4 ms·
There's a number of reasons why that video hasn't, and probably won't, appear on mainstream news (for what it is worth, I use to work for BBC News Website in a
by dotBen 17y ago
There's a number of reasons why that video hasn't, and probably won't, appear on mainstream news (for what it is worth, I use to work for BBC News Website in a technical capacity):
Firstly, most mainstream news websites have rules and policies on showing videos coming from unknown and unvarifieable sources - especially war. The concern is that videos can be edited and doctored to make them appear to construe something else that doesn't represent the true facts.
I'm not saying this video is doctored/edited in this way, but it's a blanket policy most news orgs will keep to. Instead they will report that WikiLeaks have this video and link to them instead. Which is what is happening here.
There is a second, and somewhat sad issue here too. That video remains property and copyright of the US military, which means news organizations probably wouldn't want to redistribute it anyway as they don't have permission. News orgs have been known to republish photos and videos they don't own when there is extra-ordinary reasons but I don't know if this is enough to warrant that.
As an aside, I'm also concerned that it could get pulled from YouTube if the US military issue a DMCA notice or similar request due to national security.
- dantheman 17y agoAll government video/pictures etc are public domain.
- tibbon 17y agoExactly. The US Military cannot hold copyright. They could classify it, but that's about it.
- Splines 17y agoReally? I'm not trying to be facetious: Can anybody roll up to the military and ask for arbitrary gun camera footage?
- jrockway 17y agoIf they get it, it's not protected by copyright. That's it.
- dotBen 17y agoDo you have a source for this piece of information? I'm led to believe it is the other way around, anything obtained illegally doesn't automatically become public domain - but I don't have an internet based source to link to at the moment.
- albertsun 17y agoPublic domain is just its copyright status. The legality/illegality of publishing or disseminating it is a separate unrelated issue. Everything created by the USFG is automatically public domain, but just because something is public domain doesn't mean it can circulate freely in public.
- rgejman 17y agoSee the Pentagon Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Even stolen information cannot be enjoined from publication by the government.
- Splines 17y agoAh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
- dotBen 17y agoIt's more murkey than that. As I understand it, all video that is released by the govenment and army is public domain -- but it is not clear exactly how this video was obtained. In the website they say that they made a freedom of information request but later say they had to decrypt the video. That seems to suggest that the video was not released to them under the freedom of information request and instead an encrypted original was obtained by other means not explained. I doubt any video of recent active combat is going to be declassified and thus available under a FOIR, and if you obtain something illegally/unofficially that doesn't suddenly make it public domain. (to be clear, I'm glad this video is out there - it is an important story being told. But IMHO the distribution status of the video is a reasonable discussion topic none the less)
- cookiecaper 17y agoAre leaks of classified info usually prosecuted under copyright laws? It seems that they would apply something more severe or specific. It is my understanding that all works of the US gov. are public domain and classified content is protected under secrecy laws, not copyright laws.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- rgejman 17y agoIf they are released, even accidentally, or stolen, they cannot be enjoined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
- dantheman 17y agoJust a small nitpick, it's not FOIR it's FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act)
- reitzensteinm 17y agoFOIR works as well, referring specifically to the request (Freedom of Information Request).
- yanowitz 17y agoCan the U.S. assert copyright? I thought all work product of the Federal Government was in the public domain (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the...)
- tptacek 17y agoHere's a WaPo story from 6 months ago on exactly this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09... The leak of the video is newsworthy and it will inevitably get picked up, but Wikileaks didn't document an event that anybody didn't already know about. Reuters saw the video in 2007 (and was unfortunately not allowed to copy it).