Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules That Inglewood, California Cannot Copyright Public Videos
UnknowingFool writes: Recently a judge ruled in California that the city of Inglewood cannot hold copyrights of videos of public city council meetings which they published on their YouTube account and thus cannot sue individuals for copyright infringement for using them. In several YouTube videos, Joseph Teixeira, a resident of Inglewood, California, criticized the mayor, James Butts. Under the account name Dehol Truth, Teixeira took city council meetings posted on their YouTube account and edited them to make pointed criticisms about the mayor.
The city responded by registering the videos with copyrights and then suing Teixeira for copyright infringement. Many would say it was a thinly veiled attempt to silence a critic. Teixeira filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) the city cannot claim copyright over public records (videos of public city council meetings) and (2) even if they could, his videos fell under Fair Use.
Unsurprisingly, a judge dismissed the city's case, citing California law which bars the city from holding copyrights on most public records. (This case may not be over as Teixeira's pro bono lawyer has not filed for attorney's fees. The ruling can be found here.) What is notable is that the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, so the city cannot refile. Normally judges do not do this unless they feel that the plaintiff's case was so weak that he feels no judge should hear the case ever again. Since the judge agreed with the defendant on the first point, he would not normally need to address Teixeira's Fair Use defense, but he did anyway. Anticipating that the city may appeal his decision, judge ruled that Teixeira's videos substantially met all four factors for Fair Use:
The city responded by registering the videos with copyrights and then suing Teixeira for copyright infringement. Many would say it was a thinly veiled attempt to silence a critic. Teixeira filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) the city cannot claim copyright over public records (videos of public city council meetings) and (2) even if they could, his videos fell under Fair Use.
Unsurprisingly, a judge dismissed the city's case, citing California law which bars the city from holding copyrights on most public records. (This case may not be over as Teixeira's pro bono lawyer has not filed for attorney's fees. The ruling can be found here.) What is notable is that the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, so the city cannot refile. Normally judges do not do this unless they feel that the plaintiff's case was so weak that he feels no judge should hear the case ever again. Since the judge agreed with the defendant on the first point, he would not normally need to address Teixeira's Fair Use defense, but he did anyway. Anticipating that the city may appeal his decision, judge ruled that Teixeira's videos substantially met all four factors for Fair Use:
- There is no evidence Teixeira used the videos for commercial gain and was transformative
- His work was creative by adding music and commentary to the normally boring council videos
- Despite the city's claim he used their "entire work", it clear that he only used portions of meetings that lasted as long as four hours editing them down to a max of 15 minutes.
- Teixeira did not harm the city's market for the videos because the city is barred by state law from recouping more than direct costs of duplication. Even if the city could sell the videos (which they published themselves for free on YouTube), his short videos are not a substitute.
This is a great example of why every public office should have a one term limit.
A dose of common sense. I nearly fainted.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You're saying that when the Judicial Branch does its job properly and curtails idiots getting out of hand, you should over throw the government?
Government worked just like it's supposed to in this case. The court did its job.
The mayor's name is James Butts.
Of course the judgement is obviously right. Funny the judge was such a ball buster to a city though. :)
JJ
It sounds like James Butts is one fucking asshole.
Can you imagine single term limits for judges? In many states judges have to run for office.
I've never really understood the point of judges running for office. Oh I get that in theory it has some virtues but in practice it is a futile and corrupted idea. Virtually no one other than a handful of lawyers has even a vague clue who these people are or whether they are qualified for their job. I have never once voted in an election when I had even heard the name of any of the people running for judge. I have no idea who they are, what their background is or whether they might conceivably do a good job. Worse, a lot of them (most) have party affiliations so they are by definition not acting as neutral arbiters of the law.
A Democrat, and in 2005, Inglewood was ranked as the 7th most liberal city in the nation.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
No, I'm remarking on the fact that the city even tried to copyright the videos in the first place. Why do they even think it's their place to do that?
You either didn't read the article or you're an idiot.
If Teixeira had bankrupted himself in a quixotic attempt to court rein in an out-of-control executive, this would not be news and we would not be discussing it. It would be like "Dog bites postman."
However, Teixeira did prevail. In a functioning system this would not be news. But our system is misfunctional, making this "Postman bites dog" news. We are reading about and discussing it precisely because it is so unusual and contrary to our perverted expectations.
So we are reminded that it is our bounden duty to show solidarity and cut down the establishment.
Oh, and the officials responsible should be paying the costs, personally.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Inglewood's always up to no good.
So, your way of thinking is: "I don't understand! Must kill!"
Makes sense.
No, I'm remarking on the fact that the city even tried to copyright the videos in the first place. Why do they even think it's their place to do that?
humans act like humans and you're surprised?
It shouldn't have gotten to the court in the first place. If Inglewood council members were at all competent, they would have realized Teixeira's speech was protected and left him alone. Now they've drawn extra scrutiny.
What is with the epidemic of half-assed, unqualified, reaching-beyond-their-capabilities public servants we have lately?
Whether corrupt police, incompetent city government, school principals, etc, when did these kinds of people start getting elected to important public service roles?
Or is it just that now we have more access to tools to expose their idiocy and it seems there are more of them?
yes yes... the judge shut it down... but lets be real, the judges are generally pretty good about that. The nonsense in teh north east about "its illegal to film police officers" got shut down by the courts as well... repeatedly. That didn't stop the police and the mayors from trying to enforce it anyway.
And the simple fact that they'd try to do such a thing is despicable. The inglewood government is clearly corrupt.
I think something needs to be done to increase public participation in local government. Make it clear for example that any idiot can take a leadership role. I think that might help keep the whole thing from turning into a good old boys club.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If the city is not required to video their meetings and they have the authority to prohibit video cameras in council chambers, don't be surprised if future meetings are not recorded.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
SLAPP countersuit, anyone? This looks exactly like a blatant attempt to silence criticism, and it looks like the judge agrees. Hit 'em where it hurts, and sue them back. Incidentally, I suspect the "Streisand Effect" also applies -- nobody would have known about these videos if you hadn't been arseholes about them.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Let me fix that for you: "douchebags act like douchebags and you're suprised?"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Or is it just that now we have more access to tools to expose their idiocy and it seems there are more of them?
With social media and sites like Slashdot we hear about every stupid move any public official makes. In times past such information would only be available to people in the local area. It is the same with stranger abductions. The rate of stranger abductions has gone down but the perception is that it has gone up due to the number of reports on the news.
The worst thing that is happening is the "the" meme. Too often I see "the government", "the police", "the school system", etc. All of these are made up by thousands of different people in different places under different circumstances. Too many identifiable groups are being treated as monolithic organizations. There is no "the government". There are thousands of separate organizations that have government responsibilities and most of them never talk to each other. For example, If we hear about one city government a month screwing up some might think that city governments are screwed up. That does not take into account that there are thousands of city governments and only a very small percentage has screwed up. Too many people generalize too much(yes, I realize the irony of that statement).
Why is the judges name not mentioned on slashdot?
How the hell did this idiotic city council think that the ruling was going to go their way?
Is a dismissal a ruling?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
"in private industry where they would actually be judged by the results they produce". Where the fuck does this BS fantasy come from?
Current events give a classic example of how this claim is complete bollocks: Donald Trump.
See also the private banking industry.
Or... we could be reading about it because someone wanted to give us inspiration that we _can_ do this (report and comment on city council meetings) and not be silenced by the council members.
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
Without copyright, there's no reason for them to keep having city council meetings. I hope you pirates are happy with the literal anarchy you've caused!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
How the hell did this idiotic city council think that the ruling was going to go their way?
They didn't. They expected their lawyers would intimidate him into submission (withdrawing the video.) The a**holes were no doubt amazed when the case went to court. You can't blame them, bullying via lawyers usually works. What we need is when a case is dismissed with predjudice, the loser pays the legal expenses of the other party.
... and someone with a government background... I'd say that "a thinly veiled attempt to silence a critic" sounds just about right.
The citizen was criticizing the mayor. Most politicians have to respond, and their response is routinely on the high end of excitable. Whether it's because of thin skin, or a take-no-prisoners attitude, there are lots of reasons. And hey, perhaps this Mr. Teixeira, maybe he was vitriolic, or perhaps his critique hit a little too close to home.
Regardless, the accusation of copyright infringement was off-base. As in, way off base. One has to question, frankly, how this even made it to the courts. Competent legal counsel should have headed this case off long before that stage. Sounds like the mayor was hell-bent on making his critic pay some kind of price. Or maybe the mayor's lawyer was overly interested in the billable hours (these are not mutually exclusive of course).
Inglewood.... up to no good
This is an excellent example of the legal system (or checks & balances) actually working, for a change. More of this, please!