3 ms·

Probably the fact that police released the footage to the media would be enough to remove copyright. Just a guess.

• gruez 2y ago
  That doesn't follow. The police wasn't the author of the work (ie. the footage), so the copyright belongs to whoever created it. The police also can't unilaterally seize the copyright of a random work to help a manhunt, so I'm not sure how the act of them distributing the work puts it in the public domain.
  • jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Copyright can belong to the author but still be redistributed on the evening news, fair use makes an explicit carve out for news reporting - whether surveillance footage is 'authored' in the first place is my question, I would argue it lacks originality.
    • gruez 2y ago
      >Copyright can belong to the author but still be redistributed on the evening news, fair use makes an explicit carve out for news reporting The parent commenter was actually arguing for stronger than that, ie. "remove copyright". That implies the work loses all copyright protections, not just granting news organizations permission to redistribute.
  • fsckboy 2y ago
    >The police also can't unilaterally seize the copyright of a random work to help a manhunt if the suspect is armed and dangerous and public safety is at stake, or they want to use the footage in court, yes they can use the footage without worrying about copyright (which is not seizing the copyright)