HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NBC tells Obama not to us...

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:02 AM

NBC tells Obama not to use footage

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.

92 replies, 10297 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply NBC tells Obama not to use footage (Original post)
Ichingcarpenter Oct 2012 OP
brewens Oct 2012 #1
Godless in Seattle Oct 2012 #31
blkmusclmachine Oct 2012 #85
MadHound Oct 2012 #2
Lex Oct 2012 #9
MadHound Oct 2012 #37
X_Digger Oct 2012 #46
MadHound Oct 2012 #55
X_Digger Oct 2012 #56
abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #58
X_Digger Oct 2012 #59
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #74
99th_Monkey Oct 2012 #79
cprise Oct 2012 #70
intersectionality Oct 2012 #87
yawnmaster Oct 2012 #43
cpamomfromtexas Oct 2012 #80
R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2012 #78
dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #3
dennis4868 Oct 2012 #4
ejpoeta Oct 2012 #5
longship Oct 2012 #10
dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #15
Lex Oct 2012 #18
dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #21
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #36
longship Oct 2012 #33
Ms. Toad Oct 2012 #41
onenote Oct 2012 #42
longship Oct 2012 #49
onenote Oct 2012 #57
longship Oct 2012 #60
onenote Oct 2012 #61
longship Oct 2012 #62
Generic Other Oct 2012 #71
onenote Oct 2012 #75
mattclearing Oct 2012 #6
Lex Oct 2012 #17
Tribetime Oct 2012 #7
GoCubsGo Oct 2012 #19
Tribetime Oct 2012 #32
66 dmhlt Oct 2012 #63
GoCubsGo Oct 2012 #64
2on2u Oct 2012 #8
dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #13
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #16
Lex Oct 2012 #20
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #26
davidpdx Oct 2012 #27
2on2u Oct 2012 #39
Ms. Toad Oct 2012 #45
global1 Oct 2012 #11
GoCubsGo Oct 2012 #22
tavalon Oct 2012 #25
ananda Oct 2012 #12
Curtland1015 Oct 2012 #14
msanthrope Oct 2012 #23
tavalon Oct 2012 #24
lynne Oct 2012 #28
JoePhilly Oct 2012 #29
loyalsister Oct 2012 #30
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #34
edhopper Oct 2012 #35
Cha Oct 2012 #48
L0oniX Oct 2012 #38
Tribetime Oct 2012 #40
surrealAmerican Oct 2012 #44
JonLP24 Oct 2012 #67
Cha Oct 2012 #47
WillowTree Oct 2012 #50
yawnmaster Oct 2012 #53
alsame Oct 2012 #51
cprise Oct 2012 #72
Historic NY Oct 2012 #52
littlewolf Oct 2012 #54
boyedav1969 Oct 2012 #65
Anthony McCarthy Oct 2012 #66
onenote Oct 2012 #76
nc4bo Oct 2012 #68
KurtNYC Oct 2012 #69
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #73
littlemissmartypants Oct 2012 #77
JTFrog Oct 2012 #90
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #92
bobthedrummer Oct 2012 #81
DeSwiss Oct 2012 #82
demwing Oct 2012 #83
Oilwellian Oct 2012 #84
jsmirman Oct 2012 #86
mfcorey1 Oct 2012 #88
MessiahRp Oct 2012 #89
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #91

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:07 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:54 AM

31. 2 words

 

Public Airwaves. NBC is full of shit here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:34 AM

85. +1

OPERATION NORTHWOODS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:08 AM

2. But it is copywrited,

 

All networks put copyright protection on their broadcasts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:52 AM

9. Fair Use trumps that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:41 PM

37. No, it doesn't,

 

Fair Use is for educational purposes, not political ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #37)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:01 PM

55. This isn't criticism or comment,

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #55)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:12 PM

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?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:40 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abumbyanyothername (Reply #58)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:52 PM

59. LOL! touché n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abumbyanyothername (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:09 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #46)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 05:40 PM

79. You should have bolded

NEWS REPORTING because that's precisely what this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:32 AM

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

Even if its political, commercial, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #37)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 07:58 AM

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

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

Yep... too much Newsroom.

Play on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:16 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 06:53 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 11:20 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:14 AM

3. You'd be completely wrong

It's copyrighted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:23 AM

4. There are legal exceptions

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dennis4868 (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:26 AM

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

are not FOR one candidate or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:55 AM

10. No! You're completely wrong.

It is called fair use. Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:06 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:15 AM

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





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:05 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:58 AM

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

It qualifies as fair use.
AFAIK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:10 PM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:15 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:54 PM

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

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #49)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:37 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #57)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:14 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #61)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:50 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #61)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:44 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Other (Reply #71)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:54 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:33 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mattclearing (Reply #6)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:46 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tribetime (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:18 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:55 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:47 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 66 dmhlt (Reply #63)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:55 AM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:50 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:00 AM

13. Elementray

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:08 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:19 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #20)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:32 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:34 AM

27. I tend to agree

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:41 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:17 PM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:57 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:21 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:23 AM

25. Heh heh

I like the way your mind works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:58 AM

12. CopyRIGHT.. NOT copywrite.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:04 AM

14. Yup. Your rite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:21 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:23 AM

24. Too bad but unfortunately, they have the right

Poopy heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:35 AM

28. This isn't a bad thing -

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:38 AM

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:48 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #30)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:00 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #35)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:50 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:02 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:17 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:49 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:47 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #50)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #51)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:45 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:14 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #52)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:58 PM

54. and then NBC hits the campaign

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #66)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:55 AM

76. Not necessarily. See post number 61

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:06 AM

68. Just saw this ad this morning :)

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:15 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:46 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)


Response to littlemissmartypants (Reply #77)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:08 AM

90. Threadjacking

and spamming.

Not cool at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlemissmartypants (Reply #77)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:15 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:52 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:45 PM

82. ....



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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:41 PM

83. NBC is Doing Great!

Now, people are talking about the ad again.

Thanks for the kick, Andrea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 11:54 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:18 AM

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

Yankees-Orioles.

Pretty high profile runs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:05 AM

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

is a red blooded republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:03 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:13 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread