Vogel has a helluva nerve.

CTV is funded by Knox County taxpayers. It's not like the TV station "produces" this content. I think this is crap.

#9, I'd consult a lawyer.

I don’t know the fine details of Copyright Law or what the right thing to do is.

The right thing to do is to honor their assertion of copyright.

I'm no lawyer, but if I were, this is what I would tell you.

They are not "Copyrighting a public meeting." They are copyrighting their broadcast of it, and any recordings they may have made. And they "produced" the broadcast, not the meeting, and any recordings of it made by them using their equipment, personnel, and other resources.

The performance itself may not be copyright-able in this case, but the broadcast and recording of it by CTV is, at least in CTV's view. And whoever creates something such as a recording or image or broadcast or a manuscript or whatever automatically owns the copyright the instant it is created. You could go to the meetings and tape them yourself and you'd own the copyright of the recording.

For example, if AP takes a photo of the President's inauguration, a highly public, official, taxpayer funded event, the copyright of the photo belongs first to the photographer, unless his or her employment agreement or contract with AP assigns the copyright to them, in which case it belongs to AP.

So the only possible legal question might be who funds CTV's operations. If they are 100% taxpayer funded, you might have an argument that their work is public domain.

Using the above example again, if an official White House photographer on the government payroll takes a photo of the President's inauguration and they post it on the whitehouse.gov website which is also taxpayer funded, that's a public domain photo.

I'm not sure about the case of CVT and county commission meetings, though. It might be an interesting legal pursuit, but it would cost you some money to find out.

Perhaps a real lawyer can shed some additional light...

if the meetings are as historic as you claim, get a camera...if not, quit complaining. CTV's filming is in no way an infringement of "your" first amendment rights. From what I read, they're not claiming copyright to "Copyrighting a public meeting." They're claiming copyright to the film, not the meeting. Which they can do.

that said, you should be able to set up your equipment in the same manner as CTV without being denied access to film at the venue. If the PBA or other authority denied you access to set up equipment, then you might have other actionable pursuits.

By First Amendment, I assume you refer to "free speech." But preventing you from disseminating someone else's recorded video is not a violation of your first amendment rights, it is a violation of their copyright rights. How you brought First Amendment into it is beyond me.

Two cautionary notes:

1) If they decided to pursue any sort of case, they'd argue that they produced the video recording, rather than the meeting itself. My gut suggests that a court would agree with that interpretation.
2) Fair Use doesn't have a very strong track record with regards to the entirety of a copyrighted work. It's much easier to make the case for Fair Use allowance when you can point to having used only a portion of a work. The philosophy behind that seems to be that you could better argue you haven't diminished the demand for the original copyrighted work, and thus haven't deprived the copyright owner of anything.

Random pondering) I have to wonder what agreement CTV has with the commission with regards to who owns the copyright on meeting recordings. It would strike me as odd if it were CTV. *shrug*

P.S. That stuff about driver's license or passport sounds like BS to me. Say, for example, you setup a sole proprietorship called "Channel 9 Productions". They would still want a photo ID? Why? That does sound ridiculous.

One name is no more ficticous than the other. Well, except that you'd have to register Channel 9 Productions as a ficticious name and sign your real name to the business license application.

I know #9 has some problems here but I think he is really just trying to provide a service to those like me who use Knology cable and they don't air the CTV channel.

So try to be nice in your comments even if he sounds off in the wrong direction.

Thanks #9 for trying and don't get yourself in trouble.

Be a blessing to someone today.

P.P.S. I also have to agree with rocketsquirrel. The First Amendment don't enter in to it. The First Amendment doesn't give you the freedom to re-publish someone else's work without their permission.

Lawyer up!

No one here can give you the right to do something that someone (or company) has asked you to stop doing.

You should make CTV aware that this same debate/issue was recently hashed over at C-SPAN and resulted in a new policy for online video.

WASHINGTON (Wednesday, March 7, 2007) - Advancing its longstanding mission of bringing government closer to the people, C-SPAN announced today two major initiatives designed to greatly expand citizen access to its online video of federal government activities, such as congressional hearings, agency briefings, and White House events. [Source]

CTV could make some great press for themselves by following a similar model. They could also avoid the legal hassles that would end up with the same result anyhow.

P.P.S. One last thing and I'm done.

It seems to me that regardless of who owns the copyrights, CVT are being dicks about this. You are basically volunteering to do something that they seem to say they would have to pay someone to produce and host, and it wouldn't be anything that produced any revenue for them and would in fact be an expense.

I don't see what the big deal is about giving you permission, maybe as long as you give credit to CVT for producing the broadcast and don't superimpose mustaches and horns on Lumpy and Scoobie or run Girls Gone Wild or porn ads or something along with their content.

OK, one more thing and I'm done. I really mean it this time.

This very discussion suggests that there is value in CVT's works to which they believe they own the copyright. Or maybe it's creating such value, not sure.

I provide the service for people that cannot view CTV. This includes all people in Knox County without cable television

I suppose there are people in Knox County that have high-speed Internet but not cable TV.

I have DirecTV, or however they spell it. I don't think they carry CTV, but I could be mistaken--I've got a whole bunch of "junk" channels in between the channels I've actually paid for, so I flip quickly.

Just checking around, it appears the "taxpayer funded = public domain" rule only applies to the federal government.

(link...)

I think the point Randy's making is that you're commingling Fair Use with general concepts like open, accountable government.

Fair Use is a pretty specific legal doctrine, and "I, as a taxpayer, paid for this with my taxes," isn't really a part of it. It's more an argument in the spirit of the latter.

When in doubt- research :-)

(link...)

1.) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Taking from a not for profit and placing on a for profit website. The YouTube stockholders thank you.

If you wanted to rent server space without ad revenue and put it on there I will just bet that CTV would say yes, please do, we would be happy to have this available to us.

So what about YouTube's Terms of Service?

...You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: (i) you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service; and (ii) you have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in the User Submission to use the name or likeness of each and every such identifiable individual person to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.

Does any of that bother you?
~m.

Hi, Beanster. I think people are getting frustrated because the Niner asked for legal advice and got it, but kinda argued with the advice, rather than being happy he got what he asked for.

The question of who owns the copyright is likely codified somewhere within CTV's agreement with the county to broadcast the commission meetings. Unless the county staffer who made the arrangement is a total boob (which I'm not yet ready to rule out, mind you), it's likely that there's an arrangement more complex than CTV owning a simple copyright on it. The safe assumption from a legal standpoint, however, is to presume that CTV does own the copyright until you can prove otherwise.

(The general and simple principle: you shoot it, you own the video. The Macy's Thanksgiving parade happens in public, but NBC or CBS or ABC still owns their broadcast of it. Where the exception may come in here is with CTV's agreement with the county, but in the absence of having the text of that agreement, we're pretty much arguing whether God's hair smells like lavender or peaches.)

So how do you prove the recording is public domain? Make a public records request to the county for the agreement with CTV to broadcast the meetings. Lawyer up and proceed: but I wouldn't recommend just flouting the possibility of a CTV copyright and going on willy-nilly. That's a liability.

It should be noted that the discussion of this post is related to what is thought to be, by many legal and technology analysts, the primary reason that Google purchased YouTube.

This is a great blog post about why Google purchased YouTube and the lawsuits that followed.

KTB

I travel ALOT with work and started this battle over two years ago after finding that all the State House meetings and broadcast live on the internet and archived there as well (link...) . I wrote several e-mail’s the city council and county commission. They referred me to David at CTV and he said the problem was funding and suggested I go back to city and county to talk about funding. I am sure you all know where that conversation went.....Later after Mark Harmon was elected I started talking to him about it and he politely suggested that I look into number9 on you tube and said something to the effect that they have bigger problems trying to get Knology to carry the broadcast before bringing up this issue and he felt want number9 was doing would suffice my needs.

The youtube shorts have been very helpful but I too would like something more official and dependable. For instance I am looking for quotes from yesterdays meeting from R Larry Smith.

Oh and your comments “take your camera down there and film it”..... Come on some of us work!

Number9 Thanks for what you do, I desperately hate for you to stop what you are doing but unless you consult an attorney I would suggest that you stop. I would bet there are some lawyers that would love to take this on pro bono.

I would also like to hear What Mark Harmon has to say.

Nine,

Can you please hurry up and post the video from the latest Knox County Commission Meeting... I won't tell anyone about it.

KTB

How about if someone gets the Blount County Commission on the tv for me. Even if Maryville folks can watch- we out here with the former Adelphia now Comcast don't get those broadcasts.

Niner: you claim others in this thread are wrong on fair use.

Name them, name how they're wrong, and name who gave you the legal advice you sought "long ago."

(Side note: to ask for legal advice and argue with it when you get it, when you got it rather objectively I might add, is quite rude. To ask for advice as a ruse to argue with people, all the while misconstruing their objective statements about your legal rights as normative statements on whether you're morally right.... well, frankly, I find that inexcusable.)

"Lord but you really get off on this masked crusader business, don't you?"

The upside-down, inside-out Tom Joad, the Jom Toad, the Jammed Toe, the Toe Jam of the internet.

It reminds of this kid from elementary school 40 years or so ago, crewcut and glasses, dress pants and starched shirt, who carried a brief case and a little black book. Whenever you said something he didn't like, he'd mark you down in that little black book. He was still carrying the brief case and little black book in junior high. Wonder whatever happened to him...

lawyer up and STFU

Yes, indeed. Anyone with half a brain and one good eye can see that this is exactly and precisely the totality of the advice you got.

Of course, it came after other comments from me and several other folks trying to reason with you and talk you down off the ledge, but that appears impossible because you only respond to things people don't say and make stuff up and dodge legitimate questions and make the same unsubstantiated ridiculous arguments over and over and over and over and over and....

Anyway, my advice still stands. It's actually good advice. Ask any lawyer. Be sure to have them look at this thread before they take on your case.

No, you need not take my advice or anyone else's, for that matter. However, asking a question simply to argue with the answer is annoying and rude.

You're dangerously uninformed about copyright law, given what you've expressed an intent to do. What's vexing is that you're fighting with those who supplied the answers you sought, and you're casting aspersions on their motivation. Good luck with the attorney you've retained, if you've been expressing his/her idea of the Fair Use doctrine here. Sure as the sun rises, you're gonna need it.

Forget the "Fair Use" defense. Unedited, the YouTube video of these meetings is pure "parody" (of government) most of the time anyway.

The permissions issue really should be with Knox County. Has anyone taken a look at the contract/agreement between the County and CTV regarding the taping and broadcasting of the meetings? In my experience (graphic design work for federal and state clients), I know it's pretty damn hard these days to get a contract that's not completely work-for-hire, with no rights retained. Broadcasting is obviously a little different, but the same copyright laws apply.

It's in the public's interest for the County to commission the recording (as work-for-hire) and retain copyright ownership of the video and broadcast. I'm really surprised they aren't doing this already, since they're requiring CTV to produce and broadcast it as part of some contractual obligation in the first place.

Finally, does the county keep a copy of the video from each meeting to put into the public record? They should do that too. If so, see if you can get a copy from them and bypass the actual broadcast. If all else fails, show up at the next meeting (with about 50 other people each holding a video camera so you can keep your anonymity). Post some unflattering, close-up, nose-picking clips of the commissioners on YouTube, and see how fast the pool video is made available.

Give Lambert a call. I'm serious. IIRC, he has worked at CTV and might be able to help.

Mark,

Thank you Mark! Please also advise the KCCC that we don't need to waste money paying a company to make the videos available on the county's webpage. There are plenty of volunteers in this town who will undertake this task and youtube/Google offer us there bandwidth free of charge.

Please advise the committee not to waste time and money making this possible. Your suggestion for the Creative Commons standards would be more than acceptable in this regards.

KTB

Check this out:

(link...)

Nine got pretty much the same answer at that libertarian den of anarchy over at SayUncle. But curiously, he didn't argue with them much.

Also, despite his protestations that this is not about the law (which he does not recognize or intend to follow) but about principles and conspiracies and crushing of dissent, note the very first sentence of Nine's blog post here:

I need some legal advice.

P.S. Thanks to Mark Harmon for his reasonable response. It will not do, however. CTV must renounce all intellectual property rights, Communism, and Mike Ragsdale, then say eleven Hail Mary's on the courthouse steps after apologizing for their fascist Ragsdale Puppet behavior.

Mr. Harmon's idea seems reasonable. But again, there's a major party being left out of this discussion, and that's YouTube and it's Terms of Service. Under those terms:

You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.

That's going to be in direct conflict with: "a policy that the county has no objection to commission meetings being treated under one of the Creative Commons standards (such as giving credit, non-commercial, and no derivative works, meaning no editing other than for length). Thus, anyone could post to YouTube or anywhere else under those conditions."

YouTube has its own rules. And they are in conflict with Mr. Harmon's proposal.

Nine says: The question here is simple, is Mr. Vogel's action ethical considering the mission statement and funding of CTV?

And there's another simple question that is being ignored. And that is whether or not you are in compliance with the Terms of Service for YouTube. Does Nine: have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in the User Submission to use the name or likeness of each and every such identifiable individual person to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service?

No. He doesn't. Now about those ethics...
~m.

Any takers on the city meetings?

Some jackass has been breaking the law (so it seems) and uploading the City Council Meetings to Google. I ran across these one day and decided to archive the links at my blog.

For those interested in City Council video check out my Knoxville City Council page or search Google Video for them.

KTB

Michael, it seems you do not wish for these meetings to be available on the Internet.

Why? Because I point out that you are violating both YouTube's TOC and CTV's claim to copyright? I think it would be great if the County would fund such webcasts within it's own existing framework.

Do you oppose CTV providing them on the Internet?

Nope. But YouTube's TOC makes it a lousy place to host them under the conditions outlined by Mr. Harmon.

I have read all of the YouTube legal description.

And didn't understand a word of it.

Once again, these are public meetings.

No. These are recordings of public meetings. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference.

My only point in posting to begin with was because while you want to talk about your rights, CTV, and "the Public," there's another (pretty damned big) part of the equation, And that's YouTube. But that seems to be way over your head.
~m.

We did have a preview story, too:

(link...)

The thing is, you could post excerpts on blogs under fair use, so long as you were providing commentary. That's not an issue. You asked about posting the entirety.

You've been talking about Fair Use like it eradicates a copyright. The copyright still exists--it just allows you a limited use of the copyrighted materials. Included within that limited use would be blogging with excerpts.

As to where you could host the video in compliance with their TOC, it sounds like Google might work well.

I read Mr. Vogel's words. His assertion of copyright wouldn't nullify your rights under fair use. Excerpts with commentary are fair game, provided you stay within the bounds of fair use.

I'm not trying to paint it as you being uncooperative to Mr. Vogel. My frustration with you has been that you've asked for advice on a topic some of us know a thing or two about, argued vociferously with the advice you got, suggested you knew more than those you asked, outright stated that you didn't really want the advice but rather wanted the argument, and (here's the kicker) been really rather misguided about fair use as you argued it.

Several of us offered you guidance in good faith. I may be alone in this feeling, but your response to that guidance will likely make it difficult for such a thing to happen in the future.

The phrase "Deliberately Obtuse" is copywrited. I'm suing!

So, #9 -- have you gotten a C&D order from CTV yet? Or have they filed a DMCA grievance with YouTube? If and when CTV contacts YouTube, Google is going to suspend access to your vids and may prohibit you from posting there again.

I have read all of the YouTube legal description. Once again, these are public meetings.

My suggestion:

1) Get off your ass.
2) Buy a mini-DV.
3) Attend public meetings.
4) Take the mini-DV that you bought in step 2 with you and film the proceedings. A tripod and directional mic might also be helpful.
5) Dump the DV capture onto your computer.
6) Render the DV into a suitable format for YouTube.
7) Upload.
8) Go to step 3.

If CTV is filming the proceedings, they probably have the room lit for f5.6 or so. Even a cheap 1CCD DV camera would get a good capture.

Like has been said before, "Don't hate the media. Become the media."

If these are public meetings, there should be no problem with you taking your own recording equipment and producing your own video transcription.

____________________________

People getting rich. Some people saying "Markets!" More death. Neil Young. Death.

David Vogel of CTV has provided no explanation of why he will not give permission to use public meetings.

Show me where in copyright law that it says that a copyright holder is required to give you an explanation of why they don't want you using their material.

____________________________

People getting rich. Some people saying "Markets!" More death. Neil Young. Death.

I was looking at their schedule and noticed that the executive producer for the Knox Co. Commission meeting is Knox County Government.

(link...)