The original sponsor was R. There were 32 cosponsors (including the original sponsor), 16 D and 16 R.
It is true that more republicans withdrew support than dems: 6 R withdrew vs 2 D.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261
The character of the use (as in the distinction between unmodified copying and preparation of derived works) is one of the factors which a judge weighs in determining whether something is fair use, but it's not the only one -- and by no means whatsoever are derived works guaranteed to be fair use. It's a fuzzy line, not a solid definition with clear boundaries.
Completely unmodified reuse, but of a short clip only, with zero diminution in commercial value, for educational purposes only, of a work of historic nature (yes, "nature of the copied work" is one of the factors)? Certainly, a reasonable judge could find it to be fair use.
Fair use text in full
18 USC 107
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec=107
Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
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.
For reference: upcoming abortion video to play during Super Bowl.
Depends on your definition of a political ad, perhaps.
NBC rejected an anti-abortion ad during the 2009 Superbowl. However, the next year, CBS aired an anti-abortion ad..
I believe it's up to the networks to accept or reject any advertising--political or non.
Here's the actual Romney ad -- at least until it gets yanked... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TobmtxHQoZE
The Equal Opportunity clause of the FCC rules for Political *Candidates* is quite clear. Network television may not refuse a political ad from a candidate, nor can they "overcharge".
Support a few technologists in Washington.
They also have more in common with the occupy movement than anyone will admit.
To include Tea Party Republicans themselves. To be honest, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone that self-characterizes as a Tea Party Republican say anything that wasn't totally negative or disparaging about either the Occupy Wall Street movement or the protesters themselves.
Hell, I remember back in early 2011 here in Madison, WI, when Governor Scott Walker went to war with the unions up here, people pretty much occupied the Wisconsin State Capitol for 2 months (over 100,000 at one point), you couldn't go more than 5 minutes without someone that called themselves a Tea Party member bitching and complaining about the people occupying the capitol, how "disgraceful it all is" and all that nonsense, how they have no right to protest. People from a movement that itself is named after one of the most famous protests in our nation's history, whining about protesters and the "legality of protesting", because, you know, sneaking aboard ships in Boston Harbor and throwing thousands of dollars worth of privately owned tea was totally legal back in those days or something....
There may be some overlap (and by all rights, there should be a lot more) but for the most part, they're two completely separate movements and until both sides are willing to respect each other (doubtful) they are going to continue to oppose each other even if they agree with each other on paper. The Tea Party, for the most part, has dismissed the OWS movement as being a bunch of whiny children just looking for handouts. Go read any article covering OWS, here's one from CNN's front page right now, and read the comments. I'll bet you a million bucks 99.999% of the people posting those negative comments, ask them what their political affiliation is, and they'll tell you Tea Party. Try it for yourself if you doubt it...