Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kaitlin]

Here's the scenario:  News company makes a recording and composite video report of a public political event and publishes it on its website.  At the event, speaker recited a public domain work of poetry.  News company used the speaker's recitation of the poem as background to much of its video report as well as videotaping the speaker performing the recitation.  Would the speaker who recited the poem likely have any performance rights vis-a-vis the derivative work? (Speaker is interested in obtaining a copy of the news video and the web-cast is digitally protected.  Curious to know whether would have any leverage if the news company makes it difficult to get a copy of the video.) 
Any case law re rights of people videotaped for the news come to mind? 
Any practical experience with how newspapers handle such requests?
Thanks!

[Smokin]

Not a lawyer
If its online, just use some software to download the material and save it. You can also try to ask permission to use it, I doubt they would object unless they just don't want to bother with such a request, which is likely.

They (the news) own their work, the video they took of the guy reciting whatever, it belongs to the news company, this includes what they filmed, how they edited it, etc the whole package. Its a newsworthy event, and you have no right to publicity or privacy in that kind of scenario. However, if  the guy on the video wanted to comment on the video by saying "hey Im on it, Take a look.... here it is" that's a pretty good case for a fair use. I cant tell you how many countless videos Ive seen on people's sites where they post their guest appearances etc.

My Favorite radio guy posts every pundit job he gets on his site to show his fans where he has been, and what he's said. This guy also happens to be a lawyer. My fav author does the same thing on his site, posts his guest spots on talk shows and what he said about his books. There is a solid case to be made, that such a use is fair use, and that you are a "co creator" of the work since you are in it to boot. Now I'm butchering the law alot in this response, I'm sure a bunch of lawyers here are shaking their head at this point, but in a nut shell, I would just download it, post it on my site, and worry about a stink later in the unlikely chance one would pop up. If you are looking for  a payday cause you think you are owed something cause you were reciting something, .... forget it, wont fly, wont work, no leverage there.

[Kaitlin]

Hey, Smokin!
Thanks for your thoughts. 

Actually, I am a lawyer, but my IP practice has been mainly in TM and patent litigation and licensing, with some TM prosecution thrown in for good measure.  My knowledge of current copyright law is primarily theoretical, as my copyright experience is rather ancient and sparse.   

If its online, just use some software to download the material and save it. You can also try to ask permission to use it, I doubt they would object unless they just don't want to bother with such a request, which is likely.

The news company has set up their website to copy-protect their videos, so the performer can't just download it on the QT -- at least not with readily available free-bee programs like RealPlayer.  And we don't want to get overly involved in copy methods....unless we're on solid legal ground vis-a-vis entitlement to or fair use of the copy.

While the news guys have their own rights in the work they've created in filming the presentation of the poem and combining it with other footage, like you I feel there should be some fair use aspects here--a "penumbra", if you will, amorphously surrounding "fair use" and extending it to a right to a copy of your own performance. 

I also feel intuitively that the Beta Max case's time-shifting rationale should be extendable to cover the act of saving short on-line video segments for later viewing.  Of course that's not strictly on point: at present, anyone can access the video on the website at any time, so "time-shifting" isn't what's at issue so much as archiving something currently publicly available to ensure you have future access to view it. 

Am hoping someone out there has either practical experience with whether asking a news company for a copy of footage of yourself generally has good results (free or a nominal fee to cover the CD or other media) or, alternatively, some case law which is either on point or analogous to give some grounds for either insisting on a free/cheap copy or giving a solid legal defense for working around their copy protection.

Thanks all.