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:

1. There is no evidence Teixeira used the videos for commercial gain and was transformative
2. His work was creative by adding music and commentary to the normally boring council videos
3. 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.
4. 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.

Comments

Woah

[Archangel Michael]

A dose of common sense. I nearly fainted.

Re:Why are we fighting the government?

[OverlyGenericUsernam]

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?

Re:One term.

[cat_jesus]

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.

Re:We are missing the nugget of gold from this sto

[Nutria]

A Democrat, and in 2005, Inglewood was ranked as the 7th most liberal city in the nation.

Re:Why are we fighting the government?

[Tokolosh]

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.

2Pac was right

[itsownreward]

Inglewood's always up to no good.

Re:One term.

[nedlohs]

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.

Re:One term.

[FranTaylor]

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.

Re:Why are we fighting the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your way of thinking is: "I don't understand! Must kill!"

Makes sense.

Is video recording required?

[davidwr]

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.