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.
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?
The mayor's name is James Butts.
When you have term limits you get self serving politicians like they have in Florida. Running a government is far different than running a business and should be. You want to encourage professionalism and ethics. Certainly many career politicians are awful, but a great many are fantastic. You throw the baby out with the bathwater when you talk about severe term limits and you ignore the responsibility of the citizenry to be engaged.
In Florida you have a high turnover rate because of ridiculous term limits and because of that you get a lot of amateurs running the government who know they aren't going to be holding the office for long so they set up some nice opportunities for themselves and their friends before they go. It's a nightmare.
Sure, some term limits are reasonable. You don't want executive positions in populous areas to be able to stay indefinitely, but often rural areas have a very small number of qualified people and that makes it almost impossible to have decent government when there are only two qualified people in town to be the town chair.
Simple answers to complex problems often do a lot of harm when applied to social constructs.
I love that the judge ruled so thoroughly and swiftly. Can you imagine single term limits for judges? In many states judges have to run for office.
When you have term limits you get self serving politicians like they have in Florida.
When you have no term limits you get politicians whose only goal is to get re-elected.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.
Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.
No term limits. Just forbid incumbents. You can run and get elected as many times as you (and the fools you convince to vote for you) would like. You just can't do it consecutively.
This is to give people a taste of a rival's way of doing things every few years. The "first one is free" to hook you. You may not even want to go back to the old way afterward, making the re-runner change his ways or face a (probably permanent) loss.
And then shorten terms to make sure that people remember what the previous guy did when he's running to replace the current guy, so there's no way he can skate by on the effects of short term memory.
No term limits. Just forbid incumbents.
What a boon for the wealthy! Every four years you get a fresh new politician with no influence, and no power. It makes racketeering and extortion so much easier.
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.
Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.
Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.
Is that how the office of the President of the United States works?
Just another day in Paradise
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.
I don't find it too terribly bad, at least in my area.
Of course, in my area it's not choosing between Judge X and Judge Y. It's 'Do you wish for Judge X to remain seated for another 4 years'?
It takes a lot for the judge to lose this vote, but they have in the past.
I don't read AC A human right
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).
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.
One could easily argue the opposite. By allowing the advantages of incumbency to become entrenched, we encourage corporatism. If the same guy is Mayor of Atlanta for 26 years, it is pretty easy for major contractors to know who to bribe and to set up systems for ensuring that their man stays in office. If they have to keep corrupting a new guy every 4 years, it would be that much tougher.
Both arguments likely have some truth. If every guy in office is a noob, then the bureaucrats will of necessity become more powerful, since they are the only ones who know what the heck is going on. So instead of the politicians getting the grease, it is the bureaucrats.
In the end the root of the problem lies in the amount of favors there are to dole out. With all of the power and money being tossed about by government it is inevitable that someone will try to game the system to their benefit. The only true answer to this is to limit the amount of money and power being funneled through the government. And of course this is the one thing that all those corporate interests would never allow. And neither would the political class - both bureaucrats and politicians. Since they all have something to lose if the money and power dry up, they'll never move to change it.
That's why term limits are attractive to some - even if it is a futile attempt.
Yes, it is two terms to balance the competing advantages and disadvantages of short term and long term politicians. Rather than the "one term" being suggested here.