March 2017 EC minutes
- This topic has 46 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just to note there is a difference between copyright compliance and the risks associated with using copyrighted works.Copyright is inherent, and exists in the mere fact of intellectual output (in the case of a BBC interview, the framing of the short and the cutting/editting will create an inherent BBC copyright); whether BBC will enforce that copyright is a different matter (and whether other people are runnign risks with copyright also doesn't matter).The point isn't whether works contain copyright material, but whether we have done enough to ensure we have upheld the moral and legal rights of copyright holders (and common politeness). This is a useful resource:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
I have to be the first to admit that I am no expert in copyright so I have to take what the BBC advise as fact.Maybe other political parties are taking risks? We don't know. Maybe they are safe?I have to admit that I think the BBC would look ridiculous taking political parties to court for sharing their own political interviews. I think it would be equally ridiculous regarding the use of short clips of interviews.' BBC sues political party for using clips of their own interviews' Yeah, right.
ALB wrote: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.Suit yourself. Confirm your bias, if you can.
BBC Motion Gallery wrote:"If you can prove that the footage you wish to use will be unidentifiable as deriving from a BBC programme (i.e. it will be a close up shot of the interviewee only speaking to camera with no identifiable studio background in vision) and that this interview will not be used in any way to promote or endorse your organisation then we may be able to license this content to you.If you have access to this material currently please feel free to put together a rough edit of how this footage would feature in your introductory video and we can take a final view on whether we could license this content to you.However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."(emphasis added)Oh, and by the way, I'm not aware that anyone is "acting out of pique, or pursuing revenge". That type of accusation is petty and childish and has no place in party decision-making. My only concern is that we don't make the work of the party harder than it already is. Or, in other words, noli equi dentes inspicere donati.
ALB wrote:I don't know about the other images but I assume they raised no copyright issues. Maybe some members thought they might.All free images, that's why they were crap The video has no copyright issues and no one has yet proved the scurrilouss rumour. 'looks like' 'could be'
Vin wrote:I have to admit that I think the BBC would look ridiculous taking political parties to court for sharing their own political interviews. I think it would be equally ridiculous regarding the use of short clips of interviews.' BBC sues political party for using clips of their own interviews' Yeah, right.I agree entirely. I'd even say "bring it on". Of course they'd first tell us to take it down before going to Court, so there's a failsafe anyway.
Vin wrote:All free images, that's why they were crap The video has no copyright issues and no one has yet proved the scurrilouss rumour. 'looks like' 'could be'Sorry if I'm losing the plot here, but, you contacted the BBC regarding the original edit of the video, the BBC asserted their copyright, but later said it was fine to use your edited version of the video.Because it looks to me like the party wasn't mislead, there was a copyright issue, and it was resolvable by contacting the copyright holder? And that's all we need to do.recklessness is an aggaravating factor which could be used against us, whilst visible compliance could protect us from malicious claims (and inadvertent ingringements).
Gnome wrote:BBC Motion Gallery wrote:"If you can prove that the footage you wish to use will be unidentifiable as deriving from a BBC programme (i.e. it will be a close up shot of the interviewee only speaking to camera with no identifiable studio background in vision) and that this interview will not be used in any way to promote or endorse your organisation then we may be able to license this content to you.If you have access to this material currently please feel free to put together a rough edit of how this footage would feature in your introductory video and we can take a final view on whether we could license this content to you.However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."Emphasis added
That's just the sort of answer I'd expect them to give if you asked them direct. Anyway, presumably, this is in answer to a question from a private individual in a specific context?It's more a question of "don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer" than of looking a gift horse in the mouth as you seem to want to do. Luckily it wasn't us that asked the question and let's accept the gift horse of the interviews.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Vin wrote:All free images, that's why they were crap The video has no copyright issues and no one has yet proved the scurrilouss rumour. 'looks like' 'could be'Sorry if I'm losing the plot here, but, you contacted the BBC regarding the original edit of the video, the BBC asserted their copyright, but later said it was fine to use your edited version of the video.Because it looks to me like the party wasn't mislead, there was a copyright issue, and it was resolvable by contacting the copyright holder? And that's all we need to do.recklessness is an aggaravating factor which could be used against us, whilst visible compliance could protect us from malicious claims (and inadvertent ingringements).
Not losing the plot, YMS but we are in danger of going of topicThe question at issue here is not my video, as it has been indicated this would be raking over old coals and off-topicThe issue here is"However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms." BBC EMAIL and 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. Lost Division called for.For — Thomas, Chesham, WicksAgainst – Foster, Browne, Tenner, Cox, McLellan.Absent from the table – Shodeke.Do you consider this decision sound and has the EC acted wisely in this case?
Vin wrote:Do you consider this decision sound and has the EC acted wisely in this case?I. for one, think, yes. For all sorts of reasons. First, it wasn't urgent. Second, if we go by that reply from the BBC they wouldn't give (sell) us permission to use the interviews even if we did "re-edit" them. Third, the BBC are not going to pursue us anyway, any more than they are going to pursue all the other parties that are re- using their political interviews.
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.
I think the difference with these is these are reposting of BBC clips, which the bbc seems happy to allow on social media, however to edit and insert into our own work is a different matter (that's a derivitive work).
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the difference with these is these are reposting of BBC clips, which the bbc seems happy to allow on social media, however to edit and insert into our own work is a different matter (that's a derivitive work).That sounds sensible. So, in practice, we wouldn't have to take down or re-edit any of the videos on our site(s) since I don't think there are any which have inserted extracts from interviews. The BBC ruling only applies to the video about which the question was asked. Storm (in a teacup) over.
ALB wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the difference with these is these are reposting of BBC clips, which the bbc seems happy to allow on social media, however to edit and insert into our own work is a different matter (that's a derivitive work).That sounds sensible. So, in practice, we wouldn't have to take down or re-edit any of the videos on our site(s) since I don't think there are any which have inserted extracts from interviews. The BBC ruling only applies to the video about which the question was asked. Storm (in a teacup) over.
It is not sensible at all. The opposite is true. JeezBBC Motion Gallery wrote:"If you can prove that the footage you wish to use will be unidentifiable as deriving from a BBC programme (i.e. it will be a close up shot of the interviewee only speaking to camera with no identifiable studio background in vision) and that this interview will not be used in any way to promote or endorse your organisation then we may be able to license this content to you. If you have access to this material currently please feel free to put together a rough edit of how this footage would feature in your introductory video and we can take a final view on whether we could license this content to you.However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."
In short and to put it as simple as I can BBC will licence this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4because reference to the BBC has been removed, but of course there may be a price but does not allow t his: And will NOT licence it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUMaBg7bdGUAs it uses the BBC logo etc to promote the partyBut organisations seem to be getting away with it, which is greatThat is what Getty images have said. . I have sought legal advice and that is it. What we do about it is up to us.Perhaps we should seek more independent advice.
Vin wrote:Perhaps we should seek more independent advice.No. Let's not make the same mistake a second time of asking a question when we don't want to know the answer. Let's just leave things as they are. Quieta non movere, as Gnome might put it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.