5 ms·

How does this person have standing to claim copyright? Did he make the recordings? Just because you're the person in the video does not make you the copyright h

How does this person have standing to claim copyright? Did he make the recordings? Just because you're the person in the video does not make you the copyright holder.

timr 1y ago
Plenary Session was his podcast. He made the recordings. In fact, 99% of the content was him, alone, talking to the camera.
NewJazz 1y ago
Yes he owns the copyright. But there may be a valid fair use claim. Some past judicial criteria: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
derbOac 1y ago
My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope. Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  There's definitely a better fair use case than "archiving" and monetizing Kendrick's latest album. Courts would be more cautious denying fair use when policy is involved.
- gruez 1y ago
  >My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope. That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
- bsimpson 1y ago
  For those who don't know the specifics of intellectual property law: Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop. The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor. The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.) "Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons. All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies. [update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.
  - Animats 1y ago
    A work performed by a Government employee in connection with their job is not copyrightable in the US. (The UK has "Crown copyright", but the US has nothing similar.) Most of these people were Government employees speaking on Government business. Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google. Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.
    - NewJazz 1y ago
      The work was recorded prior to him becoming a government employee.
- nobodyandproud 1y ago
  So Google is as much at fault here as Prasad.
- disposition2 1y ago
  Just want to point out this is someone (in leadership) from the FDA, not the FCC. > Prasad, a former hematologist-oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, is now *head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which makes him the chief vaccine regulator in the US.*
olalonde 1y ago
If the speech is original enough to be copyrighted, the speaker owns the rights to the content itself. The recording is a separate copyright, but you can't just distribute it without the author's permission for the same reason you can't record a movie in a theater and distribute it (aside from "fair use" exceptions).
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
  - timr 1y ago
    > Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively. That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article. Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      >You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving" Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?
      - timr 1y ago
        Google "fair use rule". It's not a simple answer, but no, you're not just allowed to cut together clips of someone else's work. Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.
tempodox 1y ago
I’d assume that the “copyright infringement” is just Google’s pretext for removing the channel. They can hardly cite “obedient submission to the Trump gang” as the reason.

How does this person have standing to claim copyright? Did he make the recordings? Just because you're the person in the video does not make you the copyright holder.

timr 1y ago

Plenary Session was his podcast. He made the recordings. In fact, 99% of the content was him, alone, talking to the camera.

NewJazz 1y ago

Yes he owns the copyright. But there may be a valid fair use claim. Some past judicial criteria: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

derbOac 1y ago

My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope. Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.

NewJazz 1y ago
There's definitely a better fair use case than "archiving" and monetizing Kendrick's latest album. Courts would be more cautious denying fair use when policy is involved.
gruez 1y ago
>My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope. That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
bsimpson 1y ago
For those who don't know the specifics of intellectual property law: Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop. The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor. The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.) "Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons. All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies. [update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.
- Animats 1y ago
  A work performed by a Government employee in connection with their job is not copyrightable in the US. (The UK has "Crown copyright", but the US has nothing similar.) Most of these people were Government employees speaking on Government business. Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google. Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.
  - NewJazz 1y ago
    The work was recorded prior to him becoming a government employee.
nobodyandproud 1y ago
So Google is as much at fault here as Prasad.
disposition2 1y ago
Just want to point out this is someone (in leadership) from the FDA, not the FCC. > Prasad, a former hematologist-oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, is now *head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which makes him the chief vaccine regulator in the US.*

olalonde 1y ago

If the speech is original enough to be copyrighted, the speaker owns the rights to the content itself. The recording is a separate copyright, but you can't just distribute it without the author's permission for the same reason you can't record a movie in a theater and distribute it (aside from "fair use" exceptions).

ceejayoz 1y ago
Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
- timr 1y ago
  > Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively. That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article. Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    >You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving" Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?
    - timr 1y ago
      Google "fair use rule". It's not a simple answer, but no, you're not just allowed to cut together clips of someone else's work. Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.

tempodox 1y ago

I’d assume that the “copyright infringement” is just Google’s pretext for removing the channel. They can hardly cite “obedient submission to the Trump gang” as the reason.