What's DU's opinion on this?

[gp]

I've setup a youtube channel with 9/11 hour by hour footage from different networks, a '9/11 as it happened' so to speak.
http://www.youtube.com/goaptussy

I've received a complaint from MSNBC through youtube that all material is copyrighted and they didnt waste any time to immediately remove the video's.

I understand copyright laws, but they should have the moral decency of making all that footage available to the public domain, no?

As far as I can remember, during the day on 9/11 all networks used eachother's footage no questions asked as an exception to copyright laws.
Can anyone confirm this?

[Syrinx]

1. I remember there used to be a online archive of network footage

From 9/11/01. It stayed up for some time, but soon vanished.

Seems to be that there should be a distinction between investigative, enterprise-type stories, and live coverage of breaking news... especially when it comes to mega-events like 9/11. But that's just the opinion of a non-lawyer.

[gp]

7. Yes, especially 9/11!

It was such a tragic and world changing event and arguably the most media-covered event EVER.
Access to the footage gives invaluable insights into the performance and workings of the media.
Plus the official line is being disputed by many...

I cannot fathom why there would be ANY reason for the public to be denied unfettered access to this footage.


As to the online archive of network footage, that's a peculiar case.
They indeed had the footage available online, but had to cut down on the amount after a while to just 2 networks because of funding issues.
A short time later, those were also removed, citing total breakdown of funds (even tho all of this was hosted by www.archive.org).
Now it's been two years since they've shutdown and there are no specific plans to resuscitate the site.

[VolcanoJen]

15. It was extraordinary, the fabled Television Archive

You can still find much of the footage online.

I applaud anyone trying to put it back together. An historical online archive is absolutely necessary.

[OnyxCollie]

2. That is what I recall.

Sorry, I can't provide any links.:shrug:

[Wonk]

3. goatpussy?

:shrug:

[Psephos]

4. It's their footage, so it's their call

That's the way the law works. If it didn't, they wouldn't have shot the footage in the first place.

Just sayin'...

Peace.

[Syrinx]

6. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but...

Couldn't a case be made for "fair use" if the poster is using the clips for educational or informational purposes, doesn't make money from it, and isn't diluting the commercial value of MSNBC's "brand?"

On the other hand, YouTube can reject any videos that they want... it is fully within their rights to reject the MSNBC footage for any reason whatsoever, even if it's just that they don't want to risk any (even ultimately unjustifiable) litigation or harassment from MSNBC's lawyers.

Just my uninformed opinion. :)

[Psephos]

10. I hear you :-)

US copyright laws need revision regarding fair use because of the impact of new technologies. Current fair use provisions limit the amount of content used pretty severely, based on laws written when the idea of internet posting of video was the stuff of science fiction.

The best approach is probably to throw support behind groups like the Electronic Freedom Foundation http://www.eff.org

Until laws are updated, we'll be stuck with situations like that described in the O.P.

Peace.

[Syrinx]

11. yeah, I dig EFF

That Grateful Dead dude, John Perry Barlowe, is that right?

I used to get their newsletter via e-mail before the World Wide Web was invented.

I've sent them a few donations over the years, but have never joined. Maybe I should finally take the plunge.

Peace to you too.

[Blackthorn]

5. Most 9/11 footage has been lost to the ages

And it's not because of copyright.

[Demit]

8. Well, you have to ponder what you would feel if the shoe were on the other

foot. If you had exclusive footage that you had shot of something, and you had copyrighted it, would you like it if someone wanted to use it without permission?

Laws are always thwarting somebody while they're protecting somebody else, sigh. :)

[gp]

9. I agree, but

Only if I were filming a duck in the pond for example, and would like to make a profit from it some day, to put it boldly :)

This is so much bigger. An event like 9/11 should not be turned into a copyright fest.
This is almost as bad as biotech corporations patenting human genes...almost.

And it's not like this doesnt have a precedence.
They had no problem using eachother's footage freely that day.
The Online Television Archive on archive.org was allowed to stream it online.
(I'm assuming after some heavy lobbying)

They clearly had no problem in making exceptions.

[Demit]

13. Who gets to decide what events must make everyone surrender their rights,

though? How would you begin to differentiate among them? Okay, so on one end you've got your duck-in-a-pond and on the other the catastrophic event that—what? Should be widely available so that it can be studied? Isn't it conceivable that someone might claim your duck-in-a-pond footage would be useful for them to study in their research project?

Actually, fair use laws do allow for reproducing works for editorial (as opp. to commercial) purposes. You still have to ask for permission, I think. Presumably you would be a good guy and let the researcher use your duck footage. I notice you still reserved your rights to it, though. Of course--you wouldn't want the researcher to turn out to be an ad guy who would use your duck in a commercial for, I don't know, umbrellas or something.

The networks using one another's footage was just a reciprocal arrangement amongst peers. The way I might lend something to a fellow graphic designer in a pinch, even though we are ostensible competitors, because I know she'll be able to help me out someday when I'm in a similar situation. That doesn't mean I have to do it for a guy on the street.

What about if you're a freelance photographer who sells footage to TV stations for a living? Should he be forced to put what he does in the public domain?

[Omphaloskepsis]

12. Is the footage readily available from them?

If I can get them with a few mouse clicks... cool beans. If they have tucked it into an archive and locked it up -- putting it into the public domain would be nice. These videos are vital.

[rman]

14. I know how i'd feel if the shoe were on my foot

I'd think i already have made a decent buck off of that footage, and that it might be useful for educational purposes if it'd be in the public domain.
Just so long as people credit the original source. In fact i think it'd be covered under "fair use".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[krispos42]

16. Filesharing has this stuff if you look for it

Shareaza, for example. People that were smart enough or foresighted enough to save footage on theirs PCs are now sharing it with the world. Or they bought the DVD or videotape and transferred it to their hard drives. Whatever.

The same technology that lets me, um, well, let's just say I've heard through reliable sources that there are a lot of videos available on the peer-to-peer networks. Some of them aren't even pornographic! And I'll betcha that some of them will be 9/11 tapes.

Heck, I've also heard through those same reliable sources that they have the radio broadcast from CBS when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor!

[krispos42]

17. I just spend some times browsing the videos.

Thank you very much. I was at work that day, and didn't get home until hours after the towers had fallen, so I missed all of the live coverage.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Well...

First of all, you're violating the networks' copyright, which they have every right to enforce. And for a site like YouTube, it's important to understand that while you might not be making money from it, YouTube is. Or is trying to, anyway.

I agree that they should have the moral decency to release it to the public domain, but expecting moral decency from a television network is a lot like expecting lucid prose from a freeper. They're just not capable of it.