Rupert Murdoch is suing ITV and ITN for using a video released by The Sun of the Princess of Wales at a farm shop in Windsor.
Mr Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes the tabloid title, has filed an intellectual property claim against ITV and ITN, which produces ITV News programmes.
The claim is understood to relate to footage of the Prince and Princess of Wales at a farm shop in Windsor in March.
The footage, which was obtained exclusively by The Sun, was the first time the Princess had been seen since undergoing major abdominal surgery at a London hospital in January. The Princess has since revealed that she has been diagnosed with cancer.
The Sun is thought to be seeking a five-figure sum in compensation for alleged copyright breach after ITV News used the clip in its own coverage.
By definition piccies and videos belong to the person operating the camera. What happens after that depends upon hte contractual obligations.
News organisations often use their rivals’ work under the fair dealing copyright exemption, which affords legal protection if the material is used for the reporting of current events and there is sufficient attribution to the original owner.
However, use can be deemed unfair if it causes the owner to lose revenues or if the amount of the original material taken is considered to be unreasonable or inappropriate.
Hmm, never have thought much of that.
Maybe the Aussie government should try that one on Elon Musk, to stop him showing the piccies of that attack upon the Assyrian bishop. Trying to push for a global ban seems a bit over the top to me.
“if the amount of the original material taken is considered to be unreasonable or inappropriate.”
Not sure what “inappropriate” is doing in there, but otherwise the issue would seem to be much the same as the arguments over the use of samples in the music industry. There were several well known ones, Vanilla Ice using Queen and David Bowie’s Under Pressure, and the The Verve’s Bittersweet Symphony using stuff from the Rolling Stones.
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2009/06/article_0006.html
And an interesting article starting with player pianos to compulsory licences and streaming here;
https://www.slowboring.com/p/copyright-law-is-living-in-the-past
Come to think of it;
“By definition piccies and videos belong to the person operating the camera. What happens after that depends upon hte contractual obligations.”
Model release? Not sure sure how the P&PoW status might affect that, but maybe there’s an agreement with The Sun in place, regarding the exclusive.
Did they include the bit of footage as just a way to use it without paying or is it important to the story to show it? Like if you were doing a thing about the fall of Gerald Ratner, you’d include the “it’s crap” speech. It’s important to include that in the story.
It would be interesting if the Crown Estate had similar bylaws imposing image taking permissions as the National Trust enjoys; which is basically free for personal, non-commercial use on their properties (even public access ones). In fact, if they do have similar this court case would be an important time to impose them, or they might lose them. And it would be particularly fun if the king swept in at the last minute and said, “I’ll be having that, ta.”
– By definition piccies and videos belong to the person operating the camera.
Unless they’re operating the camera at someone elses behest, of course – usually by being an employee or contractor.
Wasn’t it a member of the public ? They sold it to the His Majesty’s Press for a sum and that is why News Group are miffed of its use without remunerstion.
I haven’t read the Sun in ages. I caught an article the other day and every word in it was a lie or half truth.
– Wasn’t it a member of the public ?
Yes, vertical phone video from inside a car.
– They sold it to the His Majesty’s Press for a sum and that is why News Group are miffed of its use without remunerstion.
I doubt it’s a financial issue (them going to court for a five figure sum is pointless); it’s probably because the vast majority of the footage was used instead of a snippet which is the usual custom amongst and between the news outfits.
Depends on how they got the footage.
If they bought it from the photog – who sold it to them after selling the rights to someone else – then, IMO, they’re in the clear and the photog is on the hook.