RSS
Candidate Sued By Fox Notes That Much Of The Content Is Public Domain
from the keystone-copyright-cops dept
We recently wrote about News Corp.'s slightly odd decision to sue a political candidate, Robin Carnahan, who used a clip from Fox News (of Chris Wallace attacking Carnhan's opponent, Roy Blunt). Carnahan has hit back, and beyond just arguing the obvious fair use defense (which seems like it should win), Carnahan points out that, first, Fox failed to register the copyright on the 2006 program until after it filed the lawsuit. As has been discussed here many times, while you get copyright automatically, if you want to sue over it, you generally have to have registered the copyright (the law is a little hazy here). Even worse, Carnahan's lawyers point out that a large segment of the clip that was used actually comes from C-SPAN, whose works are automatically put into the public domain. In other words, Carnahan's lawyers appear to be accusing Fox of copyfraud, in claiming copyright over public domain materials. If this gets anywhere, Fox and News Corp. may end up regretting filing this lawsuit quite a bit...
I have an app...
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
The Growing App Market
I have an idea...
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Please, let's hope so. Seems like they're trying to stifle political speech more than protect their copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
+1
One additional thought, though ... to the the supporters of never ending copyright, May your wishes be granted and come back to bite you in the ass!
Unfortunately, there are too many incidences of "collateral damage" that would occur (there are enough already!) to have that wish be a True Wish.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Banzai News Corp
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sweet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What's hazy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's hazy?
there's a recent example. Registration is a condition of enforcement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
#2
another example
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What's the cost of copyfraud?
If that really is true, then there really isn't much of an incentive for companies to check carefully before accusing someone of copyright infringement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's hazy?
True, the work is copyrighted, but to bring an action for infringement you need to register the copyright first:
Section 411. Registration and civil infringement actions (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411
That exception in Section 106A(a) has to do with attribution and integrity, and it doesn't apply here.
Another thing to keep in mind is that whether or not statutory damages and attorneys' fees are available depends on when the work was registered.
This is explained in Section 412: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's the cost of copyfraud?
If that happens you can get a fine or imprisonment or both as stated on the books.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's the cost of copyfraud?
This article is awesome if you want to read more about copyfraud: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's the cost of copyfraud?
Selective enforcement of the law is bad because it minimizes the bad on those laws creating a system ripe for abuse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Heheh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Judge Judy is a TV show emotionalized for ratings. Just like Fox News
It would be great to see who wins in the court of the law, and if it affects their slightly distorted views.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Unregistered copyrights
You can only sue for two things: an injunction against future use, and actual damages (to be proven in court). You are ineligible for statutory damages, and you aren't awarded legal fees.
Obviously this only applies to the Fox News footage (which is probably fair use anyway). It doesn't apply to the C-SPAN footage.
If they are trying to sue over the C-SPAN footage, that would indeed be copyfraud. Unfortunately, the penalties for copyfraud are far less than the penalties for copyright infringement (which doesn't make any sense at all).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unregistered copyrights
True, but you still need to register the copyright before you can file suit. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's hazy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Time for the old fashion process
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment