March 2017 EC minutes

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

1. Is the second quote a direct quote from someone at the BBC? If so, who is the "We" who have approval?

bbc.motiongallerysales@gettyimages.com 

[ALB]

I can't see anything relevant on that link about who the "we" is. Maybe it's my browser.I still don't really understand. Is it the case that, because someone unwisely ignored the advice that "if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question", we now cannot use the various election and other interviews we have had over the years? Insisting on taking these off our sites would seem to be a case of "cuting off your nose to spite your face." If so, I would have thought that the EC made a sound decision in refusing to go down that road.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

 If so, I would have thought that the EC made a sound decision in refusing to go down that road.

And I would have thought that the EC only "made a sound decision" if it has no concern for the ramifications of copyright infringement when it would be a relatively simple matter, as you say, to remove all references to the BBC.  It's a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I still don't really understand. Is it the case that, because someone unwisely ignored the advice that "if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question", we now cannot use the various election and other interviews we have had over the years? 

The 'question' was not asked by me. I was certainly not the one to raise copyright issues . It ranges from members of this forum while commenting on a video production of mine,  to Lancaster branch resolution to the EC,   and the latestt was an EC discussion leading to a change in the Terms of Reference of the AVC2. To ensure that any copyright protected third-party content used in A/V productions is publically licensed for such use or is used with the permission or license of the copyright holder, or is used in accordance with legally-defined exceptions to copyright, and is appropriately acknowledged. I would never have raised the issue ……neverInacurate information on copyright was circulating which led to my  video being disowned by the Party.  I made enquiries about my video and was informed that it could be licenced.  During my enquiries, I learned that BBC political Interviews cannot be used by political organisations. There may never be an issue and I hope there isn't, I certainly have never mentioned this to the BBC but  should the AVC ignore its TOR? 

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I can't see anything relevant on that link about who the "we" is. Maybe it's my browser.

It was a link to 'gettyimages' who licence BBC material.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

And I would have thought that the EC only "made a sound decision" if it has no concern for the ramifications of copyright infringement

And why bother changing the Terms of Reference  of the Audio Visual Commitee then blatantly ignore them? Sound decision making?

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

During my enquiries, I learned that BBC political Interviews cannot be used by political organisations.

I'm prepared to believe that if asked this question directly that's how they might be obliged to reply but I'm not convinced they would not and do not tolerate it in practice (unless it was implied that the BBC endorsed the views expressed which of course nobody watching a political interview would think).All political parties do this. For example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFKIot9UNAkhttps://youtu.be/YEyrw1CgqAUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8e_jPQx9jIWe'd be completely stupid to take our election interviews and broadcasts down.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Vin wrote:

During my enquiries, I learned that BBC political Interviews cannot be used by political organisations.

I'm prepared to believe that if asked this question directly that's how they might be obliged to reply but I'm not convinced they would not and do not tolerate it in practice (unless it was implied that the BBC endorsed the views expressed which of course nobody watching a political interview would think).All political parties do this. For example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFKIot9UNAkhttps://youtu.be/YEyrw1CgqAUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8e_jPQx9jIWe'd be completely stupid to take our election interviews and broadcasts down.

So does the same argument apply to this video.If so what has been all the  fuss about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4

[ALB]

I can't see anything wrong with the use of extracts from interviews and statements by Party members.  I don't know about the other images but I assume they raised no copyright issues. Maybe some members thought they might. But there's no point in raking over the past and raising the copyright issue with regard to our political interviews. That's just cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

 But there's no point in raking over the past and raising the copyright issue with regard to our political interviews. That's just cutting off our nose to spite our face. 

Actually there is a point, if only to ensure that this situation never arises again.  As a result of misinformation and ignorance a perfectly good in-house video was ordered to be taken down off the internet by the 2016 Executive Committee, but nevertheless attracted 2345 views in just over six months compared with the 'official' 2015 party election video which managed to achieve a mere 1650 views in two years!  That's what I call cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[alanjjohnstone]

As one who did not approve of the EC's "Small Party of Good Boys" legalistic response to Vin's supposedly unauthorised videoes and said so at the time, i'm left a bit bewildered now that the "Small Party of Good Boys" attitude is being apparently entrenched by those who were originally critical of the EC's previous position.Can i ask what videos require to be removed?Do they include Channel 4 in addition to the BBC?In fact, maybe it is easier if i'm told what our website and You Tube presence will be left with, at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

Alan, the arguments about Vin's video have been repeated ad nauseum.  I raised the matter again at the March EC because I was of the opinion that the revised Terms of Reference for the AVC, drawn up the 2016 EC and passed by the January 2017 EC, were at variance with extant material on the website and elsewhere.

Clause 2 AVC ToR wrote:

To ensure that any copyright protected third-party content used in A/V productions is publically (sic) licensed for such use or is used with the permission or license of the copyright holder, or is used in accordance with legally-defined exceptions to copyright, and is appropriately acknowledged.

My intention was not that those videos should be taken down but edited to remove any reference to their original sources.  That view was not shared by a majority of EC members.

March 2017 EC minutes wrote:

C.](2) D. Chesham: Revised Terms of Reference for the Audio Visual Committee.Cde Chesham thought the EC should be consistent in its application of their ruling regarding the use in videos of material that was possibly subject to copyright – for example those currently posted on the Party website and on the SPGB 1904 YouTube site.Motion 10. (Thomas and Chesham): “That the Internet Committee and the Audio Visual Committee be asked to remove temporarily the videos currently displayed on YouTube and the Party website and that the matter be reconsidered again at the April EC.”Voting – 3 for, 5 against, I member absent. LostDivision called for:For — Thomas, Chesham, WicksAgainst – Foster, Browne, Tenner, Cox, McLellan.Absent from the table – Shodeke.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

As a result of misinformation and ignorance a perfectly good in-house video was ordered to be taken down off the internet by the 2016 Executive Committee,

That's what I was afraid it is all about — getting back at those EC members and branches who opposed that video. A classic case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face", defined by wikipedia as:

Quote:

an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.

It is petty and childish and has no place in Party decision-making. Let's hope that the decision of the March EC not to go down this road is the end of the matter.

[alanjjohnstone]

Gnome, i certainly was not trying to resurrect battles of the past but simply commenting that i now don't know what we are being left with on the internet vis a vis videoes.

Quote:

My intention was not that those videos should be taken down but edited to remove any reference to their original sources.

If the intention is simply to re-edit existing videos and to strip them of identifying sources, surely that is easy enough done by a one by one basis and won't mean any bulk deletion of our video archives even temporary  since if we haven't incurred any wrath so far,  we can comfortably assume we are below any radar and can continue as we are while the necessary steps are taken to edit out any references that could be claimed as copyright infringement.Would it be such a long time to do the necessary re-editing? Can Vin give us a rough timetable of the work which has to be done? How long is temporary?But i am sure there will be a few in the party that will say we went a hundred years without a video of any sort so what is this fuss all about…i think that is shown by how only a few of us are actually discussing or even expressing an opinion about this as a matter of some importance to the party promotion and publicity. 

[ALB]

If there is a copyright issue over using TV political interviews (which I doubt) I would have thought that "re-editing" them to take out references to the source would make matters worse. In any event, no convincing evidence has yet been produced that using these interviews on our site, as other parties do on theirs, would be a breach of copyright. All we seem to have had is an interpretation of an email reply which we have not seen in full or in context. Frankly, I don't believe there is a "ban" on using them without copyright permission.

[Author]

Posts